Romney Almost Dropped Out of the Presidential Race in 2011
He didn’t really want it that badly:
Romney confirmed after the election that he called his son one morning to tell him he thought he wasn’t going to run. “I recognized that by virtue of the realities of my circumstances, there were some drawbacks to my candidacy for a lot of Republican voters,” he told Balz. “One, because I had a health-care plan in Massachusetts that had been copied in some respects by the president, that I would be tainted by that feature. I also realized that being a person of wealth, I would be pilloried by the president as someone who, if you use the term of the day, was in the ‘1 percent.’ ”
Romney’s exchange with his son wasn’t the first time he expressed doubts about running. During a Christmas holiday trip to Hawaii in 2010, the Romney family held a vote. Should Romney, who lost the 2008 presidential primary, run again? Ten of 12 family members voted no — including the candidate. Only Tagg and Ann Romney, Romney’s wife, voted yes.
So: let’s play a game of alternate history. Say Romney had dropped out. Who would have won the nomination, and who would have won the general?
Newt probably, and he would have lost because he’s not likable.
BradnSA (69f417) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:28 pmPerry…Perry….Perry will win in 16
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:38 pmhappy 4th everyone
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:41 pminasmuch as he still doesn’t have the good sense to just. go. away. I’m taking this with a big grain of salt
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:47 pmGee, Patterico, thanks for making us realize what a miserable bunch ran in the Republican primaries. Romney stood head and shoulders above all the others. Which serious person did he keep away? Jeb Bush had the political savvy, the backing, and the money but the name, the name. I can’t think of anyone else.
nk (875f57) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:50 pmI can’t imagine who would have been nominated. Regardless the deification of Obama had already started, so the results would be the same.
And, yes, I know what my choice of words might ensue.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:52 pmi think porky porky might would’ve run if romneycare had maybe had a moment of clarity
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:53 pm#2
If Perry had been the nominee he would have been caricatured as another stupid Texan. In fact it seemed like he hadn’t done his homework. He also would have been seen as not particularly likable. The Dems/media would have said he was Dubya without likability.
Gerald A (b44a50) — 7/3/2013 @ 8:58 pmNewt. Obama.
Former Conservative (2e9802) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:12 pmL. O. L.
Former Conservative (2e9802) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:13 pmPerry has trouble making the actual sentences
but next week he’ll make an Exciting Announcement is my understanding
everyone is all on pins and also needles
what do you think he will announce they whisper to each other in excited urgent tones
I don’t know man but it’s gonna rock the effing house
you KNOW that’s right
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:30 pmNewt. Probably Obama but Newt was capable of breakout moves where Romney played it safe. You gotta remember that Newt came from WAY behind to make a good showing. He worked well as an underdog. Then he shot himself in the, ah, foot trying to fend off Romney when he had the lead.
Then again other candidates might have run. Chris Christie for one.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:47 pmNewt would not have let Obama off on Benghazi in that debate. Not a chance.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2013 @ 9:48 pmTrue. Not that the public would have given a dump.
Former Conservative (2edae3) — 7/3/2013 @ 10:18 pmI think it would have been Santorum. And he would have lost by even larger numbers. If only because republicans never seem to learn from their mistakes.
Ghost (2d8874) — 7/3/2013 @ 10:24 pmMitch Daniels would have gotten back in, won the nomination, and in Nov carried every state that Romney did and a bunch he couldn’t (i.e. Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire.) End result: Michelle would now be vacationing on her own dime.
Kevin Stafford (1d1b9e) — 7/3/2013 @ 10:37 pmI agree that if Romney got out, one of the earlier ones would have got back in. Pawlenty, Daniels, anyone.
crosspatch (6adcc9) — 7/3/2013 @ 10:50 pmJohn Huntsman. The other candidates would have imploded on their own, as they all pretty much did in 2012. Romney didn’t so much beat the field as survive it. But with Romney out of the picture, the press would have anointed Huntsman as the moderate guy who could win.
Huntsman’s pretty smart, and I would have loved to see him in a debate with Obama, but I don’t know whether he would have won the election.
Chuck Bartowski (8dd23e) — 7/3/2013 @ 10:54 pmif it is true that Mittens really didn’t want to be the candidate, which would explain his lamer that McLame campaign run from the convention to election night, then my theory about the Beltway RINOs who run the RNC is true:
the “leadersh1t” of the GOP, both announced and behind the scenes, would rather remain in charge of a permanently marginalized minority party, thus keeping their personal perks & access to power, than relinquish any control whatsoever to the unwashed masses and win a major election.
i wonder what their thirty pieces of silver are?
redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:00 pmI think Pawlenty would have stayed in, and captured a lot of the Romney fans. Would he have won? I do not know, but he might have done better without the baggage of Romneycare and being well-to-do like Romney.
Would Palin have jumped in? She could have captured a lot of the early attention (and irrational hate!!). But I think she could articulate the clear choices and conservative positions of Santorum and Bachmann better than they did. She also understands that the mainstream media is an enemy, like Gingrich. Something that McCain and Romney never understood. Would she win? She would have definitely had a more enthusiastic conservative base than Romney did. She would have excoriated Obama, Hilary and Holder over Benghazi, F&F and Obamacare, unlike Romney. But the liberal democrat base and the media (BIRM) would have been even more deranged and fired-up. And the mushy middle might decide that Obama is better than “that crazy woman.”
rd (8c8a6e) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:15 pmHahahahahahahahahaha…
Yeah. Romney didn’t want to run so bad that he spent millions upon millions of his own money and destroyed his political career in his particular failed attempt for the Presidency.
Pundit: Soooo…. you lost pretty effin bad, huh?
Romney: WELL I DIDN’T WANT IT ANYWAY. MFM!!!!!. YER MEAN!!!
Leviticus (2c236c) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:24 amWhatever. Hopefully this interview paid enough to recoup some of his pathetic, embarrassing personal losses.
Leviticus (2c236c) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:25 amJust because he had doubts about winning, doesn’t mean he didn’t want to win. He was seeing the early Republican resistance to him in those Wall Street Journal op-eds.
That said, even if Romney dropped out early, it still would have been a rout for Obama no matter the opponent. The press was still on his side, no negative stories were coming to the surface. Romney was right, Obama had deported in 4 years more people than George Bush did in 8. Obama had done more drone strikes. He’d started more combat. Flubbed foreign relations. He was a terrible president the first 4 years. But none of that came out during the campaign cycle, it wasn’t on the news every night. Jay Leno wasn’t joking about it then.
Xmas (f65ded) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:26 amMaybe Perry would have taken it, but I doubt it. His campaign’s collapse was assisted by Romney’s campaign (the unconstitutional Virginia ballot corruption didn’t help), but mostly it was Perry’s goofs that did him in.
Newt taking the nomination is difficult to imagine. Does anyone actually like him? He’s brilliant and I love watching him deal with the press, but on a gut level I have a hard time trusting him.
I am pretty sure that Obama would have won the general election no matter who we elected. He stood for a degree of mooching that the electorate has agreed to. The only thing that stood in Obama’s way was the truth about his various scandals, and I don’t think the GOP candidate selection could have changed the press’s assistance in burying that until after the election. I think Romney was a sufficient contrast from Obama and campaigned very well, so I really don’t think the GOP could have won.
The election wasn’t about Romney. It was about Obama. This country wants to go left, just as the GOP wants to go left (hence its decision to nominate one of the most liberal candidates, Romney, that either political party has put on the national platform in this country’s history). Romney has grabbed guns, raised funds for planned parenthood, and used the power of the government to force people to buy health insurance. It is amazing to me that this is what the GOP stands for, but it definitely is.
Dustin (303dca) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:26 amNewt blew it when he pandered to the space cowboys.
mg (31009b) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:33 amConcur
joe (93323e) — 7/4/2013 @ 3:45 amAlong with having MSM in Obama’s pocket, The Dems have a huge advantage in the social media, twitter, etc. People magazine and other forms of media frequented by the young on what a cool guy obama is
With the possible exception of Ron Paul, any of them would have been better than BHO because they understand and believe in this country. Sadly, each was significantly flawed in various ways, both as candidates and as potential presidents. The results would have been little different no matter which of the pack it was.
Tregonsee (12c9d9) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:18 am“Along with having MSM in Obama’s pocket, The Dems have a huge advantage in the social media, twitter, etc. People magazine and other forms of media frequented by the young on what a cool guy obama is”
Also, people like Obama more than those other terrible candidates the GOP could turn to.
daniel (1340fb) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:26 amDaniel,
People like the Obama presented to them. People are beginning to really dislike the Obama that is actually the President.
Xmas (f65ded) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:52 amWhich just goes to show how terrible the GOP field was.
daniel (1340fb) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:55 amMy personal commiserations to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for Britain’s loss of her American colonies on this date 1776. Happy Fourth to everybody else.
nk (875f57) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:19 amHuntsman? He would have gone to his knees in front of Obama’s privates during the three debates.
Huntsman is soft and liberal and bought the meme that somehow Obama deserved the Presidency because he was ohhh so smart and ohhhh so black.
But that is why RINOs are losers. They are more interested in being liked by Leftists than they are in actually being effective leaders.
Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:42 amI’m still smarting from the Obama victory. My faith in my fellow Americans has taken a hit that it may never recover from.
I don’t know who would have taken the primary, but the general was never in doubt: the fix was in.
Pious Agnostic (20c167) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:52 amRick Perry doesn’t even have the courage to bring up Justin Carter.
Correct that. He’s not a coward. He just doesn’t care. He’s an @ssh0le, basically, which is why he could do the “Strong” ad with a straight face.
No to Rick Perry.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 6:23 amThe game was rigged, he anticipated the attacks that would come and yet did nothing to block them,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 6:30 amhis surrogates lied extravagantly, about his challengers in the primary,
Yes, tons of people.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 6:30 amGiven that the Thugs fought tooth and nail for Romany, I’d say the outcome would have been the same and the candidate of no more import.
Romany worked hard and was a good student. A Daniels or Pawlenty or Christie might have done worse.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/4/2013 @ 6:40 amI think Romney fought a disciplined and energetic campaign. I agree with Kevin M that Romney didn’t go after Obama as much as I would have liked on Benghazi. I think he’s kidding himself if he thinks it would have swayed very many votes.
The country wanted Obama. It is what it is.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 6:54 amThe country wanted Obama. It is what it is.
Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 6:54 am
This.
nk (875f57) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:13 amRomney had a major flaw from the start. His campaign manager was a progressive twit. All day genuflecting to the media, gets you the silver. The same elite outfit could not beat a lying wannabe native American. Not that Scott Brown would vote differently on important issues.
mg (31009b) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:15 amThe next candidate better be in control of his handlers.
“But I think she could articulate…”
Comment by rd (8c8a6e) — 7/3/2013 @ 11:15 pm
If only she could “articulate”, and had not given the MFM another club to beat her with, we may have had Sarah v. teh Won. And, maybe, just maybe, the prospect of electing our first woman president would have carried the day with the mushy middle, as did the prospect of electing the first black president four years earlier.
Now, today, I think Dustin has it pretty well nailed in #24. We’re gonna need a Gulrudian prediction come-to-pass to shake us out of the leftward sleepwalk.
Matador (330bc0) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:16 amin drunken stupor
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:33 amtortuga blogs early morn
New Mexican turd
Newt would have won the nomination. He would have lost but he would have taken ground.
SarahW (b0e533) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:36 amlet’s face facts… until the dimwits among our fellow
citizensvoters wake up and realize that the cult-of-personality, celebrity worship, gifting themselves with handouts from socialist gimps and having their pockets picked clean in the process, are not the road to happiness and prosperity, a Democrat will be in the White House.The challenge will be to ensure the election of people who will FIGHT to mitigate all of this in every electable office… city, county, state and Congress.
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:42 amThe family had a vote. And 10 of 12 voted that Romney should not run again. And he ran. Romney couldn’t carry his own immediate family in an election and yet we were supposed to vote for the next GOP designated loser?
This is the very definition of “Stuck on STUPID.”
WarEagle82 (2b7355) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:01 amWarEagle82,
Mitt wouldn’t have run unless he wanted to and the other two people who wanted him to run were his wife and oldest son. To me, that proves wives and mothers like Ann Romney have significant influence in decision-making in their families.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:08 am44-Or a likeable/electable Republican can run. Any election cycle in which Newt Gingrich, with all of his dirty laundry and potential baggage, was the GOP frontrunner can’t be good… for anybody. If Obama is as horrible as you all think he is, your party has the responsibility to run a candidate who can beat him. The issue is that the fringe element wants to ignore popular sentiment. A VP who wants to gut social security and Medicaid? Bad idea.
Ian G. (b2d693) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:09 amI also think part of the Romneys’ motivation was to serve their country. I think a lot of local politicians feel that way but it’s rare to see it in modern national candidates.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:11 amThe only person among he Republican candidates (reasonably plausible as President) that the Obama campaign had a strategy to destroy was Romney.
They also had things they could say against Gingrich, but the advantage to them of Romney was that Romney was too dull to do anything about attacks against himself, and not adroit enough to take advantage of anything that came his way or do or say anything original.
Axelrod et al felt that they could win against Romney – against someone else adequate they’d have to improvise.
Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:14 amNewt suffered from what to me were purely non-political qualities, such as those of his persona or demeanor. He sometimes reminded me of a grouchy uncle or cranky boss. However — and it goes without saying — I’d still have naturally, quickly voted for him.
Also, as was true of Romney, there were aspects of Gingrich’s ideology that got the better of him, when he suffered from pangs of latent liberalism, or behavior illustrated by certain non-leftist forumers in the thread on Martin and Zimmerman.
Mark (248a3c) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:21 amHuntsman’s pretty smart, and I would have loved to see him in a debate with Obama, but I don’t know whether he would have won the election.Better than Santorum, I guess, but only on some weird less-horrible axis. Rather lose with Newt. Rather lose with Perry, for that matter.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:23 amI know that you’re on the left and I believe that you’re being sincere … but I disagree with this.
The GOP needs demonstrably smart/not a total @ssh0le (in other words, not Rick Perry), but they don’t need pristine (Obama wasn’t).
A smart political fighter with a proven record of helping people (welfare reform, for example) wasn’t a bad choice at all. Churchill had all sorts of scandals. Milquetoast isn’t working out for the GOP.
Romney, McCain … friggin’ Bob Dole.
Geeze Louise.
The Democrats at least select candidates (Dukakis excepted) who can emulate having a personality.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:23 am52- I agree with that.
Ian G. (b2d693) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:30 amShocka!
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:33 amFirst, I want to go out on a limb and say this about Romney: He was the best nominee the Republicans have put up since Reagan. There may have been better choices, but they were never nominated. Bush Senior runs a close second.
However, for all his qualifications he was unable to close the deal. He had a horrible time wrapping up a won nomination and a worse time with Obama in a election he should have won. It’s like folks sensed he really didn’t want it.
Maybe Newt would have lost because the People wanted the black guy, but unlike Mitt, Newt would not have fought the campaign on Obama’s terms.
And Candy Crowley would still be reeling from Newt’s takedown. Something like “And here, in one sentence, the collusion between the media and the Democrats is exposed.”
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:36 amInteresting question. Nate Silver had a August 2011 analysis of the Republican race here . Note in his view:
One seismic factor affecting Republicans’ decision is that Barack Obama is now exceptionally vulnerable for an incumbent president. …
so I don’t think it was inevitable that Obama would win. I do think many of the Republican candidates were weak. I don’t think Gingrich, Cain, Bachmann, Palin, Paul or Santorum would have had much chance against Obama. Maybe with Romney out Gingrich or Santorum could have got the nomination however.
Huckabee (whom Silver doesn’t discuss) seems like a plausible candidate (at least for the nomination and maybe in the general) if he had chosen to run with Romney out.
In an alternative universe Perry might have done better if his actual campaign stumbles were just bad luck although I am inclined to believe otherwise.
Per Silver with Romney out there would have been more space for candidates (or potential candidates) like Huntsman, Giuliani, Pataki or Christie but I doubt any of them would have won.
I think with Romney out and a weak field there is some chance there would not have been a clear winner before the convention. A brokered convention would have been very unpredictable (and possibly a complete disaster).
I also don’t think Romney ran a particularly good campaign, he seemed to me to be a bit of an “empty suit” who got the nomination because the rest of the field was so weak.
James B. Shearer (d50741) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:38 amSilver was right by accident. A stopped clock whose time came by chance. Vastly overrated.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:43 amI think Perry would have won the nomination and lost the general election if Romney had dropped out early in the process. I think Christie would have entered the race and won both the nomination and the general election if Romney had dropped out at a later point.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:47 amDid Shearer just refer to Romney as an empty suit?! Really?!
JD (e70b27) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:52 amI think he personally was energetic and did OK in his speeches, debates, and work ethic. But his campaign was horribly incompetent on an organizational and especially IT level. The Obama campaign was vastly superior in that sense. I think I know why, but it’s always incredibly unpopular to say to Republicans, so I’m letting it slide today.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:52 amKevin I so agree. It was his best point: “Newt would not have fought the campaign on Obama’s terms.”
And he would have been out there selling some very attractive ideas.
Fatally flawed as an individuald stake a claim and make a vigorous case.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:04 amPlease forgive my typos. I deleted a chunk of words there by accident.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:05 amI offer this small piece of insight as to what the Romneys and every other R is up against on a daily basis when it comes to this WH spin machine and its nauseating interface with the sycophant press. Just pathetic.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/how-is-valerie-jarrett-magical-let-the-white-house-count-the-ways/article/2532671?custom_click=rss
elissa (18e70c) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:06 amSanatorum would have cleaned up in Iowa (and did win, IIRC); New Hampshire would have been Ron Paul; Newt in South Carolina; Newt in Florida. So at that point, it would have been Newt.
Then Obama would have won the general. I don’t think that any GOP could have won against free ObamaPhones, free money from health insurance companies (remember that they were forced to “rebate” their customers, and say it was under ObamaCare), and free contraception.
And the press. The infernal press. You can’t beat a candidate when his mistakes are treated like conspiracy theories – Benghazi, anyone?
And maybe I’m paranoid, or maybe history will prove me right, but I think that the apparatus of the government was used to secure victory. The IRS put a huge damper on the Tea Party. We will find out in years to come if and how the NSA data were used by the Obama Administration and maybe his campaign team.
bridget (84c06f) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:12 amAbsolutely, bridget. I continue to wonder if OfA used the NSA metadata to set up its Dashboard program.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:15 amI think he spent some in 2008 but he spent none of his own $ in 2012. People were wondering why he didn’t dip into his bank account when he was being hit by millions of dollars in attack ads between the primaries and convention.
Gerald A (b44a50) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:19 amI agree. I don’t think Romney donated much, if any, of his money to the 2012 campaign.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:28 amPalin, Perry and the GOP.
I think we’re near consensus that the GOP has burnt the candle to its end.
Cruz and Palin have the advantage of youth and authenticity to find a political home elsewhere.
Perry could rebound for a GOP nomination but to what purpose?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:30 amNewt would have lost, but taken prisoners, drawn some blood, planted notions, encouraged an impression of vigorous attractive counterpoints in GOP outlook. I’m not sure if he would have staved off rumblings for schism party especially after his inevitable loss, but I think there would have been more gratitude for a good fight and less discouragement that the GOP is a lost cause.
With Scott Walker tweeting slightly dumb tweets about the fourth being about “independence from government” which is no wise historically correct nor even in spirit correct. The only candidate who ever really bothers is Sarah Palin, and I suppose she is right out.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:35 amIsn’t it though, but for the ‘Clean toga’ crowd she isn’t good enough,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:36 amShoot, I did it again. After “correct” should be “I wonder if we will ever get a nominee with enough respect for his history to actually know it backwards and forwards in all the particulars, at least in those instances where he brings it up.”
Sarahw (b0e533) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:37 amRonald Reagan always managed it, too. I miss that in a party leader.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:37 am57.Silver was right by accident. A stopped clock whose time came by chance. Vastly overrated.
So who is better at what Silver does? A lot of the animosity towards him seems to me to be of the “shoot the messenger” variety.
James B. Shearer (d50741) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:38 amI think Christie would have entered the race and won both the nomination and the general election if Romney had dropped out at a later point.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b)
We. Will. NEVER. Have. a. FAT. president.
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:41 amJarret IS teh legendary L.A. Times “Magic Negro”???
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:44 amThe election of 2008 and most certainly 2012 says more about the electorate, and is a reflection of them, more than anything about Romney, Perry, Gingrich or various other Republicans. IOW, we’re merely following the pathway of nations like Mexico or France, or Greece or Argentina, or some other society where too many people fall for the belief that liberalism and liberals are beautiful and caring.
But in another way we’re also taking a trip “back to the future.” The US in the 21st century is sort of following the pathway of America in the 1930s, when power-hungry liberal Franklin Roosevelt — who was quite devious (he tried to pack the Supreme Court and used the IRS maliciously) and also bigoted — pulled the wool over many people’s eyes.
However, what makes 2013 worse than, say, 1938 is that this nation has to be placed in the context of a society that has experienced decades of dry rot, meaning it has gone through several cycles of feel-good liberalism. So we’re way more dumbed down in 2013 than our predecessors were when FDR was alive and well. And Obama is a way, way more dumbed-down version of Roosevelt.
Mark (248a3c) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:45 amSarahw, I’ve not been a fan of Sarah Palin since the campaign of ’08, however in the last 2 years, I think she’s grown somewhat and has made some good statements that no one else with her prominence did.
On Snowden and the NSA leaks, for example.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:49 amNo, what it say is we pick people without spines, who don’t understand the nature of the current crisis, who have the learning curve of a pygmy marmoset.
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:51 amThe same professionals who are “doing it” to Paula Deen perfected it with Sarah Palin and used it on Romney and Walker. They manufacture a negative image which is vastly different from the actual person– use the willing media and blogs to create then continually reinforce that image in the public’s consciousness to make them unpalatable in “polite society”. It works most of the time. Walker being the exception. So far.
elissa (18e70c) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:53 amHaiku–re Valerie. They live on a different planet. That memo proves it.
elissa (18e70c) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:57 amNot to mention George Zimmerman (and in the reverse sense, Trayvon Martin), elissa.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:57 amThe White House needs examples of Valerie’s amazing empathy and concern for her fellow WH workers. My guess is there is a busload of them.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/4/2013 @ 9:59 amPaula Deen is the current epitome of why this society — why so much of the American populace (including various folks who run corporate America and the US military, much less the IRS, etc) — has become increasingly dumbed down. We’re suffering from a disease that can be called Nidal-Hasan-itis, and there may be no good cure for it.
Mark (248a3c) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:01 amThe memo describes Valerie as “African.” When did the White House decide to drop “-American” from the description?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:02 amelissa – Strange that White House memo does not mention Valerie Jarrett the Chicago slumlord who attempted to get richer off the Chicago Olympics bid. Merely an oversight, I’m sure.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:03 amPalin has balz rino men wish they had.
mg (31009b) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:04 am“American” was disappeared by the African shaman… it teh Circle of
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:07 amLifeteh Lightworker…Palin balz are super duper fertile except for latina balz give Palin balz a run for their money is my understanding which is perhaps incomplete as I am new to this area of study
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:12 am“his surrogates lied extravagantly, about his challengers in the primary,”
narciso – His challengers lied about him extravagantly in the primary, virtually creating ads for the Democrats. Who can forget when Perry and Gingrich turned anti-capitalist or when Perry resurrected debunked stories from 2008?
It’s convenient to remember only one side of the story, but there are usually two.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:15 ammy fave was when Perry bought airtime for to denigrate the contributions of gay American servicemen
that was muy presidential to where after that the libtards had no choice but to take his ass down
he was too much of a threat
but just wait til 2016
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:17 amMark–In your posts here you do a lot of pondering and psychological analysis about what ails our country especially focusing on what you point to as the leftward drift of both leadership and the general populace. On another thread I believe you stated that you view people (including other commenters) as “test subjects.” You seem pretty confident that you know what–and who- the problems are right now. Some might even say that in many respects you state the obvious over and over. But what I never seem to see in your posts, though, is any real pondering or suggestions as to what you think we on the right should or could do about it, or you offering any constructive, practical ideas about how to maybe turn any of it around. Have you given any thought or analysis to that?
elissa (18e70c) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:20 amdaleyrocks @89, yes indeed. All the years of kvetching about narratives and then we read that bit of dishonesty. Happy 4th!
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:23 amFor one, the mainstream media needs to be fought tooth n’nail every step of the way and exposed for the lapdog, lying, sh*theel shills they are.
Don’t subscribe to Comcast, leftwing newspapers or mags, Time Warner, etc. Starve teh Beast.
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:28 amWho can forget when Perry and Gingrich turned anti-capitalist or when Perry resurrected debunked stories from 2008?
— E-disharmony dot PWJ would like to know if that’s a rhetorical.
Icy (48d2a0) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:28 am==Strange that White House memo does not mention Valerie Jarrett the Chicago slumlord who attempted to get richer off the Chicago Olympics bid. ==
Just due to space limitations in the memo I’m sure, daleyrocks.
elissa (18e70c) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:30 ami agree Mr. Colonel subscribing to cable is like making a non tax-deductible contribution to the funding of a fascist food stamp propaganda incubator
but conservatives lurv their cable what can you do
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:32 amWell with friends like Ericson, we don’t need enemies;
http://twitchy.com/2013/07/03/redstate-editors-defend-phony-sarah-palin-photo-lash-out-at-critics/
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:38 amIt’s part of the maintenance pikachu, one can’t quite avoid it,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:39 amThe memo describes Valerie as “African.”
Reminds me of how Obama didn’t mind his literary biography, which was published by a firm out of Chicago, listing him as being a native of Kenya.
Speaking of race and racial politics, keep in mind that the group at the center of the following article isn’t so much a race per se as much as it’s a monolithic ideology. That is, based on surveys, over 90-plus percent of black America is of the left, so when I see “African-American” I also think of (or mainly see) “liberalism.”
^ I do admit that when I was younger, I bought into the stereotype that liberals were less likely to be racist or bigoted than other people, including conservatives. A rude awakening since then, to be sure. But made possible only because of the easier access I have in today’s era in gleaning information (via the internet), versus the trudge-to-the-library past, or as recently as 15-or-so years ago.
Mark (248a3c) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:39 ami can avoid it Mr. narciso
Me and my staunchy colonel friend
but few can match our commitment to the movement
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:40 amNewt screwed himself when he married the neurotic blond sharpie in the spray-glue hair helmet and then dressed her up in expensive jewels he couldn’t afford.
If Newt couldn’t manage his own wife’s insecurities, how could he trusted to manage the nation’s finances?
ropelight (a82805) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:44 amcause of he didn’t get the nomination he never did have to deal with his toxic callista problem in earnest
he’s probably still in all kinds of denial
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:46 amI think that is about right.
Mattsky (f1dbbb) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:48 amNot a damn thing, <a href="when the right are intellectually vacuous cowards over the changing demographics in the country, deluding themselves into thinking somehow they can persuade these demographics to conservatism as they understand the term.
But it isn’t just that. It’s also technology driving social change, and driving politics leftward.
So in short? There’s not a whole lot that can be done. So instead the right wishes for charismatic politicians to save them. Which is teh unlikely.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:48 amrepublicans are mostly just turning inward anymore Mr. Former
fetuses and sacred marriage definitions and amnesty are the only things what get republicans out of bed anymore
and their leadership such as it is couldn’t be more entrenched and stagnant
it’s the siren song of identity politics
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:52 amDon’t get me wrong. Republicans will still get elected. But. The country, and the GOP, drifts leftward, as it has been.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:55 amFormer Conservative there is nothing more unlikely now.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:57 amLook where identity politics got the Democratic Party, happyfeet.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/4/2013 @ 11:05 ami agree DRJ
Team R resisted the pull towards the identity politics event horizon rather bravely for several years
but it’s pretty much succumbed now I think
a genuine and serious conservative competitor to Fox News might could help
I think the Washington Times peeps and some California company are trying to start something like that
we’ll see what happens
but for now Team R is an increasingly banal and stagnant white people thing with very strict religious precepts and a deeply schizophrenic relationship to the concept of limited government and individual liberty
in short it’s a fertile delta in which identity politics cannot help but thrive
I find it depressing and inspiring of a hopelessness what is both piquant and mordant as fascism tightens its stranglehold on our little country’s institutions
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/4/2013 @ 11:15 amSome might even say that in many respects you state the obvious over and over….any constructive, practical ideas about how to maybe turn any of it around. Have you given any thought or analysis to that?
Elissa, I’m not sure if what makes people tick is necessarily as obvious as you or others may necessarily believe. For example, in the thread on Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, there’s one regular forumer who is accused by others of being a “troll,” implying he doesn’t really believe what he says, or that he posts merely to inflame. To me the guy is merely a case of someone wrestling with his left-leaning biases—and, yea, I do think such biases tend to make people foolish.
And even though I’m stating the obvious, I’ve also rarely, if ever, heard the so-called obvious raised by people in public debates, or in open conversations. I think part of that is because just about everyone has liberal gut reactions in the back of their mind, and so they’re either uncomfortable or embarrassed about acknowledging that, or they sheepishly sympathize with such reactions.
I think the reality of the latter — and that, of course, being even truer for rabid liberals and less so for “squishes” or centrists — and knowing how it’s a big part of human nature, is why I’m not sure there is any realistic solution (IOW, short of mandatory brain transplants) to turning things around. After all, look at how sensible, practical people across the Atlantic have been stuck dealing with “Euro-sclerosis” without much success, or how such people in Mexico have been in a quagmire when dealing with their nation’s interminable anomie, mediocrity and dysfunction.
Mark (248a3c) — 7/4/2013 @ 11:16 amNewt screwed himself when he married the neurotic blond sharpie in the spray-glue hair helmet and then dressed her up in expensive jewels he couldn’t afford.
If Newt couldn’t manage his own wife’s insecurities, how could he trusted to manage the nation’s finances?
Two words: Bill & Hillary
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/4/2013 @ 11:37 amAnd then there’s the GOP rank and file’s focusing on peripheral issues.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 11:38 amI am a bit dismayed at how many people are buying the media’s drumbeat of: “Give up! Republicans are lost! Don’t bother! Stay home!”
Remember, these are not your friends. I believe we will all live to see Obama viewed for what he is: the rear guard of 20th Century big government.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/4/2013 @ 11:39 amMr. M the biggest items on the Republican agenda are amnesty and instituting redistributional means-testing schemes to entitlement programs
I really can’t be bothered to spend time or money electing any of these insipid arrogant cheesedicks
they know where to find me if they decide to get serious
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/4/2013 @ 11:42 amRepublicans haven’t lost, Keven M. You’re misinterpreting.
What we’re mostly saying is that the left is winning in general, and the country is moving left. Republicans are still more right than the Democrats and will win some, but they’ll need to move left too.
Both parties have moved to the left. They will each continue to do so for the forseeable future.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 11:43 amWhich is essentially what I said, just with specifics.
Further, I’ve pointed out how the GOP’s (and Democrats’, of course) policies on immigration move the country further left.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 11:45 am*sigh*
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/4/2013 @ 11:47 am110
… For example, in the thread on Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, there’s one regular forumer who is accused by others of being a “troll,” implying he doesn’t really believe what he says, or that he posts merely to inflame. …
Not sure who you are referring to but I find it hard to believe all the comments in that thread were sincere. And in my opinion the “defensive wounds” bit (relying on a narrow technical meaning that many people don’t know) was definitely trollish. Zimmermann had plenty of wounds consistent with being violently assaulted (even if they weren’t technically “defensive wounds”) which is what’s important.
James B. Shearer (d50741) — 7/4/2013 @ 11:53 am#112, KevinM, I’m not a member of the Stupid Party’s rank and file, and if Newt wants my vote his intelligence and competence are core considerations.
Far from giving-up, I’m looking for a leader willing to actually take the field and fight, not some milquetoast who pisses his pants at the prospect of confrontation.
I don’t often agree with happyfoot, but this time he’s on target.
ropelight (a82805) — 7/4/2013 @ 11:54 amEmpty Suit
JD (e70b27) — 7/4/2013 @ 11:56 amMy comment at #119 shouldn’t have been addressed to KevinM, I intended to respond to the so-called Former Conservative. My mistake and I apologize for the error.
ropelight (a82805) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:03 pmi agree Mr. Colonel subscribing to cable is like making a non tax-deductible contribution to the funding of a fascist food stamp propaganda incubator
but conservatives lurv their cable what can you do
There are other service providers that don’t veer hard left, feets… ATT’s UVerse… Directv satellite, to name but two…
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:07 pmMr. Feets – I’m having trouble seeing conservative success through your vision of screwing the country fiscally, fetally and fornicatingly which you are staunchly advocating here, but that’s just me.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:17 pmYes, bitter clingers like Washington and Jefferson, what were they thinking.
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:21 pmHad Romney dropped out, then unless the convention had already confirmed Ryan as his vice-presidential nominee, my guess is that Romney’s replacement would have been a sitting or former state governor. It would have been a “stealth nominee” with a solid regional record that would nevertheless be mostly blank on most of the issues unique to federal governance.
But there would be some record of competency in public service. (Not Donald Trump or Herman Cain.)
It would not have been Ron Paul because he’s nuts.
It would not have been a western governor who’d strayed noticeably from the official Party line. Someone like Jon Huntsman or Gary Johnson would have caused a nontrivial portion of the Party base to stay home.
And it could not have been anyone who was already politically toxic to a significant portion of the electorate. With a shortened campaign, there’d be time, arguably, to introduce a replacement. There would not be time to overcome a significantly toxic starting-place. Therefore:
Anyone who’d been long in Congress for a long time — including Gingrich and Santorum — has made enemies or compromises on a national basis that tend to result in what the pollsters and pols refer to as “high negatives.”
I usually agree with my fellow Texan DRJ about Gov. Perry, but not on this particular bit of fantasy prognostication: Perry would have been clear of the Beltway Taint. But for other reasons — some having to do with his home state, others having to do with that state’s most recent native to sit as POTUS, and others having to do with Rick Perry himself — Gov. Perry also had high negatives, even before his self-immolation in the GOP primary debates. Certainly after those gaffes there was no chance that the Party would have turned to Perry. (Indeed, my belief is that effectively ended his future in national politics, and possibly in Texas politics, but that remains to be seen, and many other well-informed Texans whose judgment I respect disagree with me about this.)
And of course, love her or hate her, the Party would have had to have acknowledged that the Dems had successfully driven Gov. Palin’s “negatives” to a frenzied pitch.
That’s who I think would have been the pool of potential candidates, and who I’ve eliminated. Beyond that, it’d would have been even money on a number of individuals.
Beldar (83942c) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:22 pmRe-reading this, I should also clarify that I’m not limiting my guesses to the scenario of Romney dropping out back in 2011, but also to the possibility that he might have dropped out even later, well into 2012.
Which in hindsight I wish he would’ve.
Beldar (83942c) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:24 pmThanks for clarifying your confidence in your ability to decipher inner motivations and what makes people tick, Mark.
I’m a pragmatist. As such, I often seem to agree with Kevin M. My eyes are wide open. But I’m definitely not a fan of the gloom and doom society or the notion of acceptance of the impossibility of the current political situation. My question, Mark, is: if you’ve already decided that liberalism is “part of human nature” which you blame for blindly and inexorably and immorally moving the country leftward, and if you truly do believe that the only realistic solution is “mandatory brain transplants”, then what the heck is the point of the constant yearning to figure out– and share– your perceptions about other people’s personal foibles, mental illnesses, and what you think makes other people tick?
elissa (18e70c) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:25 pmNewt would have been hard to beat.
It would have been dark horse vs. Newt.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:26 pmMark is so much closer than he realizes here.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:27 pmThe Party is very willing to concede that point, in fact they have had a not too small part in fostering
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:28 pmthat impression, as for Perry, it’s possible sans his medical treatment he would not have been so negligent in his campaign, but it is a bizarre circumstance, to concede the result even before it
has been played.
its going to be perry. The longest serving giov of the largest republican state. A state that has produced the largest job growth in some of the worst times. The 3 largets democrat run states are already running commercials against him non stop
Of course its going to be Perry
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:28 pmThe lines between the paragraphs disappear here after comment 64, but I am sure it won’t stay that way.
Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:36 pmNow I got the blank lines between the paragraphs (and before the Comment by line) back, after looking at the long Zimmerman thread.
Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:40 pmThe gods of the copybook headings are trying to tell you something Sammy.
ropelight (a82805) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:42 pmBut they are no longer showing on the Zimmerman thread.
Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:42 pmIf, and it’s a big if, the party needs to drop some attitudes that keep it from winning the center, I rather doubt that embracing big government is the path to take.
The thing that seems to keep killing us is the sexual divide, which is to say social issues. We talk about trying to get the chimerical Hispanic vote, but another few percent of the female vote would do wonders. Maybe the abortion plank has run its course and we need to find accommodation there.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:44 pmNow they are. The previous time I clicked on the history so it must have been cached.
Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:44 pmAnd now suddenly after I sent that message, the blank lines are gone again – right now in ths=is thread.
Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:45 pmNow the blank lines are back.
Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:46 pmDon’t worry about this too much: it’s Finkelman’s Law:
If anything can go wrong, Sammy Finkelman will find it.
Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:47 pma true challenge for you, Sammy. Ask yourself: “what would Alex Jones do?”
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:48 pmSometimes it’s more noble to suffer in silence, Sammy. 🙂
elissa (18e70c) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:49 pmThe female vote always moves to whatever the male vote is.
The only separate female vote is low information single females whom the Democrats can scare aboiut abortion.
When it comes to Hispanics and Asians and other recent immigrant groups the Republicans are doing the scaring all by themselves.
The Democrats don’t need to invent anything, like they do with blacks and women. I mean, alter the interpretation of the 14th Amendment?
Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:51 pmI have no clue in terms of predicting with any confidence, but I will list what I think are important qualifications:
1) A willingness and ability for the candidates (including VP) and their families to overcome the most hateful and slanderous treatment they could imagine, and then some. (This is why I think Daniels would never run. What many would see as honorable and praiseworthy in the reconciliation between he and his wife, others would see as fodder for tabloid exploitation).
2) An ability to rise above #1 and not only put up with it, but somehow at times turn it to their own advantage.
3) To be successful at #2 one needs to be clear-headed and disciplined in not ever saying more than they have to in order to avoid saying the occasional thing that Dems are allowed to get away with, but not Repubs.
4) To run on what their core convictions truly are. If truly a firm conservative, run as a conservative. If truly a moderate willing to make concessions to conservatives, be that.
No Freudian slips where one “truly says what they think or feel”.
Authenticity and honesty.
5) Somehow having the wisdom to know what to take a stand on and what battles do not need to be engaged in, and smart in how to avoid those that are unnecessary.
6) Smart and humble. Someone who knows what he/she knows and knows how to get the counsel they need and is not afraid to admit it.
7) Someone who can take confrontation and not back off nor look vindictive in metaphorically pummeling their opponent.
That is a long and challenging list and I have no candidates to put forward at this time. Even those who have had victory at a vicious state level like Walker will hit opposition at a whole new level going for the presidency.
It would be easier for the Dems to somehow implode. But seeing as they have been close with Gore and Kerry and won twice with Obama, it seems that even Anthony Weiner could win the Presidency after 2 years as NYC mayor…
just sayin’ (may it not be so, Mrs. Muslim Brotherhood as First Lady would not be good)
Of course, sometimes God shows up when it is clear He is the only hope.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:54 pmBut then again, even when He does, it may only be a delay in judgement (King Josiah).
teh Fickle Finkelman Finger of Fate!
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:54 pmit flies!
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:55 pmthree point five more years
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:58 pmof Moochey and Barry Show
leaves smokin’ ruins
Well I find the notion that ‘the future was set’ rather dissapointing, and that is why the Clean Toga crowd of Rove, Wehner, Kristol in some parts,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 1:00 pmas for Perry, it’s possible sans his medical treatment he would not have been so negligent in his campaign
I’ve missed what medical condition Parry was hampered by; I must have been paying attention that day.
I have never been a big fan of Reagan, FWIW, maybe because I was still in my days of political naivete’, but the way he could say things of basic conviction, deflect things with his “there they go again”, and willingness to do the “tear down this wall” speech when most of his advisers were telling him he couldn’t do that are all things to be emulated, I think.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 1:06 pmhave NOT been paying attention
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 1:06 pmNot if his wife left him over it. She really did not want to endure a presidential campaign, especially with the salacious attention you know the Dems and their pet media would have focused on her.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 1:09 pmthe one that required the stemcell treatment, right now I would settle for a fighter like Nixon, even though some of his policies were not the best in retrospect.
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 1:10 pm141. Who is Alex Jones?
Apparently somebody who thinks Microsoft Windows gave a back door encryption key to the NSA.
I see the sort of thing he links to. You can tell its nonsense. I know these type of people. I once got so irriated by one I sent an e-mail message to him:
Date: 07-19-96 (15:04) Number: 14090 of 14595 (Refer# 14084)
To: big…@shout.net
From: SAMMY FINKELMAN
Subj: Conspiracy Theory Runs Wild
Read: 07-20-96 (07:41) Status: RECEIVER ONLY (Echo)
Conf: internet (101) Read Type: TEXT SCAN (+)
-> “Ah hah. President Clinton urges calm. And just *why* is he
-> urging calm?? You see, don’t you? *Why* would he be urging
-> calm? Is he trying to divert the investigation *away* from the
-> terrorist angle?”
Of course, he is, although cautiously. Another thing that he did though,
and I’m convinced this comes from him, is circulate and give credence to
this Stinger missile theory. Of course that should be instantly ruled
out because the plane was at too high an altitude for that, in addition
to the fact that only the FBI found 2 witnesses who saw something even
remotely like what a missile attack would look like. The Stinger missile
theory diverts attention away from something that went aboard the plane.
Anotehjr thing was the way TWA was extremely slow in coming up with a
passenger list – and in the end, I think, they took a name off of it.
They said they were following the advice of the National Transportation
Safety Board. The NTSB told Mayor Giuliani that they gave no such
advice. Of course maybe the regular people never would give such advice.
Then recall that there is a whole Mafia hijacking (stolen goods) problem
at Kennedy Airport.
<<>>
Note: the phrase “only the FBI found” means nobody but the FBI found any missile witnesses.
The New York Times actually did get the names of 2 missile witnesses but they got the names from the FBI. Nobody independently found any at that time. One of the two was the same man who later became the recipient of the “friendly fire” message telling of missile fored from the Normandie.
The notation that the message was read there only means that I replied to my own message, which was a way of sending another one. This was an echoed conference, so there is no way of telling when or if it was read.
That was written two days after the crash of TWA Flight 800 and I haven’t much changed my opinion, just learned more details. Someone on anotyher thread had said he heard about missle witnesses on July 19. Well, not only did I also hear about that but I said that was part of the coverup, as you can see.
Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb) — 7/4/2013 @ 1:12 pmthe one that required the stemcell treatment
I must not only have not been paying attention, but absent that day
No, I don’t suppose one would be at their best in such circumstances.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 1:13 pmOK u own that one Haiku.
elissa (18e70c) — 7/4/2013 @ 1:13 pmMitch Daniel’s wife left him, they were divorced and she married someone else, I think an old flame, then she was divorced from him and went back to Mitch Daniels (which is in violation of Deuteronomy 24:4, although completely consistent with Islamic law.)
If he would have run for president, that would have been splashed over all media outlets, and people would be bothering them and asking questions.
This is far worse than anything Newt Gingrich did.
Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb) — 7/4/2013 @ 1:18 pmI don’t quite understand that point, they were previously marriage they are again, then again Random House wasn’t it, that circulated total libel or was it slander; against Sarah, so what difference does it make.
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 1:25 pmIt’s pathetic, that’s for sure.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 1:29 pmBeldar:
Actually, Beldar, we agree on virtually all of this. First, if Romney had dropped out earlier (as I specified), then Perry would have had more time to roll-out his entry into the race. He would have had the surgery on his back and given himself more time to recuperate, so he probably wouldn’t have had so many gaffes. (I suspect he still would have have several gaffes but not the more high-profile ones.)
Second, I completely agree that Perry’s Texas background and overall “Texan-ness” would have worked against him. In fact, that’s why I don’t think he could have won the general election.
Third, I also agree Perry’s national days are over. If anyone from Texas will go on to national office, I think it will be the Castro brothers for the Democratic Party and Cruz or Abbot for the GOP.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/4/2013 @ 1:50 pmMake that Abbott with two t’s.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/4/2013 @ 1:51 pmBeldar,
What do you think the future holds for Texas Democrats like Bill White and Anise Parker?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/4/2013 @ 1:52 pmnarciso @157. I lost you.
The laws in the book of Deuteronomy are not considered to apply to Christians either by Christians or Jews, but it stll doesn’t look nice.
I can’t follow what you said abiut Random House or Sarah.
But anyway if Mitch Daniels had announced for President, that would take his fame to a whole new level and the whole country would be talking about this.
Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb) — 7/4/2013 @ 1:54 pmThere are other service providers that don’t veer hard left, feets… ATT’s UVerse… Directv satellite, to name but two…
Mr. Colonel what you pay for the cable is not the problem per se but what is done with what you pay. Much of your fee – whether to u-verse or twc or dish – goes to carriage fees that the cable/satellite companies pay to the cable channels they carry.
No matter what provider you use, you’re feeding the fascist beast.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:01 pmThe comments in the Joseph Farah article linked to by Alex Jones seem to contradict the thesis there.
Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:02 pmComcast also owns NBC, feets. That should be enough right there.
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:03 pmWow.
The comments on a Joseph Farah article linked by Alex Jones.
I can only begin to imagine how out of touch with reality they are.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:03 pmTime Warner owns HBO/Cinemax, among many other entities, feets. You can go with a provider and not pay extra for those… get my drift?
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:05 pm#155… my bad, elissa. But it will stoke Sammy’s fires for the extended weekend!
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:08 pmi’m sort of an absolutist Mr. Colonel
I did buy some fascist ben n jerry’s the other day in burbank
I was with NG and she had used up our lunchtime at the Gap outlet store so we didn’t have time to cross the street to go to Cold Stone.
That is not a very good excuse really but that is the basic explanation. It won’t happen again I promise.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:11 pmDRJ, my friend, thanks for your follow-up comments about Gov. Perry (#159 — 7/4/2013 @ 1:50 pm). And I’m pleased, flattered, and yet unsurprised that we do indeed agree on so much about him. I’m highly confident that what’s going on in Austin right now is in considerable part timed, and on issues selected, to shore up Perry’s future options. It may be helping him, and I understand the fervor of the legislation’s sponsors, but politically Gov. Perry’s also doing far more to rally the Dem base right now than any Texas Dem politician could ever hope to do. And that worries me more than a little.
I agree entirely re Cruz & Abbott, but I think Cruz is going to bold in the Senate and content to stay there a while. Abbott is frankly who I expect to see as the GOP gubernatorial nominee in 2014 if Perry doesn’t pursue it — and maybe even if Perry does. I gather we might know more about Perry’s plans on Monday.
Anise Parker will have a lot of people pushing her to run for governor in 2014, and it would not surprise me if she does. I expect to hear more of and from Bill White in Democratic Party politics, but I’m frankly curious why he isn’t already in Obama’s cabinet; I dunno if his Clintonista ties are inconsistent with that, but in my opinion he’s among the very best on the Democratic bench nationally.
Beldar (83942c) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:19 pmMeant to write, “Cruz is going to continue being bold in the Senate and content to stay there a while.”
Beldar (83942c) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:20 pmSammy, may I suggest that you should not even read the comments on a Farah/Jones article?
SPQR (768505) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:32 pmYes, Beldar, Perry is clearly running for President. My hope is that he has difficulty getting financial support for his campaign and it never really gets off the ground.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:33 pmDon’t worry about this too much: it’s Finkelman’s Law:
If anything can go wrong, Sammy Finkelman will find it.
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb) — 7/4/2013 @ 12:47 pm
— I thought Finkelman’s Law was “It’s NEVER EVER as clear as the nose on your face.”
Icy (48d2a0) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:35 pmCouldn’t find the original Breitbart piece;
http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/09/bombshell-breitbart-obtains-email-showing-mcginniss-random-house-likely-published-literary-hoax.html
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:36 pmnicely put Mr. Beldar if I could express myself as temperately as you it would be a great blessing
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:36 pmFWIW, I wonder if the OT Biblical injunction against remarriage was more in the context of the man in charge, a man can’t divorce his wife then marry her again and put her through the turmoil.
In our society, where the wife may be the one seeking the divorce, and then wants to come back to her husband, it is not so much toying with another person as trying to reconcile, overcoming a previous bad decision. A more fitting, to some degree, Biblical comparison would be to Hosea and Gomer, where Hosea was a faithful husband who repeatedly went to reclaim his straying wife.
Anyway, as I wrote before, from a distance I think it is commendable that a divorced husband and wife, the parents of several children, were able to overcome and reconcile. But I would imagine, even in the best of circumstances in rebuilding one’s life and family, few people would want it tossed into the air for daily examination.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 3:17 pmNOW Sammy MUST READ the COMMENTS from ALEX JONES.
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 3:51 pmIt’s hardly a narrow technical meaning. What other meaning does it have? The troll was correct that Zimmerman did not have any defensive wounds, and I was surprised that anyone bothered to challenge him on that. The correct response was what defensive wounds would you expect him to have, after being jumped and pinned to the ground? Where would they be, and what would they look like? The only “defensive wound” I would expect him to have is a powder burn on his hand, but since there’s no dispute that he did fire the gun the lack of such a wound is meaningless.
But there’s no question that the injuries to the back of his head were not defensive wounds, and I don’t understand why anyone would think to call them that.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 3:55 pmSurely it’s completely consistent with Christian law too. Isn’t it? I’m not 100% clear on what parts of Jewish law Christians keep, but I didn’t think that was one of them. So apart from prurient tabloid interest, what would be the issue?
How is it even bad, let alone worse than some other bad? Gingrich committed adultery. Mr Daniels, as far as I or anyone else knows, behaved at all times with complete honour. And for that matter, I have no information that Mrs Daniels ever did anything wrong either. The only issue I can see is that the low kind of people who wallow in any sort of sexual gossip would focus a spotlight on this history, and Mrs Daniels understandably didn’t like it, so she vetoed his candidacy. It’s certainly impossible for a candidate to run without his/her spouse’s support.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:08 pmStill missing the point;
http://twitchy.com/2013/07/04/redstate-editor-ben-howe-apologizes-for-mishandling-photoshopped-sarah-palin-image/
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:08 pmUm, why? Please explain it.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:08 pmFarah used to be sane. Maybe Jones was once sane too, but if so it was before I ever heard of him.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:12 pmTake back a woman after she did that? Never. Totally demeaning.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:22 pmYes, exactly. And his wife dumped his ass.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:23 pmNo, the purpose was to prevent swinging.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:36 pm(continued from above) If that were the reason then all remarriage after divorce would be prohibited. Instead it’s perfectly OK, indeed recommended, unless and until she marries someone else. Only then can she not come back to the first husband. So the reason you propose wouldn’t make sense. The reason is as I said, to prevent couples from divorcing by arrangement, marrying others for a night, and then divorcing them and remarrying each other.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:39 pmI don’t give a darn what’s prohibited by the Bible, Milhouse. I’m saying it’s weak as a man.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:41 pmWho knew that the “swingers” of the 1960’s were centuries, even millenniums, behind the times??
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:42 pm182
Um, why? Please explain it.
Some people might think it demonstrated an excessive willingness to forgive. Not perhaps the ideal image for a President.
James B. Shearer (d50741) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:42 pmperhaps weak as a man; perhaps forgiving, which is a strength
from a distance I’ll assume #2
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:43 pmWTH? Please tell me you’re being ironic.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:46 pmHow does that reflect on him? And if it does reflect on him that his wife left him then how does it not reflect even more in the other direction that she realised her mistake and came back?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:47 pmWhat’s that supposed to mean? What are you, some sort of neanderthal? Is that why you’re a “former” conservative?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:49 pmCan there be such a thing?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:50 pmIndeed, there is nothing new under the sun
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:52 pmBy taking her back after that public scorn, to the point of divorcing him.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:01 pmComment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:52 pm
Indeed. Good thing you linked to a bilingual version.
an excessive willingness to forgive.
Can there be such a thing?
Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 4:50 pm
I would agree, as you imply, that there is not such a thing as being too willing to forgive,
just as I believe it is impossible to “love too much”
however, I do think there are ways that one can be too willing to overlook something and ignore the reality than actually forgive, and show concern in ways which are warped and not really healthy love
but I think FC thinks Daniels should have taken it as a personal insult never to have been forgiven, rather than a decision his wife made and later regretted
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:03 pmI assume that was something like it anyway,
I doubt she said, “I still think you’re a jerk of a husband but I know you can’t say no to me”
195
Can there be such a thing?
Sure if it leads to you being repeatedly taken advantage of.
James B. Shearer (d50741) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:03 pmAt the very least, he should have had to subject her to a public mistress for the first year, then return to normal.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:05 pmPlease tell me you’re poking fun at a ridiculous stereotype that stupid lefties have of conservatives and our “war on women”.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:10 pmI agree with MD’s “don’t toy with your wife” interpretation of the Old Testament divorce and remarriage prohibition. Islam’s is very explicit. If a man tells his wife “I divorce you” three times, they are divorced and she gets her dowry back, the house, the kids, and a share of next year’s camel foals and lambs (support). In Saudi Arabia, the religious courts enforce it strictly and it is one of the few women’s rights. In Turkey, I know, it is part of the divorce ritual if done before a kadi, a religious judge. The man says “I divorce you” three times in front of the judge and witnesses.
nk (875f57) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:11 pmThen why would it be fine to remarry her until she’s married someone else?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:13 pmBecause Mosaic Jews were hard-hearted and left divorced women to fend for themselves and then stoned them for prostitution.
nk (875f57) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:17 pmIt has nothing to do with politics, Milhouse — just the ability to look yourself in the mirror.
It’s more likely so he doesn’t get cuckolded.
Again, so he isn’t cuckolded.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:18 pmSo FC, what position of Sarah’s did you dissagree with, her opposition to death panels, the Ground Zero Mosque, QE 2, cap n trade, et al.
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:21 pmCould be everybody’s right. Paternity of the woman’s children would have been the foremost issue.
nk (875f57) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:21 pmUm, what? Are you drunk again?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:22 pmBulldust. That could be handled by requiring a three-month waiting period after a divorce before remarrying. And indeed Jewish law does have such a requirement. So that can’t be the reason for this prohibition.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:23 pmI’ve already told you the reason. Did you think I was making it up?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:24 pmA few, narciso, but that’s the same for all potential leaders I’m aware of. Mostly it was her lack of seriousness in how she handled her much truncated governership and what she did instead. There are a lot of things I like about Palin, but I don’t feel she chose a path to prepare herself for the Presidency (which she could have done).
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:26 pmPalin also gives great set-piece speeches, but terrible terrible interviews, except for softball ones.
And even those are often painful to watch her tortured wording of her answers.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:29 pmIt’s in the New Testament, in several passages. “Because of your hardness of hearts, Moses suffered you to divorce your wives. ….
nk (875f57) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:30 pmI’ll take Jesus’s interpretation of the Law over yours, Prophet Milhouse.
nk (875f57) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:31 pmI’ve already told you the reason. Did you think I was making it up?
Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:24 pm
No, we did not think you were making it up, we just don’t grant you infallibility.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:34 pmlol
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:34 pmYou know, nk, you keep quoting from the Bible you may have to start talking with God again.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:35 pmMilhouse and his religion of KaBab and the Seven Planets of Zantac…
Colonel Haiku (a11a66) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:37 pmSo, how would you have dealt with half a million dollars and rising in debts, and an unlimited wave of phony ethics complaints,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:38 pmAny person who buckles under the pressure of that in their first-term governership after being a VP candidate (she could have fund raised, among other things, and should have stared down the ethics complaints a la Thatcher or Reagan) is not up for the top job.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:41 pmI think this illustrates a point I’ve been trying to make for years. It doesn’t matter who the candidate is, the Republicans either need a media strategy or we need to abandon them as not serious and go third party.
In comment #77, FC, you said she seems to have grown since the campaign of ’08. I don’t agree. The media isn’t putting on the full court press to destroy her as they did in ’08. I think they feel “mission accomplished” in that she’s no longer a viable candidate.
I don’t think she was prepared to deal with the viciousness of the media. She was by all accounts a competent, popular governor of Alaska. But c’mon, how much media attention does any Alaska governor get? It isn’t like she had much practice. Moreover I don’t think the McCain campaign consultants did anything to prepare her. They just threw her into the shark tank.
I blame McCain’s adviser’s, not her. I know enough about the media to know I’d never do an interview without my own camera in the room. I’ve often wondered just how much of the footage was left on the cutting room floor (yes, I know it’s digital now) to make her look as bad as possible. I know for a fact, because people who did this for a living have told me, that the media will extend an interview for as many hours as you’re willing to talk just to get the one soundbite they can take out of context and fit into whatever story they want to run.
The people who say they couldn’t cover the IRS and Benghazi scandals had reporters to spare to examine Palin’s emails with a fine tooth comb. Joe McGinnis rented the house next door so he could peer into her daughter’s bedroom.
These people are vile, but even worse GOP consultants like McCain’s Steve Schmidt want to be liked by these vile people. That’s the real problem.
This isn’t a commercial for Palin. I like Palin, but for several reasons I don’t think she’s a viable candidate. To me the larger point is that the GOP is following idiotic advise for some reason. They’re trying to please an MFM whose sole purpose in life is to make them look as bad as possible.
I can think of no clearer example than when George Stephanopoulos, out of the blue, slipped in a question during what was supposed to be a debate designed to support the Obama campaign’s war on women meme and asked the candidates why they wanted to take contraceptives away from women.
Imagine that; Bill Clinton’s former deputy campaign manager and a senior advisor in his campaign functioning as a democratic party operative instead of as an impartial debate moderator. Who could have imagined?
I could have imagined, that’s who. Actually, I don’t feel so special since everybody with two brain cells to rub together could have imagined. Which apparently doesn’t include whoever is running the GOP because they agreed to this idiocy. Which makes them special, but do we really want them running the party?
I think the difference between Palin ’08 and Palin ’13 isn’t that she’s grown. It’s that the MFM that destroyed her feels like they did their job. But they’re going to do it to the next target. I don’t know who that is, but why does the GOP let people like Schmidt lead them into one ambush after another?
Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/4/2013 @ 6:24 pmHe was apparently one of Woodward’s main sources for at least two of his books, Emmanuel served a similar function for Obama, as has Axelrod, who
waged the astroturf campaign early on against her,
If the truth is not a strategy, then truly ‘what difference does any any of this make’
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 6:32 pmShe was a whole lot more trusting back then, but ‘Dr. Evil’ Schmidt, ‘Norma Desmond’ Wallace,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 6:37 pm‘Carmen Miranda’ Navarro, not too mention other persons who she confided in, let her down,
The truth is a strategy, but we’re dealing with people whose strategy is to bury the truth.
I don’t see a contradiction between having truth as a strategy, and also having a strategy for getting the truth out as well.
Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/4/2013 @ 6:39 pmThat wasn’t the question. The question was why, according to MD’s guess, remarriage after divorce is A-OK so long as she hasn’t married someone else. If the concern is that they won’t take the divorce seriously then remarriage should have been prohibited immediately. Quoting some f–ing antisemite (and yes, whoever really wrote that line in Matthew was an antisemite) about the reason why God instituted divorce in the first place is irrelevant to that question.
How does infallibility come into it? If I were making it up then your comment would be relevant. I wouldn’t expect you to accept my wild-arse guesses as the truth. But I’m not guessing. Your suggested reason was, as you said, your own guess. The reason I gave was not, or I’d have said so. I do actually know a thing or two about the subject, more than anybody else commenting here.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 6:57 pmDrop dead.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 6:58 pmNo, she could not have fund-raised. Were you not paying attention? The one ethics complaint that was eventually upheld was for having the temerity to raise money for her defense! And what do you mean by staring the complaints down? There was a full-time investigator, with subpoena powers, who was occupying her and her staff full time. What do you expect her to have done? Ignored his subpoenas?! When did Reagan or Thatcher ever do anything like that? And what about her staff, who were also being driven into bankruptcy?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:01 pmYes I know the theological argument, but the Clinton were elected twice, and successfully vouched for Obama,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:01 pmSteve57,
I just wanted to say that I thought your comment the other day (discussing the possibility that some of the books of the Old Testament were meant as a “more than you bargained for” cautionary tale of misguided human over-regulation) struck me as very insightful. I don’t think I’d ever considered that possibility before, but it is an interesting one.
Just wanted to say.
Leviticus (2c236c) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:05 pmMatthew was an antisemite
I don’t think Matthew saw it that way.
Just because someone criticized what fallible religious leaders of the Jews did to God’s Word doesn’t mean they were against the Jewish people.
If I criticize Obama it doesn’t mean that I am anti-American.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:06 pmComment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:01 pm
We agree on that, at least.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:07 pmIn fact, you said that very well.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:08 pmNo I think the notion, was that they would enter into another covenant, voiding the previous one,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:12 pmEven a blind hog finds an acorn now and then, Leviticus.
Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:12 pmI think the message is more about the spirit rather then the letter of the law;
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:15 pmI found the source:
Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk suggested an additional reason: the possibility of reconciliation with the first husband would be a huge obstacle to the second marriage’s success. To give the second marriage a chance the first one must be unequivocally over and done, never to be revived no matter what.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:17 pmI’m not assuming that Matthew wrote that line. But whoever wrote it was an antisemite. It does not refer to religious leaders, fallible or otherwise, but to God’s Word itself. It was God Himself who permitted divorce; he’s saying the only reason He did so is because the Jews had hard hearts. That is pure antisemitism. I don’t believe Jesus ever said that, or that Matthew ever claimed he did.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:22 pmThere are two theories. They’re not mutually exclusive. Either the rules of the previous covenant are presumed void unless specifically reiterated, or they’re presumed to continue unless specifically repudiated.
Steve57 (c74c87) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:25 pmTry that argument in any court.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:25 pmPS: When you comment on medical matters, MD, I assume you’re not guessing.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:27 pmWasn’t Luke the one who addressed Gentiles,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:28 pmI think the message is more about the spirit rather then the letter of the law;
Try that argument in any court.
Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:25 pm
It is done all the time. The court looks at the entire legislative scheme to see what the law is intended to acomplish. There are sub-rules — original intent, fair meaning given to every word, lenity — but overall the societal concern the law is addressing controls its application.
nk (875f57) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:35 pmWhat I’m saying is that while the New Testament, or at least large parts of it, show signs of having been written by Jews, who were familiar with Judaism and its traditions and culture, the final editors were gentiles who not only misunderstood a lot of references because they didn’t have the background, but they were also antisemites who inserted passages that would have appalled the original writers, let alone Jesus.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:35 pmThe intent is used to resolve ambiguities and figure out how the law applies to situations that it doesn’t squarely address, but where the letter is clear it is primary. If the letter appears to contradict the “spirit” then that’s the greatest proof that you’ve mistaken what the spirit really is.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:39 pmThis is far worse than anything Newt Gingrich did.
I keep going back to this. What did Daniels do that was so wrong?
JD (e70b27) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:50 pmHow is it even bad, let alone worse than some other bad? Gingrich committed adultery. Mr Daniels, as far as I or anyone else knows, behaved at all times with complete honour.
Yes, exactly. And his wife dumped his ass.
And that reflects poorly on Daniels’ character in what way?
JD (e70b27) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:52 pmPS: When you comment on medical matters, MD, I assume you’re not guessing.
Comment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:27 pm
Well, I appreciate that Milhouse.
But everything I say in regards to medicine is given as best as I remember it or understand it, and if someone can give reason why I am wrong I am happy to hear it.
My understanding is that the main issue is that when God created humans, He did not intend for there to be divorce, but life long fidelity.
But sin entered the world, and hardness of the human heart, and the original conditions of human life in the Garden were no more.
A basic message of the NT is that if you want to try to justify yourself before God by perfect obedience, you are welcome to try;
for those who know that that is a very faint (actually nonexistent) possibility, being held to God’s perfect standard reminds one of the need to look to God’s steadfast love and mercy.
Unless one is reading Luke or Acts, every book in the NT is considered authored by Jews. Comments about “the Jews” are in the context of Jews talking about Jews in a Jewish land, except when they are talking about Romans or Gentiles of Samaritans explicitly.
The incredibly foolish, stupid, and wrong ideas about the NT having anti-Jewish sentiments are a corruption of the heart of the Christian message. The NT message is that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and that Jesus died in the place of all who deserved God’s wrath. “The Jews” were no more responsible for Christ’s death than “the Gentiles”, and any hint of an idea otherwise would be a false gospel and accursed.
Now, I think one problem is that no one ever feels they are in a discussion trying to come to a common understanding with you, Milhouse. I mean really, all of this started out as a discussion as to whether people thought the situation between Daniels and his wife was one to be respected and admired (as most of us did) or one to be held in contempt (as F.C.). From there we went from off the cuff musings to a contentious debate between Rabbis and their teaching of the Law and the NT Scriptures. You drive your allies away.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:57 pmExactly, MD, in fact it can be argued that the Jews like the Romans, served as a vehicle to fulfill Jesus’s covenant,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:01 pmFWIW, I think FC is taking the view that Mrs. Daniels shamed her husband and put him up to public scorn. In his willingness to take her back, he is showing his lack of pride and self-worth.
I think that is assuming that Mr. Daniels should act prideful as if the world is all about him.
Others of us, from our distant view, see it more as Mrs. Daniels left him thinking things were better elsewhere, came to a bitter realization that the were not, and in the aftermath of her bitter discovery asked to be taken back by her husband and family.
And for them to do show show the largeness of their hearts for mercy towards others.
But this is all conjecture from a distance.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:04 pmDaniels abdicated his responsibilitah
he knew what the stakes were
and we knew he knew
and even now he knows we know but Mitchy D don’t care Mitchy D don’t give a damn
Mitchy D got his
I’ll always remember him for his lackluster SOTU response where he looked like a portrait you might find in the haunted mansion at a disney park
that’s when i knew it was goodbye
he squibbed himself on purpose i think
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:04 pmUh who determined that? What are some of those passages?
Gerald A (b44a50) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:08 pmI think FC has never loved a woman, but I don’t hold it against him. Lucky dog. 😉
nk (875f57) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:10 pm#251
Okay I see the earlier comment on Matthew. Apparently YOU are the one who determined that.
On the question of divorce, as I understand it, there were two Rabbis who were roughly contemporaries of Jesus. One was Hillel who said divorce is okay for any reason. The other was Shammai who held a position similar to Jesus. Lot’s of people liked Hillel’s position and so that became the “Jewish” position on divorce.
Gerald A (b44a50) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:15 pmNo one would have beaten Obama with his suppression of the Tea Party movement and world-class digital operation. Each potential Republican candidate would have depressed his/her own slice of the electorate who could not stomach them.
Our only chance would have been to run Zombie Reagan, and he would only win because he would have eaten Obama for lunch in the first debate. Literally, in the immortal word of Joe Biden.
Estragon (19fa04) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:16 pmMaybe, but I think the lesson mislearned was that of Cameron across the pond, he watered down his Party brand, hence couldn’t even get a majority,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:21 pmComment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/4/2013 @ 7:35 pm
The idea there were gentile editors who produced what we have today is widely believed myth (similar ideas about later editing exist concerning the Old Testament). It doesn’t make a lot of sense, although as I say it’s widely believed.
It’s understood the original first century manuscripts were copied and recopied for centuries before there was an “official” canon of New Testament scripture, which happened some time in the fourth century. If somebody had altered it somewhere along the line it would be obvious from manuscript analysis. There are several thousand ancient NT manuscripts that have been discovered and they can by and large determine the approximate date of the manuscripts.
Gerald A (b44a50) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:24 pmYou’re speaking of Nag Hammadi and the Essenes,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:27 pmThe bible is not an instruction manual
-homer
-simpson
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/4/2013 @ 8:38 pmThe Bible Is:
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/4/2013 @ 10:29 pmBasic
Instructions
Before
Leaving
Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37-xAbD6slQ
I’m not looking forward to another Perry run, and I was a fervent supporter for a while. Maybe he can really dazzle, but I will be hoping Scott Walker can put together. Perry has a great record, but Walker has been through a more hostile environment (and unlike other Republicans, he held relatively strong).
Mitch Daniels would be a dream come true, but for some reason I guess he’s tainted with scandal (I don’t get it). Maybe Daniels is just one of those people who are smart enough to opt his family out of a hellish lifestyle. You basically have to be a weirdo who compromises a normal existence for your closest loved ones to be a presidential candidate, especially from the GOP, so no wonder a lot of them will also compromise basically everything else.
Dustin (d1e510) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:48 amI think it’s simply that his wife refuses to do it. It’s not as if he can force her, or as if he can do it without her. If she leaves him over it, then the campaign has no chance. The only way I can see it happening is if she were to just so happen to decide to go off to spend the entire campaign year in Tahiti or at a Himalayan monastery, or in a hospital bed.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/5/2013 @ 4:37 am256. I can corroborate Gerald’s account.
Genesis and the Torah are considered heavily edited accounts in which authors, Yahwist, Eloist, Deuteronomist, etc., successively ‘redacted’ the accounts such that the resulting documents cannot be said to contain an organic, inclusive history or theology representative of any time or culture to which they refer.
The tedium of actually justifying these theories is sufficient to bore anyone interested in the document’s content to tears.
I’m of the opinion Milhouse is entirely self-taught and betrays no imprimatur of scholarship.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/5/2013 @ 5:44 am119. I think ropelight speaks for millions of conservatives, many who who had already turned away from the GOP as evidenced by the last election, and perhaps an even larger number who had not by that point.
The recent bum rush to immigration reform, the Jeb Bush counterinsurgency, the failure for anyone to challenge the Speaker for election, has sealed, hardened their resolve.
Yes, as former conservative opines, the GOP will win elections. Amerikkka will likely keep the House out of Dhimmi hands. But does anyone’s hopes and dreams rest on the GOP, anymore?
Seriously?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/5/2013 @ 5:55 amPeople who inject themselves into the marriages of other people, for example judging Mitch Daniels for accepting his wife back because ‘he was cuckolded’ or some such other nastiness, are invariably miserable and awful people. Their opinions can safely be ignored because they do not even have a sense of what is and isn’t their business.
Dustin (303dca) — 7/5/2013 @ 6:10 amAlso, forgiveness and reconciliation are not weaknesses. Those who seem them as weaknesses are the weak ones.
Dustin (303dca) — 7/5/2013 @ 6:10 amMitch Daniels? Another Country Club Republican who will flame out in the heat of the battle.
We need someone “stupid enough” to actually fight back against the Democrats by calling them what they are (corrupt and stupid) and the media (vast hypocrites who are not be be trusted in any way). Doing this with a smile on one’s face is key and doing so while “talking moderate.”
Romney, McCain were more interested in their Cocktail Party connections and never had the desire to take the fight to them. Both hand picked by the RINOs and the Media for their flacid response to the Porn Images of the Left.
Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec) — 7/5/2013 @ 6:15 amMr. gulrud,
Good critical analysis of the Documentary Hypothesis
here.
The Documentary Hypothesis has fallen out of favor even among secular scholars I believe. Footnote 8 here lists some who disagree.
Gerald A (19ee61) — 7/5/2013 @ 6:17 am219. Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 7/4/2013 @ 5:38 pm
So, how would you have dealt with half a million dollars and rising in debts, and an unlimited wave of phony ethics complaints,
That was, in fact, easy. He just maybe didn’t have the money and time to counter it in the Florida primary, but it wasn’t his real problem anyway.
One problem was he actually didn’t do so well during a debate or two. But he did have a damaging ethics issue.
Where Newt Gingrich stumbled was what he did after he left Congress – he got some money from Freddie Mac. He didn’t have a satisfactory answer for that. He claimed he had told them to stop doing something and they didn’t take his advice bt he never tracked down and published what precisely he had said. (maybe there were some legal restrictions – he shouldn’t have let that stop him from explaining himself) Most likely Freddie Mac just didn’t care what he said, they just wanted him (and others) on the payroll. Anywayy at the time he did some consulting for them, the housing bubble hadn’t yet inflated the way it did later. This was even before the February 19, 2003 Wall Street Journal editorial I have.
By the weay Giuliani in 2008 was really terrible. He had nothing to say.
Sammy Finkelman (43c045) — 7/5/2013 @ 6:24 amAmen,
MD,
I respect the bible, the epic story of a people of faith and our redeemer, much less those that gleam convenient absolutisms for their own purposes
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/5/2013 @ 6:24 amIf you think Mitch Daniels is similar to John Mccain or Mitt Romney, you might need to review their records more carefully. If you think Mitch Daniels didn’t fight back against democrats, you seriously need to review his history.
I think Daniels got the ‘rino’ label because he said we need to focus on deficit reduction as an existential threat to our nation, and thus try to build up the tent of people who agree about this but disagree about a lot of other things. Mitch was obviously correct. Our nation can live to fight another day on most issues, but the spending is going to doom her.
Dustin (303dca) — 7/5/2013 @ 6:26 amAnd don’t worry, folks. Mitch Daniels will not run for president. He’s too good for us. We have to settle for the government we deserve.
Dustin (303dca) — 7/5/2013 @ 6:27 amWe did, now the time for patriots is to step up.
Perry did, he has tried and tried to reform abortion in Texas and he is finally in the last stages of it and its starting a national trend.
Daniels is a good guy and would make an excellent VP, so would Palin, again if she would get over her anger and realize the other side isn’t going to ever play fair and she needs to play to the hearts and minds of the undecided rather than the partisan
E.PWJ (bdd0a6) — 7/5/2013 @ 6:34 am267. Thanks for the link. Although never privileged to have Dr. Archer as professor, I have a couple of his word books on the Pentateuch and NT and approaching 30 credits from Trinity.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/5/2013 @ 6:51 amMuch like the Jesus Seminar, I take it; where the point of the message is missed,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:00 amMy question, Mark, is: if you’ve already decided that liberalism is “part of human nature” which you blame for blindly and inexorably and immorally moving the country leftward, and if you truly do believe that the only realistic solution is “mandatory brain transplants”, then what the heck is the point of the constant yearning to figure out– and share– your perceptions about other people’s personal foibles, mental illnesses, and what you think makes other people tick?
Because, Elissa, I’ve heard people on occasion, who I’d consider generally conservative and seemingly predictable in their opinions, for any number of reasons say they don’t care for a certain political pundit (who I like) or politician (who I think is perfectly fine), which makes me go “huh?!” So my question in such instances is: What the heck is behind that particular response? It is due to a quirky aspect of the observer’s politics or is it something else—a clash of personalities, perhaps?
In this one thread, someone like MD in Philly (who to me just about always notes that 2+2=4) says he’s “never been a big fan of Reagan,” which I’d never have predicted. So what is his reaction due to? Other forumers analyze Sarah Palin and conclude her problem stems from things that I’m not too sure about. In her case, I’s say it’s not ideology that is rubbing some right-leaning folks the wrong way (certainly not for me), but what I describe as her “happy-TV-news-anchor” personality traits, which make her seem oddly un-serious or a bit unctuous. (BTW, I’d still gladly vote for her.)
I’ve seen some right-leaning folks say they don’t care for certain Fox News commentators — who are perfectly fine to me and who pretty much often say it as it is — which has made me go “huh?!” Perhaps such conflict is rooted in the same thing that makes you a bit resentful about a variety of my postings.
Here’s another thing that crosses all types of political boundaries: The feeling that if you can’t say something nice about something or someone, you shouldn’t say anything at all, or variations of that. Political correctness — as practiced by segments of both the left and right — stems in part from that mindset.
Mark (ec2c05) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:08 amWell Shemp, at least since Katrina, is rather assiduous in following the left’s talking points about everything, that’s also mostly true of Geraldo, O’Reilly is very superficial about what is going on,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:11 amNarcisco, Shepard Smith is apparently gay (and I think people with that trait tend to naturally lean left, or are quite susceptible to doing exactly that), Geraldo is — natch — of the left, and O’Reilly also has liberal quirks in his philosophy. So if conservatives express qualms about those talking heads, that I can understand.
Mark (ec2c05) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:19 amAnd yes, Sarah was trained as a television reporter, before she started a family and went into politics, Newt was a university professor, hence his rather didactic style,
narciso (3fec35) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:21 amAnd if Elissa can’t figure out why I often post about what makes people tick, it’s because I’m not totally sure about, for example, the main reason that Palin is such a lightening rod for segments of the electorate. How much of it is due to their not warming up to politicians of the right, how much of it is due to other things? For that matter, how much of it is due to some conservatives being, yep, chauvinistic about male vs female? That’s another factor I didn’t even mention previously or consider until right now.
Mark (ec2c05) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:33 am279. I’m thinking history has recorded regular, wild seeming, swings in group-think between the liberal, “mankind’s potential is unlimited”, and the conservative, “mankind is incorrigible”.
While not a historian, I’d bet the impetus to the pendulum is economic. Comparative wealth leads directly to tranquility and liberalism, whereas paucity leads to conservatism via its attendant upheavals.
The Greater Depression bodes well for conservatism tho I may not see its zenith.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:46 amGary, there was a bit of heated back-and-fro you had in another thread with a regular forumer — in spite of both of you seeming like fairly reliable, down-to-earth guys (at least to me) — which made me scratch my head. IOW, personality conflicts also play a part and know no boundaries. I guess the flip side of a particular “huh?!” moment like that is when a James Carville can be married to a Mary Matalin.
Mark (ec2c05) — 7/5/2013 @ 7:54 amPlease rest assured I am not in the slightest resentful of your postings, Mark, although I suspect some others might be. But that is not my concern. Rather, I’m interested in your comments and explanations–comments which more and more often I find myself viewing as a scientist might perhaps view a test subject. My questions to you yesterday were borne from my ongoing and increasing curiosity about both the genesis and the purpose of some of the comments you post here on what I think can fairly be called a consistent basis. Frequently, I “scratch my head” and wonder what drives you to share (possibly over-share?) so many of your private musings and personal biases with the world. I sometimes go “huh?!” “what the heck is behind that..?” At the core, I think I’m just trying to delve into what “makes you tick”. Hope you don’t mind.
elissa (ec1d50) — 7/5/2013 @ 8:42 amI’ve always thought that James Carville and Mary Matilin seem to be thoroughly in love with each other, and find each other to be challenging and stimulating company. Certainly in public they go out of their way to be respectful of each other. With their passionate natures and interest in similar topics such as government, and their two children together in almost twenty years, it appears to be a very good marriage. So there’s that.
elissa (ec1d50) — 7/5/2013 @ 9:22 am281. Me, rash and intolerant? May it not be!
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/5/2013 @ 10:43 amWait till he finds out you’re married to a lib, GG.
elissa (ec1d50) — 7/5/2013 @ 10:54 amMarried to a lib?! Huh?!
What in the world makes you tick, squishy-squish gulrud?
Leviticus (b98400) — 7/5/2013 @ 11:07 am285. We don’t exackly have a free exchange of perspective.
286. Male menopause is a bitch, Levi. All I can say is consider all your opportunities carefully. They may not reappear.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/5/2013 @ 11:27 amOT but barely: Ten-year Treasury up 20 basis points today.
Point is lesser maturities are rising more quickly. Gravy train headed for trouble.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/5/2013 @ 11:31 amWhat I’m saying is that when I come across antisemitic passages in the NT (like the one nk quoted) I do the authors the courtesy of blaming their posthumous editors. That way I can continue to have a positive view of the authors as well-meaning Jews who didn’t intend or anticipate what later happened to their sect.
Not quite. This is a garbled version of the discussion at Gittin page 90a. It’s a good 100 years after Jesus, and it’s between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. The founders of those schools only had three recorded disagreements; a century later their schools had developed in different directions, and had hundreds of differences, with Beth Shammai usually taking the stricter view and Beth Hillel the more lenient one, but not always. In this case, they are discussing the exact words of the line in Deuteronomy that is the legal basis for divorce, and trying to figure out whether it places any restrictions on the grounds for which divorce is proper.
Rabbi Akiva, probably the most important exponent of Jewish law of all times, was a member of Beth Hillel, but in this case he pointed out that they were both reading it wrong; the word כי, which both sides had been translating (as did the translation I linked) as “because”, actually means, in this case, “or”. The verse is giving two possible reasons for divorce: “if he doesn’t like her, or he has found some fault in her”. In other words, these are just examples, and not limitations on divorce.
Bear in mind, however, that none of these opinions dispute that divorce is available, or that a divorce, even if given for inappropriate reasons, is valid. That’s very different from a view that divorce is no longer available at all, and a divorcee remains married, and thus unable to remarry someone else. That option isn’t on the table in this discussion.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/5/2013 @ 1:10 pmOn the contrary; unlike you I don’t have to rely on academic “scholarship”, I am heir to the tradition of interpretation that was handed down from Sinai together with the original text. I don’t rely on translations, or on commentators who are not part of the chain of tradition, and are thus merely speculating freely. I’m talking about 3300 years of continuous study, and of analysis that has survived that much peer review, following rules of exegesis that date back to Moses’ times.
When it comes to the NT, yes, I’m guessing, and I don’t pretend otherwise, which is why I hardly ever comment on it.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/5/2013 @ 1:19 pmFor the 1.5 people who actually care, כי is an odd word in Hebrew; just two letters, but very flexible. Depending on the context, it can mean “if”, “when”, “that”, “in case”, “but”, or “because”. So you can see that sometimes, even with the context, the exact meaning isn’t obvious.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/5/2013 @ 1:36 pm“I am heir to the tradition of interpretation that was handed down from Sinai together with the original text.”
– Milhouse
If you can explain to me how a “tradition of interpretation” can come prepackaged with an “original text,” without redefining any of the operative terms, I will be even more impressed with your intellect than I already am.
Leviticus (b98400) — 7/5/2013 @ 1:52 pmThe Written Torah is like a set of lecture notes; it only hints at most of its content. It was given together with the Oral Torah, which consisted in part of extensive explanations of what the written text means, and also of rules and methods of interpretation that can be applied to the text, and training in how to apply them. That teaching was handed down through the generations. Important parts of it were put down in writing in the 2nd century (the Mishnah), and much more of it in the 4th and 5th centuries (the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds). Then later authorities wrote down what they thought important. But the living tradition has continued to be handed down in yeshivot to this day. It’s impossible for one person to grasp all of it, which is why there’s a lot of independent reasoning and disagreement, but it’s all in the context of known givens, things that are known to be true so that if a line of reasoning ends up contradicting them then it must be rejected. What I mean by being heir to this tradition is that I was taught by people who were taught by people who…etc, all the way back to Moses. There’s inevitably subliminal stuff that can only be transmitted in person, an attitude to interpretation that helps one distinguish answers likely to be correct from ones that aren’t, and most importantly authorities to look up before even beginning the discussion.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:09 pmOops, I clearly missed a </i> tag there.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:09 pmSF: “The comments in the Joseph Farah article linked to by Alex Jones seem to contradict the thesis there.”
Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:03 pm
“The comments in the Joseph Farah article linked to by Alex Jones seem to contradict the thesis there.
I can only begin to imagine how out of touch with reality they are.
No, they make more sense than the Farah article itself.
I’ll find it.
Maybe it wasn’t exactly a Farah article but it was linked from infowars. It is plausible that something that would get corrective comments might get linked, because the site getting comments sitll has many people from before or deals in other subjects.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:11 pmWhen it comes to the NT, you have to remember that I approach it with the premise that, unlike the original Bible, it’s not God’s word. That inevitably influences how I read it. I can say things like “this was added by an antisemitic editor”, and thus not lose my regard for the original author.
To the best of my knowledge even fundamentalist Christians accept that the NT was written by people, not by God Himself, just that God made sure those people got it all right. If I were to accept that premise, then when I came across something that seemed vile to me I’d have to either find an acceptable explanation for it, or change my filters for right and wrong, since if they find God’s word to be wrong they must be improperly calibrated.
As a non-believer in the NT, however, if I find something in it that seems wrong, my options are either to condemn the author, or to assume that the author didn’t write that. I prefer the latter approach.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:17 pmWhy would any sane person be looking at infowars in the first place?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:18 pmComment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:09 pm
The Written Torah is like a set of lecture notes; it only hints at most of its content.
It is described as a “witness” Deutronomy 31:26
“Take this Torah scroll and place it along side the ark of covenant of the Lord, your God, and it will be there as a witness.”
Try this maybe: The true (living) Torah is oral,
because only something communicated by a living person is alive.
And the written Torah would tell you what oral transmission is correct.
It is supposed to be transmitted orally in many ways. See Deuteronomy 6:7 and 11:18-21. Speak of it.
The written Torah is necessary in order so that the oral Torah doesn’t go off the rails.
Even the written Torah is oral when it is read in the synagogue (of course this is of value only to thsose who can understand the language) and only that makes an impression, and the wording, sometimes extra wording, carries with an impression, emphasis and so on, that you might not get from just reading.
It was given together with the Oral Torah, which consisted in part of extensive explanations of what the written text means, and also of rules and methods of interpretation that can be applied to the text, and training in how to apply them. That teaching was handed down through the generations. Important parts of it were put down in writing in the 2nd century (the Mishnah), and much more of it in the 4th and 5th centuries (the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds). Then later authorities wrote down what they thought important. But the living tradition has continued to be handed down in yeshivot to this day. It’s impossible for one person to grasp all of it, which is why there’s a lot of independent reasoning and disagreement, but it’s all in the context of known givens, things that are known to be true so that if a line of reasoning ends up contradicting them then it must be rejected. What I mean by being heir to this tradition is that I was taught by people who were taught by people who…etc, all the way back to Moses. There’s inevitably subliminal stuff that can only be transmitted in person, an attitude to interpretation that helps one distinguish answers likely to be correct from ones that aren’t, and most importantly authorities to look up before even beginning the discussion.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:25 pmThat last paragraph is Milhouse. That’s what they say, but it can’t be understood quite that way.
It has to be that the primary Torah is oral, and that’s the primary way to teach it, but the written Torah is necessary to keep it accurate.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:27 pmThe only reason for my looking at Infowars was that Colonel Haiku mentioned Alex Jones to me in comment 141 and that turned up in a Google search. I had no idea who Alex Jones was.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:29 pmComment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:17 pm
As a non-believer in the NT, however, if I find something in it that seems wrong, my options are either to condemn the author, or to assume that the author didn’t write that. I prefer the latter approach.
Matthew (Mattai) is the name of a follower of the first (and originally more famous) Jesus, who lived in the time of Alexander Jannaeus (King Yannai) and ruled from 103 BCE to 76 BCE. He didn’t write his book. Some of the scrolls in the Dead Sea Scrolls are writings from that time.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:33 pm172. Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/4/2013 @ 2:32 pm
Sammy, may I suggest that you should not even read the comments on a Farah/Jones
In this case, I think the craziness did not extend to the comments, but rather corrected what was said in the Farah article.
I mean there is a limited number of people who go along with that or can believe something technically completely wrong.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:36 pmAre you referring to Yehoshua ben Prachia’s student with the eye for the ladies?
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:41 pmSweet Jesus, has this thread gone off in the ditch or what!?!
Colonel Haiku (53554e) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:42 pmIt’s illegal to stand in the middle of Main Street in Santa Rosa, NM while staring heavenward with your mouth wide open…
http://www.weather.com/news/two-feet-hail-new-mexico-town-20130704
Colonel Haiku (53554e) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:54 pmTheis is the Joseph Farah article where the comments have more sense than the article itself.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/nsa-has-total-access-via-microsoft-windows/#ooid=wyYTQ2YzoY4BdBtaD4kKH7gxFj-SyMWA
Sammy Finkelman (43c045) — 7/5/2013 @ 3:13 pm303. That’s correct.
The (censored) Gemorah says only that he led many astray, but doesn’t say what he did. I think the tale is told in the Dead Sea scrolls
Sammy Finkelman (43c045) — 7/5/2013 @ 3:15 pmThat’s not difficult.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/5/2013 @ 3:23 pmOr rather some of the Dead Sea scrolls (or their popularity) was the result.
Sammy Finkelman (43c045) — 7/5/2013 @ 3:30 pm“Sweet Jesus, has this thread gone off in the ditch or what!?”
– Colonel Haiku
I agree. Let’s get back to discussing what a sh*tty milquetoast candidate Romney was.
Leviticus (b98400) — 7/5/2013 @ 3:47 pm304. I thin the operating principle here is ‘keep one’s lips buttoned and be thought a fool, otherwise leave no doubt’.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/5/2013 @ 3:47 pmBack on topic, had Romney dropped out in 2011, thus giving adequate time for other people to join the race properly (rather than be parachuted in at the last minute), I like to think Palin might have given it a go. As it was I was surprised and disappointed that she didn’t. And I think she might have stood a chance of winning the general; there’s nothing left for the Dems to do to her. Whatever they would bring up against her would be seen by the voters as “old news”. And we saw what she did to the 2010 elections.
But it didn’t happen, and I don’t see her running in 2016; I think her moment has passed.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/5/2013 @ 4:12 pmComment by Milhouse (3d0df0) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:09 pm
Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/5/2013 @ 2:25 pm
I just happen to be reading Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus:Traditional Jewish Objections Vol 5 by Dr. Michael Brown. He makes a convincing case that the Oral Torah never existed during Biblical times.
He flatly states that
simply stated the notion of a divinely given comprehensive Sinaitic Oral Torah is a myth
…
The scriptures indicate clearly that God’s covenant with Israel was based on the written Word and the written Word alone
…
There are no explicit or implicit references to the Oral Torah in the Written Torah
He quotes Alan Avery-Peck:
This Rabbinic notion of Oral Torah cannot be equated in any concrete sense with a corpus of laws and interpretations that actually existed throughout Israelite history
…
What Rabbinic Judaism calls Oral Torah is in fact the creation of the sages who flourished in the 1st through 6th centuries C.E.
Brown points outs that the written Torah was abandoned during much of Israelite history – even Passover was hardly observed. After the reign of Manasseh they had to accidentally discover a copy of the Book of the Law in the temple. Given that history, the idea of this oral tradition being meticulously preserved for fifteen hundred years is absurd.
Also the idea that some anti-semite must have inserted Jesus’ statement about the Jews having hard hearts is absurd given what the Old Testament says about the Israelites in many places. And of course Jesus knew the Old Testament cover to cover, having in fact written it.
Gerald A (b44a50) — 7/5/2013 @ 9:22 pm313. Gerald is more respectful than I.
I just look at the period of ‘Judges’ which I take to be 250 years or more, with the Exodus occurring under Amenhotep the Great, Ahkenaten’s father.
Somewhere I’ve a copy of Louis Ginzberg’s ‘Legends of the Bible’, which I take to include speculative stories from the Gemorah around imponderables found in Scripture, finally written by the 3rd century AD and a prime source of the Koran.
Christians have little interest in the Talmud because of the fanciful nature of many of these stories.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/6/2013 @ 6:31 am264.People who inject themselves into the marriages of other people, for example judging Mitch Daniels for accepting his wife back because ‘he was cuckolded’ or some such other nastiness, are invariably miserable and awful people. Their opinions can safely be ignored because they do not even have a sense of what is and isn’t their business.
Their opinions can’t be ignored if you are considering running for President since their votes count too.
James B. Shearer (d50741) — 7/6/2013 @ 7:41 amPlease rest assured I am not in the slightest resentful of your postings, Mark, although I suspect some others might be.
Elissa, your comment is sort of “damning with faint praise.” What’s behind that is another reason why you or anyone else should want to understand what makes people — yep — tick.
Speaking of which, in the thread about Travyon Martin and George Zimmerman, I wonder why someone like Dana (who in general is a fairly sensible, sane person) wants to damn Zimmerman with faint praise, while expressing less cynicism about Martin. (BTW, Dana showed a similar gut reaction to the issue of illegal immigration). When it comes to people like that, it helps to know whether it’s a case of their compassion being excessive, corrupted and misapplied, because otherwise one really will be left baffled and startled. (“Oh, why did that rational, sensible person vote for Obama, or why is he, even today, less resentful about a flop like that than about a Sarah Palin or Newt?!” “Why do people like George W Bush love the idea of “reforming” immigration?!”)
Frequently, I “scratch my head” and wonder what drives you to share (possibly over-share?) so many of your private musings and personal biases with the world. I sometimes go “huh?!” “what the heck is behind that..?” At the core, I think I’m just trying to delve into what “makes you tick”. Hope you don’t mind
What’s behind that? It’s witnessing the phenomenon of compassion-for-compassion’s-sake reactions the way that people watch a car crash in slow action. It is morbidly riveting, astonishing and pathetic all at the same time. Moreover, unhinged compassion (or the corollary to unhinged anger) is a quirk of human nature that is rarely, if ever, cited by any of the talking heads in the fields of both politics and psychology.
However, an awareness of the origins of that behavior, and an understanding of how corrupt it can become, must be where the long-time phrase of “bleeding heart” originates from. I recall hearing that phrase a long time ago, but it wasn’t until more recently that I started to really understand what it means. IOW, I didn’t realize that excessive amounts of compassion (versus that of anger—hence the more common retort of “racist, racist!,” “Hitler! Hitler!”) could not just be harmful, but how it could so easily be misused that it creates situations that are just the opposite of compassionate.
Mark (8f17bd) — 7/6/2013 @ 8:20 amMark–I’m afraid that if you took from my comment @282 any “faint praise” whatsoever you missed the point and the sarcasm of my post entirely. 🙂 Maybe you didn’t notice I was using your own quotes from this and previous threads right back at you.
What makes people tick and civilizations tick is eternally interesting and quite important to think about for a variety of reasons. No argument there. (It is sort of what I am trained to do for a living.) And I believe that most right leaning individuals are smart enough and capable enough to know, and to do, that sort of mental processing, analysis, and arithmetic continuously as circumstances arise and change. Those mindful calculations may show up in a manner that, from your perch, you instead see as essentially inconceivable contradictions, ignorance, or ramifications of their raging internal conflicts and you like to point that out in your posts. Fine. But spending quality time thinking about our own unexplored biases and blind spots– and better understanding what makes ourownselves tick– is also a key piece in the bigger equation of living as far as I am concerned. It has occurred to me from reading many of your comments over the years that while you are very intelligent, you may not be as astute in assessing your own ticking as you are in passing judgement on other people and what makes them tick. This is not an accusation, merely an observation. Take it under consideration for what it’s worth. Or ignore it.
elissa (ff048d) — 7/6/2013 @ 12:25 pm