Democrats Assume Commanding Lead…

…in the race for Most Disgusting Hypocrites.

One could argue that they took the prize long ago what with the whole “We Care About the Weak and Dispossessed–and Fanatically Support Killing Babies” thing.

But given the generation of people who have been raised with such tortured propaganda that many seriously think that killing babies is “helping women” let us, for the sake of argument, let that pass.

Even prescinding from that, however, how do Obama supporters look themselves in the eye about all the hopey changey crap and not feel burning shame for his contemptible secret kill lists, total unaccountability, and lies about murdering civilians in wars they themselves protested until their Idol assumed control of them.

Obama supporters: how do you sleep at night? Are you really so dim and prostituted that “He’s not Bush” is sufficient for you to give this murderer a pass?

Extra black humor points: the people in the comboxes at the link kicking themselves for voting for Obama as the “lesser of two evils”. Suggestion for the future: try either “not voting for evil” or even “voting for somebody who is good, even though they won’t win.” Your vote is a widow’s mite. It’s not going to affect the outcome of the election. But it will affect you. The more you cooperate with evil, the worse that makes you. It’s much more important that you become a saint than who wins a stupid election.

  • Tominellay

    Yes, you’re right. I’m tired of having false alternatives crammed down my throat, and I won’t vote for any of them. I joined a party for the chance to choose a good candidate in my state primary; but I’m not married to that party, and I won’t support its crummy candidate against the other party’s crummy candidate in a general election.

  • Scott

    News flash: Iy you guys are searching for the perfect candidate, aint gonna happen. We are all fallen broken sinners in constant need of God’s grace. I for one am ashamed that we live in a society that so vilifies are priests and politicians, that many of the really good potential priests and politicians say “The hell with it” and go in a different direction.

    • Chris M

      I know Mark’s been over this repeatedly, but he isn’t saying “you can’t vote for a sinner” and we aren’t demanding “perfection”. How about just not assassinating American citizens, innocent bystanders overseas, and maaaaybe not being completely enamored of slaughtering the unborn? I mean.. trifles, to be sure, but I can dream, right? Or am I being too unrealistic here to expect at least ONE electable candidate who isn’t a voice synthesizer away from being Darth Vader?

      • http://coalitionforclarity.blogspot.com/ Robert King

        I find your lack of faith in our “democratic” political process … disturbing.

        • Dan Berger

          Like like like like like
          Can you tell I like Mr. King’s comment?

      • Stu

        I’d settle for not ludicrously imperfect, which seems to be the only thing on the main menu of late.

  • Claude

    Though dismayed by Obama’s continuation of Bush national security policy I lose no sleep over my support for the president. Plenty of Democrats are up in arms over the drone program, the kills lists, and expansion of the imperial presidency. We contact our representatives to register our opposition. But the fact is the American people are complacent about the whole sordid anti-terrorism regime. Poll after poll confirms this.

    The implication that Obama is somehow distinctive in provoking civilian deaths is absurd. How many innocent civilians perished in Bush’s war of choice of Iraq? How many American soliders died in the great neocon experiment in global domination that only served to drain the treasury while strengthening Iran as a regional hegemon? Recall that just prior to the invasion Iranians were ready to go to the table but the Bushies would have nothing of it. The whole neoncon project has been a complete fiasco.

    Presidential elections are two-party, and I am resigned to lesser evilism. That is the world we live in. If people want to vote third-party, fine. It’s a free country. But it’s no great mark of virtue to opt out of the game.

    • JEM

      Interesting – including his desire to make sure every abortion is successful even if the kid won’t hurry up and die? For that is his position, well documented in Illinois.

      I have no opinion that either party are saints and increasingly find all of them or at least most of them to be parasites killing the body politic. But if you can make your distinctions as you note I can only hope you really have your eyes open.

      • Claude

        I have my eyes open to the political machinations attending Obama’s votes on “live birth” legislation and how the issue has been demagogued to death ever since.

        I would prefer not to go into the swamp on this one.

  • Claude

    edit: the Iranians

    • Bill

      Claude, you literally made Mark’s case for him.

  • http://www.chesterton.org Sean P. Dailey

    Nice to know we’re still torturing prisoners under Obama.

    • Stu

      But he will be providing them with free birth control, so it evens out.

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    Now that I’m firmly outside the box of the Dem/GOP paradigm, it is disgusting and contemptible to see that the horrible crimes of one’s chosen party are blithely dismissed by saying, “Hey, look at that other guy, he’s even worse!” Then again, many people do this in their personal lives as well.

  • John B

    Yes, yes! We should have all voted for the guy who found joy in the death of a military man

  • Elizabeth

    WOW, BuzzFeed. That’s some serious muckracking.

    • Elizabeth

      *raking

      Sigh….

  • Zeke

    Your single vote IS important. Have we already forgotten Florida in 2000? Certainly Obama deserves criticism, but I sleep pretty well at night. I’m comforted by the fact that the reasoning behind military decisions, unlike Bush, are not based on hallucinatory conversations with God, nor does he conclude that America’s problems, unlike zealots like Santorum, are due to attacks by Satan.

    • Mark Shea

      Glad to hear your praise for clear-headed and *rational* murder. Smugness and self-satisfied superiority must be a real consolation.

      • Zeke

        Yeah, somewhat. Baby steps and all that. Seems better than pretending I’m outraged by the killing of scum like Anwar al-Awlaki, and defending the logic that Americans like you and me are inevitably next on the list. Did I just imagine that Obama ended the Iraq War while the GOP was openly advocating another war in Iran?

        • JEM

          Obama ended nothing. The terms of our continuing presence in Iraq following the end of open hostilities was negotiated and signed by the Bush Administration. Obama had nothing to do with it.

          • Zeke

            Good point, my mistake.

        • enness

          You are so self-evidently great, I guess, that it has never crossed your mind that anybody — especially not anybody with a license to kill — might think of you as ‘scum’?

    • Stu

      “I’m comforted by the fact that the reasoning behind military decisions, unlike Bush, are not based on hallucinatory conversations with God”
      ———————————-
      I suspect the President doesn’t feel as there is anyone higher to talk to than himself.

      • Old man

        I suspect you do not know the President unless you personally know the President.

        Anyway, instead of just letting people say what they think, Mark will find fault if he does not approve of your choice. I am not sure what that says about people who post opinions that are different than what Mark says. I am also not sure what that says about Mark.

        • Stu

          I certainly “know” the public President and that is what I base my opinion upon.

        • Mark Shea

          What are you talking about?

          • Old man

            Your responses (such as above to Zeke. They do not sound like how you would talk to someone in your living room. But it is your blog and you have all of the answers.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      I’m comforted by the fact that the reasoning behind military decisions, unlike Bush, are not based on hallucinatory conversations with God,

      Or, you know, the constitutionally mandated Congressional declaration of war.

  • tz

    http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/gkc13007.htm

    “So that the situation comes to this: The democracy has a right to answer questions, but it has no right to ask them. It is still the political aristocracy that asks the questions. And we shall not be unreasonably cynical if we suppose that the political aristocracy will always be rather careful what questions it asks. And if the dangerous comfort and self-flattery of modern England continues much longer there will be less democratic value in an English election than in a Roman saturnalia of slaves. For the powerful class will choose two courses of action, both of them safe for itself, and then give the democracy the gratification of taking one course or the other. The lord will take two things so much alike that he would not mind choosing from them blindfold – and then for a great jest he will allow the slaves to choose. ”

    The Obama supporters sleep as well as the Bush supporters, content in the knowledge that people will be willing to commit mortal sin by proxy to keep them safe from the terrorists – there are real versions of 24′s Jack Bauer willing to do anything necessary – torture, murder (not kill, murder), massacre, violate any commandment (except Reagan’s 11th, though shall not speak ill of another republican) to keep their bodies safe – even if they damn their souls in the process.

    When presented with two glasses filled with waste – with the option of not drinking either – one filled with fecal matter, and the other with urine, one can pretend the latter is better – maybe sweet from a diabetic – is really flat golden soda, and urine at least is sterile. But it is hard to convince anyone it is palatable enough to actually drink.

    This is what “lesser evil” has achieved.

    At least Obama doesn’t publicly (or in a candid moment) state contempt for 47% of the American people who are dependent – many because of what Wall St. did. Obama at least appears “sorry my friends raped you”.

    • enness

      “Clinging to guns and religion” or “it was like being in a time machine” wasn’t contempt for a whole lot of people?

  • Zeke

    Wonderful, but what’s your point? That essentially refusing to choose has some positive effect, beyond pretending to absolve yourself of any moral culpability for the consequences? I suppose that this way at least guarantees 4 more years as a malcontent because you weren’t part of the decision, and get to rail against everyone in Washington not wearing the brown scapular. But of course that’s a lie and a cop-out. Choice is often between 2 imperfect outcomes; it doesn’t follow that refusing to choose is the solution.

    • Stu

      Who said anything about “refusing to choose?” You don’t have to vote for one of the mainline candidates that the party machine puts in front of you.

    • Mark Shea

      You sound *exactly* like the people who yelled at me for refusing to vote for Romney. Uncanny.

  • http://carnedes.blogspot.com Carneades-Skeptic Griggsy

    Claude, you rock! Pres. Obama already rates amongst the greatest presidents with Obamacare!
    By the way, personhood counts, and the forced pregnancy crowd cannot gainsay that by comparing slaves with fetuses!
    http:///immroalway.wordpress.com

    • Mark Shea

      He may be a murderer, but he’s *your* murderer and since you are obviously of the superior class, his murders can be overlooked–for the greater good.

      • Zeke

        Shea to Democrats: Murderers! Scoundrels making war on religious liberty! Over-educated elitists! I’m shouting at you too, Christians who won’t ban abortion and outright for any reason, even if your child is legitimately raped! There is no compromise! ……. Then wonders why this sort of shrill rhetoric fails to attract political attention or influence anybody.
        -
        Does it really not occur to you that many pro-choice people are comfortable with reasonable laws to limit abortion, but are scared away by the one-note incoherence of those who shriek that even contraception is murder? Similar to the recent debate about gun control, there are reasonable people who don’t own firearms but support the right to do so. They listen to both sides, but the rants of the gun-nutters distance them from that side of the debate, when they could have been their ally.

        • Mark Shea

          Actually, it’s Greenwald to Democrats: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy Devout Catholic he ain’t. But he’s honest. Unlike you.

          • Zeke

            Well, I’m honest enough to take a side, and so enjoy the right to be called a hypocrite. I look for the best answer to the problem. You just select which lever your holy books say keeps you out of hell, which is not to think, and could be done equally well by someone in Sunday school.
            -
            It may be fair to say that Obama supporters are hypocritical for not being vocal enough about “secrets” and “lies” and “total accountability”. But where’s your outrage towards Catholics who overlook Ratzinger’s secret and corrupt handling of the child rape scandal and doubling down on opposition to the aspirations of gay and lesbian Christians? Yeah, I thought so.

            • Mark Shea

              Please. Stop making a virtue out of your hypocrisy. Any dumbshit can “take a side”. Hell, Goering was “honest enough to take a side.” The real guts are shown when you stand against your “side” when it is wrong, as Obama clearly is here. Your tu quoques are bullshit. You make excuses for a murderer when he’s your murderer. Own it. Or repent it. But don’t come here and scold in your righteousness while you shut your eyes to murder. Get your own house in order. Your righteous indignation stinks while you brass it out with your superiority schtick as your guy murders civilian women and children. Grow a little shame.

              As to Ratzinger’s secret and corrupt handling, how do you know it was corrupt if it was secret? From what I’ve seen http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/cardinal Cdl Ratzinger does not appear to have acted corruptly. Indeed, he was the guy who led the charge nail Maciel. Nor can I see what aspirations of gay and lesbian Christians he has doubled down on. He has pointed out the fact that gay “marriage” cannot, by its nature, exist, any more than you can have gay marriage with a warehouse. In short, he thinks “marriage” is a word that means something, not a word that means anything.

              It would be easier to have a conversation if you had just a tad of humility and could consider the possibility that you are capable of error and the people you accuse are something other than incarnations of evil. Atheist moralists tend to Manichaean. Break the mold. Stop arguing to win and try arguing to get at reality. Reality is that your “side” are sniveling cowardly hypocrites who pat themselves on the back for their righteousness and being “honest enought to take a side” like any party apparatchik while Obama is murdering civilians. Be ashamed. Or buzz off. I didn’t put up with Torture Defenders for Jesus and I won’t put up with Murder Defenders for Reason either.

              • enness

                Whoa.
                Color me…a little shocked, but not unimpressed.

            • enness

              Zeke, while it took two to escalate this, the line about thoughtless lever-pulling was particularly stupid.

    • enness

      “forced pregnancy crowd”
      Oy vey. I honestly don’t know how people who spout such nonsense even take themselves seriously.

  • enness

    ” It’s not going to affect the outcome of the election. But it will affect you.”
    As usual, I find it to be the exact opposite. I know what my motives are. My perennial fear is that it might actually contribute to influencing the outcome an election.

  • Zeke

    Hilarious. Labelling all democratic voters “snivelling cowardly hypocrites” is yet another reason you get to sit at the kids table at politics. By your reasoning, Roosevelt and WWII veterans should be condemned as a cold hearted murderers for the collateral deaths of women and children. Wait, unless those who gave us the Inquisition declare it a “just war”. This is the Church that warns us against moral relativism.
    -
    Blogger, please. Show a little stones on Ratzinger’s corrupt handing of the Church sex scandal. As head of the CDF, Ratzinger was in charge of investigating child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of 2001, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, declared Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church’s own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated “in the most secretive way … restrained by a perpetual silence … and everyone … is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication.” Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children. Not only did Ratzinger assist the repulsive Cardinal Law in escaping justice by appointing him to a new post in Rome, this vile human being will be taking part in electing his successor.
    -
    Like any human, I am most capable and often in error. I believe Obama is in error on many positions. You choose to support an opaque and secretive hierarchy that has declared it’s Supreme Leader infallible. It’s like a celestial North Korea.

    • Mark Shea

      No. I don’t call all Dem voters snivelling cowardly hypocrites. Some of them, like Greenwald and various other have, unlike you, the guts to face up to the fact that the man they supported is a murderer who has tyrannically granted himself the right to murder without any due process whatsoever. They actually challenge him on it, while you gutlessly live in denial and shout “NO YOU!” like a six year old. Why not grow pair like Greenwald and make some noise instead of offering nothing but brain dead tu quoques and constant subject-changing.

      You grant the possibility of error? Good. Here’s your chance to admit some error. Here’s John Allen, who is the best reporter on the Vatican in English on the letter you reference:

      2. The 2001 letter

      In some reporting and commentary, a May 2001 letter from Ratzinger to the bishops of the world, titled De delictis gravioribus, is being touted as a “smoking gun” proving that Ratzinger attempted to thwart reporting priestly sex abuse to the police or other civil authorities by ordering the bishops to keep it secret.

      That letter indicates that certain grave crimes, including the sexual abuse of a minor, are to be referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and that they are “subject to the pontifical secret.” The Vatican insists, however, that this secrecy applied only to the church’s internal disciplinary procedures, and was not intended to prevent anyone from also reporting these cases to the police or other civil authorities. Technically they’re correct, since nowhere in the 2001 letter is there any prohibition on reporting sex abuse to police or civil prosecutors.

      In reality, few bishops needed a legal edict from Rome ordering them not to talk publicly about sexual abuse. That was simply the culture of the church at the time, which makes the hunt for a “smoking gun” something of a red herring right out of the gate. Fixing a culture — one in which the Vatican, to be sure, was as complicit as anyone else, but one which was widespread and deeply rooted well beyond Rome — is never as simple as abrogating one law and issuing another.

      That aside, here’s the key point about Ratzinger’s 2001 letter: Far from being seen as part of the problem, at the time it was widely hailed as a watershed moment towards a solution. It marked recognition in Rome, really for the first time, of how serious the problem of sex abuse really is, and it committed the Vatican to getting directly involved. Prior to that 2001 motu proprio and Ratzinger’s letter, it wasn’t clear that anyone in Rome acknowledged responsibility for managing the crisis; from that moment forward, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would play the lead role.

      Beginning in 2001, Ratzinger was forced to review all the files on every priest credibly accused of sexual abuse anywhere in the world, giving him a sense of the contours of the problem that virtually no one else in the Catholic church can claim. In a recent article, I outlined the “conversion experience” Ratzinger and his staff went through after 2001. Beforehand, he came off as just another Roman cardinal in denial; after his experience of reviewing the files, he began to talk openly about the “filth” in the church, and his staff became far more energetic about prosecuting abusers.

      For those who have followed the church’s response to the crisis, Ratzinger’s 2001 letter is therefore seen as a long overdue assumption of responsibility by the Vatican, and the beginning of a far more aggressive response. Whether that response is sufficient is, of course, a matter for fair debate, but to construe Ratzinger’s 2001 letter as no more than the last gasp of old attempts at denial and cover-up misreads the record.

      Moral: If you are going to sling accusations about specialized ecclesial jargon, you need to know what that jargon means. There is, in fact, no evidence that Ratzinger tried to his things from the cops.

      Also, note how you acknowledge that, in some theoretical cloud cuckoo land, you are wrong, while refusing to really face the fact that you are “honest enough to take the side” of a murderer of innocent civilians. There really is no difference between you and the Torturers for Jesus crowd who cheered for Bush. You both excuse your “honest” embrace of evil on the basis of your presumed moral superiority to Those People over there. Be ashamed, you party stooge.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X