As the old saying goes, if they didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all.
We should begin by recognizing that the sinful heart of man is everywhere, and affects everything we do. No one gets a pass—conservatives, liberals, and all in-betweeners. The Church is not excluded because the Church is charged to welcome sinners, and part of the price of this is that sinners actually come.
No institution or movement should be charged on the basis of sinful or scandalous behavior that appears there. Were we to start doing that, everybody would be vulnerable to accusation. The issue is rather the problem of being two-faced—demanding that others deal with what you won’t deal with.
Contrary to popular misunderstanding, the Lord did not require us to “judge not.” His teaching on this was not to judge with unequal balances, not to judge with a double standard. The judgment you apply to others will be applied to you.
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you” (Matt. 7:1–2, ESV).
In other words, apply the principle of the Golden Rule to your assessments of others. Do not judge with any standard you would not want applied to yourself—because impersonal karma is not a thing. It is highly personal, God is not mocked because a man reaps what he sows (Gal. 6:7), and—don’t take this in any heretical way—Jesus is the Lord of karma.
Right after the Lord told His followers not to judge (with a double standard), He also told them that they had to be careful to identify dogs, swine, and ravenous wolves.
“Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you” (Matt. 7:6, ESV).
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matt. 7:15, ESV).
This is only a problem with the Lord’s teaching when those who identify dogs, swine and wolves are themselves dogs, swine, and wolves.
And so the central problem with the perverse culture of Hollywood has been their sense of moral superiority, their censoriousness, and their prim denunciations of people who are far their moral superiors. What is happening now is a demonstration of this truth.
Hollywood, a place that has been devoted to mocking God, is discovering that God is not mocked.
We all have a bit of the canine, lupine, and porcine about us. Not to mention the vulpine, corvine, and bovine.
Note how delicious stories of comeuppance are. We delight in them, Hollywood delights in them. Revenge fantasies are a thing. Bad guys must not only be destroyed but must first reject an offer of mercy and attempt one last treachery. That absolves our hero for the death blow–it’s self-defense, not execution. The death must be dramatic and slow so bad guy feels the fullness of his defeat. I expect the last judgement will be like that but better.
How comely is comeuppance coming from those not feeling personally attacked?
Seems like reformed folk always have a dog in every fight.
Perhaps part of postmillennialism’s pathos proceeds from the need to get payback here & now — not just at the last judgement.
“They’ll see US gain control of all the levers on THIS earth, in THIS flesh, even before they get theirs at the white throne.”
Huh? The prevailing millennial viewpoint at my church is postmillennialism, and the attitude you describe here doesn’t match my experience in the slightest.
Brings to mind Jesus pronouncement to the reformed and (self)righteous pharisees, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.”
“His teaching on this was not to judge with unequal balances, not to judge with a double standard. The judgment you apply to others will be applied to you. “
Gosh mayo, I wonder if you missed this part?????
Any way, don’t worry about Harvey, he thinks himself so “righteous”, that he plans to take time off from his busy schedule of being a lounge lizard, to spend more time passing alleged “moral” judgement on the NRA.
‘Wonder if Harvey ever did any movies that featured guns? ????
Gosh dad zero,, you seem to have an inability to acknowledge the duplicity and hypocrisy of your particular tribe. That’s okay, it’s a common failing. Like your buddy katecho (see below), you have a propensity to deflect. I bet your significant other(s) love that! It wouldn’t be the end of the world if once you said, “geez, sometimes we really miss the mark.”
Have you not read Paul’s warning, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
Wow Mayo! You speak a lot of condemnation for a condiment! ; – ) Sounds like you missed the point of this part of the post as well: “This is only a problem with the Lord’s teaching when those who identify dogs, swine and wolves are themselves dogs, swine, and wolves. And so the central problem with the perverse culture of Hollywood has been their sense of moral superiority, their censoriousness, and their prim denunciations of people who are far their moral superiors. What is happening now is a demonstration of this truth.” One way or another, you will get… Read more »
Eric, Christians do have a dog in the fight because those who went before us didn’t stand up for Christ in the marketplaces and in the gate. Part of being a Christian is not hiding our light under a bushel basket but letting our light shine before men so that they might see our good works and glorify God in heaven above.
Not quite certain what you were trying to say, but I did notice a healthy dose of alliteration in your post:
” … comely … comeuppance coming …”
” … reformed folk … fight.”
“Perhaps part … postmil … pathos proceeds … paycheck …”
” … just … judgment.”
If not done with purpose, too bad.
Karma?
It’s almost like the Good Shepherd’s sheep dogs are “marking” Hollywood as a territory!
????
marking our entire nation/culture. Tic, tic, tic…
Yes and no. I’m not going to defend Hollywood — it’s a fairly vile place — but when Weinstein’s sexual abuse became a matter of public record, he was fired from his company, stripped of his honors, and hung out to dry. When Donald Trump’s sexual abuses became a matter of public record, social conservative voters elected him president. So I’d go easy on the hypocrisy claims.
I don’t think this is a fair assessment in either direction. You refer to Weinstein’s expulsion as though that confers virtuous intent rather than desperate PR work. What’s so deplorable about the Weinstein story is how clear it is just how many people were perfectly aware of what was going on and did nothing. Now that the story is out in the open, they’re taking a stand only after it’s in their best interests to do so. This suggests rather the opposite of what you assert, they don’t truly care that much about the behavior. With Trump, your point would… Read more »
Justin, given human nature, you’re going to find awful people no matter where you look. So the mere fact that awful people exist in a given institution does not, by itself, tell us anything about the institution. And I don’t even think you can fairly single out any particular institution for hypocrisy because that seems to be pretty much ubiquitous as well. So my larger point was not to blame or justify anyone in particular, but rather to point out that maybe both sides need to stop making institutional accusations based on individual bad actors. If you read Doug’s post,… Read more »
Re: your first paragraph: I don’t disagree with much here, though the limitation you seem to be trying to impose is impractical for casual conversation. When comparing two groups, it’s virtually impossible not to use broad language that isn’t technically accurate. Further, while sin is not unique to Hollywood, that’s true, Hollywood makes a specific point of deliberately trying to avoid following God. That frames the comparison in a very different light. Someone trying to follow God and failing is in a very different position from one openly despising God. He didn’t walk anything back in the end. He created… Read more »
Sorry for the double, but there’s one thing I couldn’t pass up.
“He did what he did because he’s a hound dog; she did what she did to save her marriage.”
How precisely is it you conclude what her personal motivations were? Do you know her?
Because I have 30 years of experience in the law business which includes handling close to 100 divorces. I know a woman who is trying to save her marriage when I see one. Does she at least get some credit for choosing to remain married? After all, as between her and Trump, she’s the one who’s been married to the same person for 40 years and, as far as we know, remained faithful.
Krychek, I don’t think anyone here would blame her for staying with an adulterous husband. I think the issue was with her badmouthing her husband’s girlfriends/sexual conquests. As someone with experience with an adulterous spouse, I don’t think that is legitimate unless she had genuine reason to believe they were all false accusations. Which stretches credibility.
Jill, I would draw a distinction between women who are victims of unwanted sexual advances, versus women who are willfully and joyfully engaging in adultery. In terms of bad mouthing people, I think the second group is fair game. They knew they were having affairs with other people’s husbands and chose to do it it anyway.
Krychek, I make that distinction as well. I think there is pretty strong evidence that Bill Clinton made the occasional unwanted sexual advance. Did Hillary treat these women as victims of her husband’s sexual sociopathy, or did she treat them as liars/trailer trash/women she may have seen as too lowlife to qualify as victims? Did she choose to ignore that they may have been victims? Did she launch attacks on their credibility while knowing that Bill’s past behavior made it possible, even likely, that some were telling the truth? There is dispute about what Hillary actually did in regard to… Read more »
no woman who threatens a divorce is trying to save her marriage
if 30 years of law did not teach you that, you are of course a lost cause
Bdash, suppose that in a long term marriage where the wife has been entirely faithful and quite submissive, a husband has been frequently adulterous. Letting his girlfriends sleep in the marital bed. Bringing home STDs. Do you really think that a woman who says “No more or this marriage is over” isn’t trying to save the marriage? What other options does she have to try to save it? Or do you believe that because of her inferiority, she should tolerate the adulteries and try not to mind getting the STDs? If he is parading the girlfriends around the child of… Read more »
you saying this women tolerated this for 30 years and just woke up?
she would have left him in 6 months!
bdash, just out of curiosity, is there anything at all bad in the world that you don’t think is a woman’s fault?
Considering you blame men for everything like a typical complementarian the same applies to you.
Technically if eve was not deceived we would not be having this discussion
No, she gets no credit for “choosing to save her marriage” *by means of* attacking the victims of her husband’s behavior. No more than she would get for “choosing to save her marriage” by means of shooting his mistresses.
I would argue that voting for Trump essentially was a vote for a giant meteor to crash into the earth, but be that as it may: All art (which includes Hollywood movies) makes moral statements, so from that standpoint yes, Hollywood sets itself up as a moral authority. At the same time, the Catholic church, which explicitly sets itself up as a moral authority, allowed pedophile priests to terrorize children for generations until it could no longer do so. Evangelical television preachers, who explicitly set themselves up as moral authorities, were found to be a viper’s nest of greed and… Read more »
” art (which includes Hollywood movies) makes moral statements, so from that standpoint yes, Hollywood sets itself up as a moral authority. ” Which is not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about them specifically naming themselves, not as artists, but as people to be the leaders of morality. From the director of the recent financial disaster “Mother!” claiming his film which includes cannibalism of an infant as a metaphor for Christianity destroying the fruits of mother earth failed only because “Americans don’t believe in science”, to George Clooney’s infamous Oscar Speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqDbG9h-f7c , they, not as part of their… Read more »
Justin, you overstate my position. I’m not conceding that she slandered rape victims without evidence, but for sake of argument suppose she did. I have not said that was praiseworthy conduct, or even that she acted out of purely positive intent (though I do think trying to save her marriage was certainly a factor). What I have said is that her conduct was less egregious than his conduct (both *his*, Bill’s and Donald’s), and treating them as morally equivalent is completely off base. I’m not going to treat a woman who has been betrayed by a philandering spouse, and who… Read more »
I have charity for her in that I can imagine how awful she felt. Being betrayed is humiliating and degrading, and her humiliation was witnessed by everyone. But, and I may have a minority opinion here, saving your marriage is important if that is what you want–but that goal doesn’t mean that any method will do or that you can lash out in anger at the wrong person. Lewinsky was not Hillary’s problem. A husband who had sex with a young woman–much, much younger than he–was her problem. He committed textbook sexual harassment, and he had no excuse. Every reasonably… Read more »
K2,
That you get it means you really do believe in a sovereign God. It isn’t lack of awareness, it is something else, isn’t it? It is hard to kick against the goads. Not mocking. My comment is well meant.
JohnM, it’s a complete lack of evidence for the existence of God. I rather like the idea of an omnipotent being who cares about my life; I just don’t see any evidence that that’s the case.
Crickets and Clintonistas seem to have some very strange symbiotic relationship, when it comes to President Clinton’ s Actual impeachment re: Clinton’s sexual harassment of Paula Jones, and Clinton’s perjury and obstruction of justice in that case.
A case where Clinton was acquitted by those very same crickets and Clintonistas. ????
quote: “So I’d go easy on the hypocrisy claims.”
Just this once I need to agree with K2. It is wrong to accuse Hollywood of hypocrisy. In order to be a hypocrite , one would need to actually have a set of moral standards.
soylentg wrote: Just this once I need to agree with K2. It is wrong to accuse Hollywood of hypocrisy. In order to be a hypocrite , one would need to actually have a set of moral standards. Always be cautious of agreeing with Krychek_2. Though their standards are actually immoral, shifting, and inconsistently applied, Hollywood is full of righteous fury concerning their indignation of the week. You can see it pouring out now, from all of those mouths who had been silent about Weinstein the days and months and years before it suddenly became popular to come out against him.… Read more »
Your deflection is remarkable! From the your comments, it would be easy to conclude that you just might be the first person since Jesus to have never had a moral failing. I would love to meet you and discuss how you have navigated your life without once having had a lustful thought for another man or woman. Please tell me how you’ve managed such a feat. Better yet, why don’t you turn that intense magnifying glass on your own soul.
Or maybe, you just have a hard on for Krychek_2?
“So Hollywood definitely has its moral codes, and shaming principles. ” Katcho
“Or maybe, you just have a hard on for Krychek_2?” Joe Mayo
Wow, sounds like certain condiments have “shaming principles” too!
And spoken with the moral authority of mayonnaise!
K2, you really need to come to the foot of the cross. Life’s perspective is much clearer there than stumbling around in the dark away from it. “Look, we just elected someone who admitted sexual assault to the presidency.” Hillary Clinton Please notice the irony here as she completely ignores Bill’s sexual escapades throughout their married life including the presidency and those of her friends in politics and Hollywood. The problem is that the Clintons and others attempt to hide their sexual abuses and then when they are brought to the light of day attempt to cover them up. “I… Read more »
Dave, try as I may, I simply can’t imagine Hillary Clinton with a sex life. She seems to me to be all about power, not sex. It seems to me that sex would be a distraction. She strikes me as fundamentally cold. I don’t blame her for tolerating adultery. It is easy to live in denial, especially when the adulterer is swearing black is white and making you feel you are paranoid and nasty for doubting him. I know what that feels like, and you end up unable ever to tell what is truth and what is a lie. And,… Read more »
Jill, one needs eye and mind bleach to clean themselves from the Clintons.
Back into my bubble where I am happiest!
Dave, most of how I would respond I stuff I already said above and I’m not going to repeat myself, except to say that I don’t understand how a wife who’s been victimized by her husband’s philanderings is at fault for those philanderings. why do you keep blaming her for his misconduct? And if she lashes out in anger, maybe she’s entitled to some Christian charity because of the philanderings that caused the anger.
Hillary was not victimized at all. She only kept her improper sexual conduct out of the public view. They acted like dogs in Arkansas and dogs in the White House. She lashed out in anger only because the misconduct came out in PUBLIC view. She was happy with sexual perversions at the White House as long as they didn’t show up in public. You really don’t know the Clintons at all and your attempts to cover their tracks with misdirection won’t work. She is entitled to righteous indignation for covering up so many other individuals involved in sexual abuse for… Read more »
Dave, I certainly don’t believe everything Hillary Clinton — or any other politician — has to say. I do think that the raw rage that I have seen directed at her for what appears to me to mostly be her husband’s flaws is completely over the top. She’s far from perfect and she hasn’t always told the truth, but neither is she the Satan incarnate that some on the right persist in making her out to be.
Plus, Dave, evangelical willingness to vote for Trump indicates that the righteous indignation directed at the Clintons was more ideological than real. If Hillary Clinton’s political views matched your own, I bet you’d be a lot more forgiving of whatever flaws you see in her personal life.
K2, again you put your way of life on everyone else. You spout your nonsense but it rings hollow. No, I would not be amicable with Hillary even if her views were of a conservative nature. For example: Decades ago, the Clintons partied with our new evil man Weinstein and others of like character. He didn’t change his spots while his wretched sexual perversions were known in and immediately around the movie industry but not to the general public. Hillary and a host of others knew of his illegal activity but chose to ignore it and also ignoring for decades… Read more »
Dave, where did I excuse any of the stuff in your second paragraph? Show me where I even mentioned any of it. I didn’t. So stop putting words in my mouth and imputing to me positions I haven’t taken.
Your third paragraph aptly describes Trump at least as well as it describes Hillary; he is at least as evil as she is. So, if you voted for him, don’t claim that it’s because of her bad moral character. He’s got a bad moral character too.
K2, you really do need to take notes on what you type here. You stood solidly beside the Clintons time and time again on this blog covering up their activities. You stood solidly beside Wasserman Schultz and her famous trio of IT helpers, Awan and company. Let’s not say anything until the investigations are over was your mantra after it became obvious that Awan grabbed huge amounts of classified material. You stood solidly beside the supposed investigation that has not turned up anything substantial on Trump despite huge efforts to do so by Mueller and his band of lawyers who… Read more »
Dave, you made the specific claims that I “excuse[d] her actions concerning the false accusations and imprisonment of a man who made a video that she used to cover her actions in Benghazi. You excuse[d] her pay to play activity throughout her political career. You excuse[d] her moving money for Hati into her own purse. ” My memory is not what it used to be, but I don’t recall those specific subjects having been discussed here. I’ve said, regarding other allegations, that we should wait for the facts to come out, but I don’t recall ever having a conversation here… Read more »
K2, you are way off base again. You are such a poor troll.
I didn’t vote for Trump at all and I don’t think he is morally superior; only that he isn’t as evil as Hillary. Even with the faults you pointed out, he can’t approach the evil actions that Hillary and Billery committed. That was my point.
No moral indignation here at all. I point out your attempts to rewrite history. I point out the gross fallacies and inaccuracies in your thinking and in your considerations of what is right and wrong.
You mean like your attempt to re-write history by claiming I excused her for the video arrest, the pay for play, and for using Haiti to money launder, even though I never said a word about any of those? Pot, meet kettle.
And yes, I get your position: The Clintons are so evil that with the possible exception of Charles Manson, no one can touch them on the wickedness meter. That type of hatred approaches the pathological.
Oh, and one last thing. For all Hillary’s faults, she never, ever would have called a grieving military widow and said, “That’s what he signed up for.”
K2, you are right, because Hillary wouldn’t say that. She was too busy dodging sniper fire in Bosnia to think about calling any families of fallen soldiers. If you have talked with any of the military men who were assigned to her detail, you would understand her complete utter contempt and loathing for anyone in the military. K2, those who haven’t served in the military and had friends die don’t understand that statement at all. Those who haven’t missed meals, missed birthdays, holidays, anniversaries and other special days because they are on duty or deployed don’t understand that statement either.… Read more »
“That’s what he signed up for” may be a true statement, but it’s not something you tell a grieving widow. The man has the human empathy of a cockroach.
K2, how do you know that is not what you tell a widow or sibling or a parent? How do you know? You are only parroting what is on the news. What is your authority for stating this is a lack of empathy. He was doing what he signed up for and he died doing what he loved and for those he loved is not a forbidden sentiment or one lacking empathy. No, you are just stirring the pot because you can’t make headway that Hollywood’s movie industry is far more evil than other professions and that those in the… Read more »
Krychek, listen up. You said: “That’s what he signed up for” may be a true statement, but it’s not something you tell a grieving widow. The man has the human empathy of a cockroach. We’re going to set the record straight. From John Kelly’s press briefing on 10/19/17: The call in question that he made yesterday — or day before yesterday now — were to four family members, the four fallen. And remember, there’s a next-of-kin designated by the individual. If he’s married, that’s typically the spouse. If he’s not married, that’s typically the parents unless the parents are divorced,… Read more »
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp has explained very clearly why this whole episode is just more of the same leftist hit-piece propaganda.
Note that I didn’t vote for Trump, and have no motivation to defend any of his baser antics, but the desperation to try to make hay out of this particular phone call is a new low for the fake news leftist media and this opportunistic political hack of a congresswoman.
Shameful only begins to describe how low these people have to stoop to try to make something out of this.
Krychek,
John Kelly (who has been both the commanding officer of fallen soldiers and the father of one) explained the process of the call and how he advised Trump:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4686979/john-kelly
If you are familiar with the military’s process of handling the death of a soldier, you can skip to the 3:30 mark.
It was certainly the most heartfelt thing I’ve heard from the White House press room podium.
Dave, fp and John, I delayed responding so I could listen to the Kelly tape, which I now have. Assume everything he said to be right on the mark. That does not change the fact that it is completely tone deaf to tell a pregnant widow to suck it up because that’s what he signed up for. There is a time and place to tell people to suck it up but immediately after the loss of a husband and father isn’t it. And it’s an outrageous statement to make in any event, because it essentially says that if he’s stupid… Read more »
Krychek, Trump most certainly did not tell a pregnant widow to “suck it up”. You are latching onto one phrase, being as uncharitable with it as you can by ripping it completely out of context, and trying to make political hay out of it. You heard what John Kelly had to say about the whole thing. Since you acknowledge that what Kelly said is right on the mark, then you will agree that he’s right on the mark when he says, “It stuns me that a member of Congress would have listened in on that conversation. Absolutely stuns me. And… Read more »
No, I did not acknowledge that everything he said was on the mark; I said assume for the sake of argument that everything he said was on the mark. And just for the record, I believe the congresswoman; I think Kelly was lying. Since I wasn’t in on the conversation I don’t *know* what was said, but as between the two of them, I am more inclined to trust her.
Krychek, if, for the sake of argument, everything Kelly said was on the mark, then there is no interpreting Trump’s words as “suck it up”.
You can’t have it both ways. But then again, it’s not like you think your positions through.
At any rate, it’s good to know that you’d trust a low-life, self-aggrandizing piece of human debris who has no respect for the privacy of a grieving widow over a four-star general.
fp, here’s Trump’s real problem with this incident: Let us assume — for sake of argument — that Trump did not say what the congresswoman says he did. Trump’s real problem is that it’s entirely believable, based on all the other outrageous things he’s said, that he would say something like that. He’s attacked hurricane victims, defended neo-Nazis, bragged about sexual assault, mocked POWs, mocked a senator who is dying of cancer, and mocked the disabled. So it’s not really much of a stretch to think that he might tell a military widow to suck it up (or, because he’s… Read more »
Entirely believable, huh Krychek? Yeah, just like it was ENTIRELY BELIEVABLE when James Goldani told the New Jersey Senate Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizens Committee of his honest-to-God truthful experiences at a gay conversion camp called True Directions in Ohio that used electroshock therapy and induced vomiting. Just like those Killian documents that were critical of George W. Bush’s military service were ENTIRELY BELIEVABLE. Just like it was ENTIRELY BELIEVABLE that Hillary’s ascendancy to the Presidency was inevitable. Krychek, I want you to pay attention, because this is important: Just because something is “entirely believable” to a gullible, angry… Read more »
I’m not familiar with either James Goldani or the Killian documents, but the point remains that after you’ve attacked hurricane victims, POWs, the disabled, and cancer victims, don’t expect your denials to be taken seriously when someone accuses you of saying something else that’s outrageous. And it’s my understanding that various fact checkers have shown that Kelly was in fact lying about other things he said at that meeting.
Krychek, you said: I’m not familiar with either James Goldani or the Killian documents… You really are incapable of utilizing The Google, aren’t you? …but the point remains that after you’ve attacked hurricane victims, POWs, the disabled, and cancer victims, don’t expect your denials to be taken seriously when someone accuses you of saying something else that’s outrageous. Krychek, you have any quotes with citations to back up those assertions? I’ve learned by now not to trust the accuracy of accusations without proof by people hostile to those being accused. Speaking of accusations without proof: Last I checked, the burden… Read more »
I didn’t bother googling Goldani or Killian because they are completely irrelevant to a discussion about Trump. Assume Goldani and Killian are both liberals who behaved terribly; how exactly does that excuse Trump’s bad behavior? Do you think if someone is on trial for committing a crime, that it’s a defense for him to point out that other people have behaved badly too?
You keep deflecting to liberals because Trump is indefensible.
No, Krychek, they are completely relevant to my point, which is: Just because an allegation is ENTIRELY BELIEVABLE to a gullible liberal such as yourself, doesn’t mean it’s true. Your whole accusation against Trump hinged on your assertion that it was ENTIRELY BELIEVABLE. That’s a pretty thin reed on which to hang an entire case, my friend. Dan Rather had to learn that lesson the hard way. Savvy? Assume Goldani and Killian are both liberals who behaved terribly; how exactly does that excuse Trump’s bad behavior? That’s called “begging the question”. In other words, you assume that which you have… Read more »
fp, on the contrary, someone’s credibility — in this case Trump — is always relevant, and evidence of reputation is admissible to show credibility. So what’s Trump’s reputation for truth telling? Or for saying outrageous things? Not to put too fine a point on it, but it ain’t good.
“Do you understand that John Kelly, a four-star general, was actually in the room with Trump when he made the phone call? Do you understand the impropriety of being a third party listening in on a private phone call to which you were not invited? Do you understand how the credibility of the former would be greater than that of the latter, especially when the latter has clearly demonstrated that she has a political axe to grind?” Holy Hypocrisy, Batman! Slow down for a second and realize that you keep accusing John Kelly of doing EXACTLY what you falsely accused… Read more »
In addition to what Jonathan said, why is it that whenever someone points out Trump is behaving badly, the first thing his supporters say is “But what about . . .” in this case Goldani and Killian. Yes, liberals sometimes act badly too, but that is not a defense of Trump.
Jonathan, I love it when you come here and chortle about hypocrisy. You once said (comment #147460) that “Maybe shilling for career politicians willing to do anything to get themselves elected just isn’t a wise activity to engage in, full stop?” And yet, here you are shilling for some congresscritter from Florida nobody ever heard of until a few days ago. If you really think that this flamboyant swamp thing isn’t engaging in shameless self-promotion and looking for notoriety, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you. I’ll even toss in the homeless living under it for free. Shouldn’t you… Read more »
I reported on the actions of the factual actions of the widow. She invited the Congresswoman to listen in, it is unlikely that she invited John Kelly to listen in. I did not “shill” for the Congresswoman by asserting that fact. If all you can do in response is make a personal attack, I’ll consider you to be conceded that your attack was factually wrong. You said: “Do you understand that John Kelly, a four-star general, was actually in the room with Trump when he made the phone call? Do you understand the impropriety of being a third party listening… Read more »
You do realize that if Trump did not in fact tell the widow to “suck it up”, as your cohort Krychek said, then the rest of your narrative is moot, right? You’re so desperate for a Gotcha! that you’re missing the forest for the trees. Just about every single person in America with a brain knows that Trump did not call a grieving widow to give her crap. But yet, here you are claiming exactly that. This is a personal attack coming from you if I ever saw one. But it’s a personal attack against a public official, which makes… Read more »
The number of falsehoods in your comment is mindboggling. #1. Krychek isn’t my “cohort”, and I have not defended anything he’s said. #2. Krychek saying something incorrect would not justify you saying something incorrect. #3. You say “here you are claiming exactly that” regarding something I have never, ever said. You just made that up out of thin air. I didn’t say anything even close to that, anywhere, and you accuse me of saying, “exactly that.” #4. You state “this is a personal attack coming from you if I ever saw one” in reference to no personal attack whatsoever, the… Read more »
Jonathan, you said: Your suggestion that I would play a personal ideological card in the moment of someone’s grief is ridiculous and heartless. You get it! You finally get it! Yes, it IS ridiculous and heartless to play a personal ideological card in the moment of someone’s grief. Which is exactly what this congresswoman has done. If she had a beef with Trump, she could have handled that privately and discreetly, but she chose not to. She chose to go public, using the moment of someone’s grief to go on the attack against Trump. So why haven’t you addressed this,… Read more »
OK, I have mixed feelings about how Congresswoman Wilson handled this, but that’s a different question from whether she’s telling the truth. The widow says she is. The widow confirms the congresswoman’s version of events. And, unlike Trump, she does not have a reputation for saying outrageous things or for being a pathological liar.
You lied about what I said, repeatedly, you know that and everyone else can see it. It does not matter at all whether you read it, because history has shown that you will neither admit it nor apologize. As far as your third consecutive attempt to a previous false accusation by making a new and different one….FP, the entire world doesn’t become “the moment of someone’s grief” every time a person dies. You made the ridiculous suggestion that I would attack a victim’s moral beliefs while consoling their loved ones. AFAIK, the Congresswoman did not use her time consoling the… Read more »
Wait, I also just noticed – did you just quote something buried near the bottom of my post, and then try to claim that you hadn’t read everything that came before it as a means of avoiding responsibility for all of your clear lies that I had highlighted?
Jonathan, did you notice that Krychek pretty much bowed out of this exchange after you started squirting your squid ink all over the place?
I think he’s getting bored with this conversation. As am I.
You talk of “everyone” seeing plain as day how I’m such a liar, but I think the only people left here on this thread are you, me, and possibly Katecho.
As always, feel free to have the last word. I won’t be here to read it, but do be sure to turn the lights off on your way out.
Pretty much the way all of the Jonathan interactions go.
Why are you saying that it’s a choice between believing the Congresswoman who has “no respect for privacy” and believing John Kelly? Are you saying that John Kelly was disrespectfully listening in on the call as well? I’m quite certain that that Ms. Jackson had full knowledge that the Congresswoman was sitting next to her when she agreed to take the call from the president. It seems likely that she had no idea who was listening in on the other side of the line. So by your standards of “has no respect for the privacy of a grieving widow.” And,… Read more »
Jonathan, you said: Why are you saying that it’s a choice between believing the Congresswoman who has “no respect for privacy” and believing John Kelly? Ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? Also, remember that it was the congresswoman with the hat fetish who started this whole thing by publicly inserting her foot into her mouth. This is key. John Kelly merely responded. I will keep reiterating this point until you get it through your thick skull. I’m quite certain that that Ms. Jackson had full knowledge that the Congresswoman was sitting next to her when she agreed to take… Read more »
FP, the widow herself has confirmed the Congresswoman’s account. Thus the Congresswoman’s validity as a witness is only secondary to what the widow herself has said. I understand why it is so much easier for you to attack a Congresswoman than attack a widow, but it doesn’t help you case to ignore that inconvenient truth. At this point your goalpost shifting has become unintentionally hilarious: 1. You claimed that the impropriety was “being a third party listening in on a private phone call to whom you were not invited”, and that such a person was not to be trusted. Then… Read more »
Wow, Jonathan. And here I was just thinking that you finally understood the big picture. The main disagreement here is whether Trump told a grieving widow to “suck it up”. Absent a recording of the conversation, which probably doesn’t exist, there will be no way to determine definitively whether Trump was being a mean, heartless bastard. But you are so hung up on straining at gnats that you’re swallowing whole camels. You don’t know for certain exactly what was said, but, by golly, like the good little conspiracy theorist you are, you’re going to flog those itty-bitty details about this… Read more »
“Perhaps you wouldn’t mind explaining why it is you’re bent out of shape for Trump calling a gold star family member a liar when you’re perfectly willing to insinuate that another gold star family member is a liar?” Are you just running a comedy club now? John Kelly was talking about the conversation regarding HER loss, not his own. Who would ever claim that someone from a “Gold Star Family” cannot lie for the rest of their life? And your claims that I am “bent out of shape” for Trump calling the widow a liar are yet another falsehood. I… Read more »
Gotta laugh at someone’s expense. Might as well be yours.
“That type of hatred approaches the pathological.” K2 @ 208555 Again, you miss the boat entirely and apply your standards to others. I have no hatred toward the Clintons; I only point out the solid facts that you deny. Denying that Hillary Clinton was closely involved, if not directly responsible, in the murder of our ambassador and the deaths of four good men is beyond the pale. Trump has done nothing close to Hillary’s Benghazi actions — nothing close. “And it’s an outrageous statement to make in any event, because it essentially says that if he’s stupid enough to join… Read more »
Trump has done nothing close to Benghazi? Really? You haven’t been watching the news this week? There’s this place in Africa called Niger . . .
Your tepid redirects don’t work K2. Was our ambassador to Niger murdered this past week? Hmmmmm No. Did Trump say that a Christian making videos was responsible for any deaths or other nefarious activity in Niger? Did Trump put that individual in jail to cover up his actions? No and No. Did Trump throw his buddy Weinstein out the window when a story broke about Russians, uranium and our western lands? Nope. K2, you are a really bad troll. You are on a Christian blog and yet have no authority or basis for your pontifications. You expect everyone to belly… Read more »
Dave, the fact that there are differences in detail between Benghazi and Niger is like arguing that two car thefts are different because one was a red car and the other was a black car. Yes, there will always be factual differences between any two separate incidents, but four American soldiers are dead in Niger because of intelligence failures and leadership failures, which is pretty much what happened in Benghazi only with an ambassador among the dead. Unlike Trump, Clinton did not ignore the deaths for a week, disrespect the dead, and politicize the military. (This is the same Trump,… Read more »
“Nor do I “run away”; I eventually just get tired of listening to your one-sided diatribes and move on.” K2 @ 208834 K2, that is called running away which you frequently do. You do misrepresent the facts, redirect or attempt to slip away and when caught describe it as one sided diatribe or you use your special medical degree to call posters pathological and other names. There is a huge difference between Benghazi and Niger. It is not the same as car theft with one car red and one black. You completely ignore the facts and insert only false narrative.… Read more »
” That man was tried and put in jail because of her lies. ” There was so much wrong in the above post, but I’m just going to focus on one thing because it personally matters to me. Mr Nakoula was not some poor “Christian filmmaker” who was “tried and put in jail” because of Hillary Clinton. He was a habitual fraudster who went to jail for his continued fraud. He explicitly and publicly violated his terms of parole by using an alias to open a bank account, using an alias to hire actors, lying to the actors about the… Read more »
The single worse thing about his behavior: Think about this. He lied to the actors involved in the film, claiming that it was about some random Arab guy and not Mohammed, because he knew they wouldn’t make a film about Mohammed. He then blasted these actors’ and actresses’ faces all over the world in this Mohammed film that he had made with lies, completely without their consent. And they started getting death threats. And he purposely put the film with Arabic subtitle and promoted it among Muslims, TRYING to start riots that he hoped would lead to broader conflict. Meanwhile,… Read more »
“We knew that the attack in Lybia had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest” Hillary Clinton
“We’re going to have the film maker arrested.” Hillary Clinton
Jonathan no politics here just some facts.
Lovely how you ignore an enormous laundry list of sinful and criminal behavior to talk about Clinton more. Somehow he’s not a career criminal violating his parole, he’s a “Christian filmmaker” on the straight and narrow but for Clinton. Are you asserting that his probation officers would have ignored his obvious, public fraud and probation violations, even though they led to the deaths of dozens of people, if Hillary Clinton had never said Benghazi? Are you trying to assert that he hadn’t violated probation, hadn’t used false alias’s in setting up the bank accounts, movie payments, and distribution, and hadn’t… Read more »
Jonathan, wikileaks put the straight word out on Benghazi. You have to remember the multitude of email that came out showing the intent to shift blame to the film to cover up what happened in Bhenghazi.
Thank you for taking the time to type your disagreement.
Dave, wikileaks is an arm of the Russian government.
K2, exactly how do you know the startling fact that wikileaks is an arm of the Russian government?
I completely believe that the film was used by the State Department for a period of time to shift blame on Benghazi. However, that’s not what got Mr Nakoula thrown in jail. He did that all by himself. He lie d, and lied, and lied, and lied, used fake names left and right, did multiple actions banned by his terms of probation, put innocent people acting in his film in serious danger, then lied again about all that to the public, then lied directly to his probation officers. Benghazi could have never happened and he would have gone to jail… Read more »
Jonathan, the point is that Hillary as Secretary of State and Obama as President both said the film caused the Benghazi riots that killed our ambasaador. The emails showed the attack was not a riot and that Hillary and Obama knew that fact at the time yet they used him for a scapegoat. Hillary said he would go to jail and he did. Trying him for the ambassador’s death would have put in public view the fact the film did nothing in Benghazi and would have exposed facts that the public was not supposed to see. He was an easy… Read more »
Why would Obama/Clinton have cared whether it was “put in public view the fact that the film did nothing in Benghazi” when they both had already long earlier switched the narrative in public view? The administration switched from implying that Benghazi was a mob action spurred by the video to admitting it was a terrorist attack around September 17. I don’t think Mr. Nakoula was even arrested until September 28th, and his trial was much later than that. By the name he confessed to the charges the “video caused Benghazi” narrative had been long dead. When he was arrested, no… Read more »
Jonathan, OF COURSE he ignores Trump to talk about the Clintons. Trump is indefensible. If you were put in the position of having to defend Trump, what would you say? Deflection and changing the subject is his only strategy.
Nice try counselor, but you fail again. You really are a bad, bad, bad troll.
Doug,
Amen, to that.
So glad we can count on Woody Allen to say the right thing: “The whole Harvey Weinstein thing is very sad for everybody involved,” Mr. Allen said. “Tragic for the poor women that were involved, sad for Harvey that his life is so messed up.” However, Mr. Allen also cautioned about rushing to judgment. “You also don’t want it to lead to a witch hunt atmosphere, a Salem atmosphere, where every guy in an office who winks at a woman is suddenly having to call a lawyer to defend himself. That’s not right either.” I guess we’ll be hearing from… Read more »
Every guy in the office? More like every wolf… thank you Mr Allen.
It seems quite clear that no one out there understands the problem, and without that, they don’t know the treatment. It’s like treating a cold with an appendectomy, or a heart attack with St John’s wort.
If only Weinstein had done something conventional like marrying his stepdaughter instead.
If men are going to be punished for complementing women etc , it is a clear agenda to eliminate men for the work force
Good look running a country without men
The Asians and muslims will swallow you up
I don’t think it is all that difficult to figure out. Women in the workplace, if they are mature and serious about what they do, love to be complimented on their work, their ideas, and their skills–just as you do. No man gets into trouble for saying “Great proposal you wrote up!” or “You handled that client really well.” But would you want your boss saying to you, “What pretty eyes you have”? Compliments about anyone’s appearance or perceived sexiness just don’t belong at work. How hard is that to deal with? I’m sure you don’t make inappropriate compliments to… Read more »
women make inappropriate comments about men all the time, if men complain they get laughed at
don’t pretend it is not biased, the desire is to eliminate men from the workforce
the west will decline if it continues this way
Do people ever go to Hollywood with the intent of not selling their bodies for fame and riches?
Ashv there are some who work in the film industry who are not in the business of selling themselves for fame and riches. Usually they are not minor children or women but are professionals in the movie support industry. Cinematographers, caterers, writers, guys who rent equipment for sets or for on the street shots and such. The industry overall does not have a great amount of integrity and right now is lacking on direction and good work.
You are aware that a young man from Pastor Wilson’s church went to Hollywood to be in television and movies? I believe Pastor Wilson has supported the endeavor. I’ve had four friends try to make it in Hollywood. Three of the four were clearly not “selling their bodies for fame and riches.” Two of the four did end up rich and famous – sadly, including one of whom who really was selling her body and who ended up quite terribly traumatized by it, but also one who never really did. You are also aware that the daughter of a fellow… Read more »
He’s quite aware of that, and has said as much to that commenter herself, in almost so many words.