See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Now He's A Godless Commie
Source:
Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish
URL Source: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.c ... 8/04/now-hes-a-godle.html#more
Published: Apr 14, 2008
Author: Andrew Sullivan
Post Date: 2008-04-14 10:17:18 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 365
Comments: 28
Now He's A Godless Commie Bill Kristol, trained in the same politics as Hillary Clinton, now argues that Obama's remarks in a fundraiser q and a are the "real Obama" - and that his voluminous writing and speaking about the sincerity of his own religious faith, and of others, are presumably "masks." The reason for inferring Obama's Marxism is the following point Obama artlessly made about the way in which economic distress can alter people's tolerance for others: Is this indistinguishable from saying, along with Marx, that all religion is an obviously false consciousness caused by the alienation of the world-historical class struggle? No, it obviously isn't. It's saying that economic distress does often in human history express itself in more rigid forms of religion, more reactionary cultural identification, less tolerance of "the other." Since large swathes of human history have shown this to be true - and perfectly arguable without any materialist understanding of religion - Kristol is deliberately distorting to paint Obama as a cynical manipulator of religious faith for political ends, rather than as a genuine Christian. He's calling him a lying, Godless communist. You could argue, as Kristol and others hilariously will, that Lou Dobbs has no base, that fundamentalist Christianism has no problem with "the other" in a globalized world, that dozens of state constitutional amendments banning civil marriages that had never and would never have taken place were just spirited forms of civic engagement, rather than scapegoating or politicking on resentment. You could also argue, as others legitimately will, that spasms of economic distress and social discontent are unconnected. Hey: Weimar had nothing to do with Hitler. But Kristol is doing something much more pernicious: he is saying that Obama is faking faith, that his very profession of faith is a "mask" that is slipping, and that Kristol is the person to determine whose faith is genuine and who is a fraud. A non-Christian manipulator of Christianity is calling a Christian a liar about his own faith. That's where they've gone to already. And it's only the middle of April. What are they so scared of?
"It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
I know Kristol is ethnically a Jew, but is there any evidence that he believes in any religion? Aren't Trotskyism and Zionism classic examples of secularist substitute religions?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Oops, I left out the link to the Kristol piece to which Sullivan refers: The Mask Slips . And Sullivan is not exaggerating: Kristol really is accusing Obama of being a Marxist in this piece. An awful lot like the way some posters here have been bandying about that "Commie" label a lot these days, isn't it? I wonder how they feel about Kristol engaging in the same tactic. Of course, as a Marxist would say, what they're doing "objectively" benefits the Zionist cause as much as what Kristol does.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Kristol with that huge plastic Cheshire fake smile? He looks like he's begging for someone to smash his teeth in. How could anyone be religious who prostrates themselves before those who torture and murder?
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
It's odd how the Republicans don't offer a word in support of their candidate, just horror and outrage about the color of Obama's socks or what he might have been think when when he uttered some otherwise innocuous phrase.
.
I guess I have to remind you that I cannot run audio or video clips.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Well that won't stop me.
Is it courteous to address a posting to someone that you know he won't be able to read (or hear or view, or whatever), when you could put it in a readable form?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Perhaps you could upgrade your machine. I have the 4209.chilidog.redneck 5000. It plays videos just fine as frogs fur.
It takes one to know one.
If I force people to express what they have to say in words, it makes discussion more rational. It's the same reason I practically never watch television. Encourages passive thought.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
It's the same reason I practically never watch television. Encourages passive thought. Let me know whe you become a rational thinker. So far, I've seen little proof you are able to discern fairytails from facts.
Ha hahahahahahaha. You may have lost your bearings over the election debacle, but you still have a great sense of humor.
And so far you have been doing little besides posting clips. If you disapprove of my reasoning, why don't you argue about the matter, in words?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
So does Bush and so does McCain and so do I. What I see is two sound bites in a 40 year career that can be used for riling the goobers. Sounds like Clinton and Ron Brown buying cocaine from alien beings at Mena to me.
.
Did you know that your strategy is predictable? Like clockwork. Yes yes, you and friends have been saying that if people don't vote for Obama they are zionists, or zionazi's. Perhaps you can explain that commander. You seem to make some large assumptions that you have not illustrated in fact but rather by insinuation. Please, your rationale is? Do tell.
Honestly. Or maybe I should say honesty.
I have never said such a thing. As a matter of fact, it would be very odd for me to say it, since I have not yet made up my own mind to vote for Obama.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
An awful lot like the way some posters here have been bandying about that "Commie" label a lot these days, isn't it? I wonder how they feel about Kristol engaging in the same tactic. Of course, as a Marxist would say, what they're doing "objectively" benefits the Zionist cause as much as what Kristol does. Could you explain your comment further?
You will notice that my comment says nothing about who to vote for. To repeat, I have not made up my own mind about who I will vote for.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I hadn't noticed. What I do notice is that the Obama believers want to engage endlessly about how Obama is the lesser of the choices the globalist pukes have made for us and therefore he should be chosen. I'm tired of trying to point out that a vote for Obama for change is futile. Perhaps that's why you're getting video instead of pointless debate. It's my assessment that over the past few interminable threads, Peppa and others have made their positions clear. You support Obama because you hope he's better than the others and you want to believe that there's hope to change this country for the better. I don't see any rationale to support that analysis.
I hope you also don't see any rationale for various posters here repeatedly calling me and others here "Commies".
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
What does that have to do with anything? You want me to defend you against people who call you a Commie? How would I know if you're a Commie or not?
You've seen my postings as much as the people accusing me of being a Commie have. If you don't know, how can they?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I guess the difference is I don't care if you're a Commie. Do you know if I'm a commie or not?
No, I don't. Of course, not knowing, I would never be so tactless as to call you a "Commie".
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Is this discussion worth your time? No offense, but it's not worth mine. Onward.
#2. To: All (#0)
#3. To: aristeides (#1)
(Edited)
But Kristol is doing something much more pernicious: he is saying that Obama is faking faith, that his very profession of faith is a "mask" that is slipping, and that Kristol is the person to determine whose faith is genuine and who is a fraud.
#4. To: aristeides (#0)
#5. To: ... (#4)
It's not about the color of his socks, but the company he keeps. Obama has some nasty, racist friends.
#6. To: aristeides, robin (#2)
#7. To: Peppa (#6)
#8. To: aristeides (#7)
I guess I have to remind you that I cannot run audio or video clips.
#9. To: Peppa (#8)
#10. To: aristeides (#9)
Is it courteous to address a posting to someone that you know he won't be able to read (or hear or view, or whatever), when you could put it in a readable form?
#11. To: aristeides (#0)
Kristol is deliberately distorting to paint Obama as a cynical manipulator of religious faith for political ends, rather than as a genuine Christian. He's calling him a lying, Godless communist.
#12. To: Peppa (#10)
Perhaps you could upgrade your machine.
#13. To: aristeides (#12)
If I force people to express what they have to say in words, it makes discussion more rational.
#14. To: robin (#3)
Kristol with that huge plastic Cheshire fake smile? He looks like he's begging for someone to smash is teeth in.
#15. To: Peppa (#13)
#16. To: Jethro Tull (#5)
(Edited)
It's not about the color of his socks, but the company he keeps. Obama has some nasty, racist friends.
#17. To: aristeides (#15)
If you disapprove of my reasoning, why don't you argue about the matter, in words?
#18. To: aristeides (#0)
And it's only the middle of April. What are they so scared of?
#19. To: Peppa (#17)
Yes yes, you and friends have been saying that if people don't vote for Obama they are zionists, or zionazi's.
#20. To: aristeides (#19)
Oops, I left out the link to the Kristol piece to which Sullivan refers: The Mask Slips . And Sullivan is not exaggerating: Kristol really is accusing Obama of being a Marxist in this piece.
#21. To: Peppa (#20)
#22. To: aristeides (#2)
An awful lot like the way some posters here have been bandying about that "Commie" label a lot these days, isn't it?
#23. To: angle (#22)
You support Obama because you hope he's better than the others and you want to believe that there's hope to change this country for the better. I don't see any rationale to support that analysis.
#24. To: aristeides (#23)
(Edited)
#25. To: angle (#24)
How would I know if you're a Commie or not?
#26. To: aristeides (#25)
(Edited)
#27. To: angle (#26)
Do you know if I'm a commie or not?
#28. To: aristeides (#27)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest