Trip Through Your Wires

“Attention all GSBC members and friends of GSBC, it has been requested that you remove from Facebook and/or any other public site, any video showing footage from the Sunday Evening service of March 18, 2012.”

“The irony, of course, is that few Christians actually do any of this.”

“My objection to so many of these profiled [Doomsday Preppers] is that they are preparing to fend off their neighbors, not help them.”

“What matters is whether the five conservative justices are so intent in striking down Obama’s health-care law that they would risk a chilly and divisive 5-4 dip back into the waters of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.

“Insurance companies have been charging women $1 billion more than men for the same coverage.”

“Many people are able to look at them just as dollars on a budget line and they forget that there are real people that are affected by them.”

More oil production in the United States does not mean consistently lower prices at the pump.”

The purely economic man is indeed close to being a social moron.”

“If people you care about have lost a home, they have experienced a devastating loss. Unless they ask, it’s not the time for advice.”

Colorblindness has nothing to do with eradicating racism. It is about denying its existence and power.”

When you’re thirteen and threatened with a bullet through the chest for getting your braces tightened, it teaches you how the world works, and does it in a hurry.”

“Thanks, Jesus, for this food.” “De nada.”

“We need an understanding of what scripture is, and a reading strategy, that allows us to say, first, ‘This was not written to us,’ and then to say, with equal conviction, ‘This is written to us.'”

“What texts are we using to promote practices for which later generations will call us to account? For which of our ‘biblical defenses’ will our children or grandchildren be compelled to repent?”

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

'We must love one another or die'
Sunday favorites
LBCF, No. 100: 'BBC3'
Oh yeah? Well what about Robert Byrd?
  • Matri

    Mmm, the only way the GSBCs can be thought of as not-assholes would be to be taken out of context.

  • Anonymous

    “What matters is whether the five conservative justices are so intent in striking down Obama’s health-care law that they would risk a chilly and divisive 5-4 dip back into the waters of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.”

    What? As if a 5-4 vote upholding the law wouldn’t be seen as chilly and divisive?

    The Supreme Court may rule that the health care law is constitutional.  Or the Court may rule that the health care law is unconstitutional.  But the author’s claim that the proposition that “the health care law is constitutional” is an uncontroversial position is so obviously false that the author has forfeited her right to be considered a serious authority on the issue.

    The finest legal minds have set forth compelling arguments on both sides of the case.  Lower courts have split on the question of constitutionality.  The high court has set aside an entire day for oral arguments.  The idea that the court could rule against the law based only on political, rather than legal considerations is nonsensical.

    And the author cited as evidence for her proposition Nancy Pelosi’s reaction to the question of constitutionality, “Are you serious?” Ed Whelan of National Review responded to the same citation in a different article: She “evidently doesn’t recognize that Pelosi’s “Are you serious?” reply is “famous” precisely because most people understand it to show her utter disregard for any limits on congressional authority.”

  • Nathaniel

     There have been a number of Republican appointees who have upheld the obvious constitutionality of the law. The only ones who haven’t have been notable reactionary hacks.

    There is often a world of difference between judges appointed by Reagen and Bush Sr. vs. Shrub the Jr.

  • Anonymous

    Republican and Democrat judges have ruled on both sides of the insurance mandate.  The mandate was ruled unconstitutional by judge Frank Hull, a Clinton appointee to 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  More than a few liberal judicial scholars have acknowledged that the mandate stands on shaky consitutional grounds.

    In declaring the law obviously constitutional, the author did not even identify much less refute a single legal argument against the law that among the many that have been presented.  She simply waves her hand and pretends that they don’t exist.  
     
    It reminds me of a scene from Left Behind Book #2 Tribulation Force. In his presentation to a global TV audience, Tsion ben Judah cites 109 prophecies that prove that Jesus is the Messiah.  Yet Jews and Christians have argued over these alleged prophecies for centuries.  Jewish counter-missionaries have presented compelling objections to the Christological interpretations.  Yet Tsion ben Judah doesn’t attempt to address these objections.  He simply ignores them as if they didn’t exist.
     
    Feel free to believe in your hear that the law should be upheld.  But don’t be deceived by partisans who tell you what you want to hear.

  • Lori

    Republican and Democrat judges have ruled on both sides of the insurance mandate. 

    The Wingerism “Democrat” in this sentence is a pretty good indication that the rest of the post is not worth reading.

  • Tonio

    Yes, that concept of false equivalence is symptomatic of a view of politics as a competition. I encountered that view when Limbaugh wrongly condemned Sandra Fluke and defenders immediately said, “What about Ed Schultz and Bill Maher, huh?” Those two were simply using vile names against female opponents as hyperbole. Wrong, hateful and inappropriate, but not in the same class as actually endorsing slut-shaming and the sexist ideology behind it.

  • Anonymous

    So you’ll ignore any post in which my opening sentence includes that term used as an adjective?  Good to know.

  • http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/ chris the cynic

    that term used as an adjective

    That noun used as an adjective.  A noun that has, historically, only been used as an adjective by people who were denigrating those described.

    You are not a complete idiot which means that we cannot dismiss your improper usage as an inability to tell the difference between parts of speech.  Instead it is clear that you intentionally misused the word.

    Further in a way that you well know is done by those openly hostile to the people being described.When you open with unprovoked you should expect people to take you less than seriously.

    [Added:]
    Does disqus appear to be breaking formatting more often than it used to to anyone else?

  • Lori

     

    So you’ll ignore any post in which my opening sentence includes that term used as an adjective?  Good to know.

    Keep in mind that if everyone ignores the posts you make that aren’t worth reading you’ll rarely have anyone to talk to.

  • Anonymous

    Everyone doesn’t ignore the posts that I make that you don’t consider worth reading.  And while I enjoy discussing with people who have something relevent to contribute, my primary purpose is to have people read my posts — whether or not they agree, and whether or not they respond.

    But now that I know which posts you’ll ignore, I know what to do to improve our dialogue.  ;-)

  • Lori

     

    And while I enjoy discussing with people who have something relevent to contribute, my primary purpose is to have people read my posts — whether or not they agree, and whether or not they respond.  

    So your posts are just your way of stroking your own ego. Lovely.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Well, that would explain why he still thinks I even want to fucking talk to him when he replies to any posts I make.

  • Anonymous

    That’s just as silly as Lori’s response. I’m happy to get a rational response, but it’s not my primary goal.  If I specifically want to get a response from a commenter, generally my reply will include a question. 

    When I reply to you, I’m not just talking to you.  I’m talking to every reader (including those who don’t respond, a.k.a. lurkers.)  And while you may be silent, many other readers have responded to my replies with rational thoughts.

  • Lurker

     Are you this much of an asshole in real life, or is this something you just save for us internet denizens?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    But he’s writing for the lurkers! :P

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

     That’s a little mean, isn’t it? Aunursa is coming here, where s/he’s outnumbered in terms of political beliefs, specifically to reach out to you. You, personally, Lurker. The least you could do is say “thanks but no thanks”.

  • Anonymous

    That’s a silly response.  I want people to read my posts because my thoughts give them a different perspective to consider.  If you’re not interested in considering a different perspective, then it doesn’t matter to me whether you read my posts. 

    If my primary purpose were to stoke my ego, then I would write comments designed to maximize the number of Likes.

  • P J Evans

    You could start your own blog, where you can say whatever you want.

  • Anonymous

    That’s true.

    But even if I were to start my own blog, I would still enjoy sharing my comments here.  And as long as our host provides discussions on the Left Behind series and allows me to participate, I will.

  • Matri

    I think I figured out how we got this current crop of xenophobes who will believe wishing death on The Others isn’t a bad thing at all.

    This line in Matthew 25:40 (NRSV), emphasis mine: “just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,

    It’s kinda exclusive when you think about it.

  • Donalbain

    What? As if a 5-4 vote upholding the law wouldn’t likewise be seen as chilly and divisive?

    No. Upholding a law is fine and dandy. Striking out a law that has been passed by the legislature and signed by the president would be (ominous music) JUDICIAL ACTIVISM! Remember that? All Good Thinking Conservatives HATE judicial activism, don’t they?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

     It’s one of those rules that apply to Republicans. When a judge tells the government that it has to obey Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, that’s judicial activism. Anything else is OK, unless it helps a Democratic policy, in which case it’s also illegal.

  • Anonymous

    I won’t get drawn into an argument/discussion on judicial activism right now.  Maybe later.

  • Donalbain

     Of course you wont. Because it is a nonsense phrase that means nothing more than “A judge ruled a way I don’t like. Waaaah! I want my mummy!”

  • Anonymous

    Actually, it’s because I’m more interested in the question of the constitutionality of the health care law. A discussion over the definition and usage of “judicial activism” would distract from that.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    If your Constitution disallows society providing affordable, effective health care for its citizens, then you’ve got yourself one shitty constitution.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    The issue isn’t really with that aspect of it. The main issue is something called the individual mandate, which is basically the rule in the PPACA (the health care reform act’s technical “name”) that requires all Americans purchase health insurance or pay a fine. The individual mandate is what makes the cost-savings part of the PPACA work; essentially, by requiring everyone buy insurance, even if they don’t think they’ll be deathly ill tomorrow, it broadens the risk pools for the insurance company and helps hold premiums lower (the young, strong, and healthy help subsidize the elderly or sick).

    Where it gets dicey legally is that it’s unclear whether or not Congress has the authority to do that. One of the issues is whether or not the individual mandate is similar enough to being a tax subsidy to fit under one of Congress’s enumerated or implied powers, or whether it’s an unprecedented power grab by the federal government.

    A single-payer system, of course, would be perfectly constitutional, since the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to tax and spend as long as it is “to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” (Article One), and even most Republicans acknowledge that Medicaid, Medicare, and programs like TANF and SCHIP are constitutional, even if they dislike them in principle.

    But for some reason we decided to take that option off the table, and the PPACA was an attempt to achieve many of the same effect by retaining a mostly privatized health care system with heavy government regulation (such as the controversial-in-the-US birth control mandate, as well as the significantly less controversial removal of caps on lifetime coverage and prohibition against denying care based on preexisting conditions). Systems like the NHS are funded through tax revenue, which is collected for the same purpose (sharing the cost keeps the burden from falling too heavily on people least able to pay for it).

    I honestly don’t know how it’s all going to shake out. The SC could rule entirely on partisan lines, but even if they don’t there’s enough gray area in this part of Constitutional law that you could make a credible case either way, I think.

  • Tonio

    “To us” and “not to us” apparently argues that Christians should read the OT’s rules allegorically as stories. Since these aren’t in the narrative form, such a reading probably wouldn’t be obvious to a casual reader of the text. Gauging the intended audience may be useful if one looks at the text as a historical artifact, but if one is doing that to determine whether one is bound by the rules, that seems both authoritarian and legalistic. I would think that a reader could review the rules and judge the morality for himself and herself, and this would include Christian readers.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Only in America would it be considered even possible for a law clearly to the betterment of people (one provision which kicks in this year or next is the banning of setting insurance premiums based on sex, for example; women can in some cases pay 50% more than men of similar age, etc. do) to be gotten rid of on the sacred altar of “constitutionality”.

  • Anonymous

    The legislative branch is responsible for enacting laws that are for the betterment of the people.  The judicial branch is responsible for ensuring that all laws (both “good” laws and “bad” laws) conform to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

    I’m confident that you can conceive of dozens of hypothetical laws that would benefit the people but that would violate the Constitution.

  • Kirala

     You know, I feel that any law that would be truly beneficial to the people (and not just a small segment of the people) ought to be Constitutional. And if one can in fact conceive of a hypothetical law that would benefit the people more than the rights enshrined in the Constitution, it’s time to think of amending the Constitution. We’ve done so some 18 times (counting the Bill of Rights as one occasion). That’s why the Founders left provision for amendment

    As it is, I personally can’t conceive of any laws that would be more beneficial than harmful which would conflict with the Constitution, and I’d be surprised if anyone could think of dozens.

    Of course, there are differing interpretations of the Constitution. There’s always a balance between the provisions protecting the equality and liberty of individuals, the sovereignty of states, and the sovereignty of the federal government. Violating one aspect in one way is almost inevitable. This is why we seek people with years of experience balancing the spirit of the law to prevent us from getting distracted by the letter.

    TL;DR – if it’s right, it ought to be Constitutional; if what is right is not Constitutional, the Constitution ought to be changed so the law need not be.

  • Tonio

    I think of that principle as the law being made to serve people and not the other way around. I’ve noticed a very strong overlap between Constitutional originalists and biblical literalists, essentially the same mentality applied to two different documents. They seem to view laws not as attempts to balance interests among individuals or between individuals and societies, but as means of controlling people. I’ve said before that this view wrongly treats life as a competition among individuals.

  • Anonymous

    I can conceive of many such laws that would outlaw harmful practices and force people to make “correct” choices that will benefit themselves and the public at large, and yet would violate one of those pesky rights in the Constitution.

    I agree with you about the amendment process as a solution for those — on the left or the right — who are disappointed with a court ruling.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    In asserting that America was founded as a Christian Nation, Dennis Terry not does not care what “the liberals” and “the naysayers” say, he also doesn’t care what George Washington, John Adams, and every single Member of Congress in 1797 said.

  • Anonymous

    Dennis Terry:

    I’m tired of people telling me that I can’t say those words. I’m tired of people telling us, as Christians, that we can’t voice our beliefs or we can no longer pray in public.

    President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast:

    I have fallen on my knees with great regularity since that moment — asking God for guidance not just in my personal life and my Christian walk, but in the life of this nation and in the values that hold us together and keep us strong. I know that He will guide us. He always has, and He always will. And I pray his richest blessings on each of you in the days ahead.

    So my question for Dennis Terry: Christians can’t pray in public? Are you f***king kidding me?

    Terry doesn’t go there in this clip, but as a sidenote, isn’t is interesting how the President can say Jesus Jesus Jesus all day long and have his faith ever questioned, while the founding fathers can go out of their way to avoid the word Jesus but that in no way should be taken to suggest that this is not first and foremost a Christian nation?

  • Tricksterson

    It never seems to occur to Terry or others who engage in similar histrionics that if indeed the current government was as oppressive to Christians as he claims, which would be ridiculous to implement even if it wanted to be since the vast majority of Americans are Christian!, that they wouldn’t be free to complain about how oppressed he is.

  • Liz Coleman

    This last weekend, I almost had an argument with my Tea Party/Libertarian uncle over compassion at the end of the world. He lives in Montana, and said that when society collapsed, and all the city folk came running their way, “they’d just tell them to move on.” His argument, of course, was that resources are limited, and if you allow everyone in, then nobody will have anything, and everyone is doomed. Fair enough, I suppose, but it doesn’t sit right with me, precisely because I hold compassion so high. Now I wonder if I should have pulled Jesus into the discussion.
    My uncle’s a wonderful guy who would do anything for the people he loved, and probably his neighbors, too. The stranger, however, they’re on their own.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    Honestly, I’m OK with that…

    …as long as the person saying that doesn’t hold him- or herself out as some kind of arbiter of morality who gets to sit as the supreme judge over all mortals and decide who should burn in Hell for eternity.

    Because that attitude you’re describing is shared by about 99% of us ordinary folks, who are neither John Galt supermen or Rick Santorum’s model of virtue. It doesn’t take all that much to be nice to people you know and care about, and while it’s definitely a commendable trait I wouldn’t put anyone on the short list for sainthood just for that if they don’t care about others, and I certainly wouldn’t want someone judging me like that unless they actually cared about me.

  • Tricksterson

    A pretty realistic take on this happens in One Second After by William Forstchen, which is about what happens to a small town after America is hit with an EMP.  First they try to help refugees, then as resources dwindle they have to turn away anyone they can’t use and finally they have to cut down help even to their own less useful citizens.  But every step is accompanied by moral wrangling and a sense of guilt in some or all of the people making the decisions.

  • Liz Coleman

    Yeah, and I think that if my uncle showed that he would at least feel bad about turning people away, it wouldn’t bug me as much. (I suspect he actually would feel bad; he’s a really generous, good guy.) I think it’s his insistence on macho arrogance that really bothers me. Probably it’s all just a defense mechanism–he can’t help the whole world, even though he’d like to, so he has to come up with rationalizations for why he can’t help them.

  • Tricksterson

    See, I can easily understand turning people away, including, if necessary, at gun point, because your group has barely enough for itsellf (and later on at one point the town does have to deal not just with needy refugees but with a ravaging horde led by a charismatic whacko).  What I can’t see is not feeling conflicted about it.

  • P J Evans

    His argument, of course, was that resources are limited, and if you
    allow everyone in, then nobody will have anything, and everyone is
    doomed.

    I remember hearing, back in the early to mid-60s, during the fallout-shelter fad, that some of the people my parents knew were prepared to shoot non-family-members who wanted to take shelter with them – even if there was no one else in the shelter, and none of the family were close enough to get there.
    It sounds like the same attitude: only my people are worth saving.

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    “My objection to so many of these profiled [Doomsday Preppers] is that they are preparing to fend off their neighbors, not help them.”

    Yes! So many of these people dream of the collapse of society because they imagine that a swarm of their neighbors will be rushing their house, and they can shoot them, and life will finally be as fun as Call of Duty!

    I remember a rather (unintentionally) amusing forum post I read years ago, where some guy was (with a completely straight e-face) talking about how unprepared everyone was for the collapse of society that was so obviously coming. And I actually remember the exact sentence with which he ended his post: “My AK-101 and flashbangs mean *I* will survive.”

    Okay, first of all, flashbangs? What good are a few flashbangs going to do you in the long run? They’re not great as defensive tools, either. They’re mostly for assaulting a fixed position, not defending one. (Blinding yourself – not a great strategy.)

    But more importantly, no, all the weapons in the world will not guarantee that you will survive. You could be the only armed person on earth, and it won’t do a damned bit of good if you trip down the stairs one day and break your head open. But it was almost hilarious how oblivious he was to the fact that it was obvious to everyone else that he was just shit-scared and latching onto this gun fantasy to allay those fears.

    I mean, hey, I’m scared of various scenarios, too, but I don’t delude myself that there’s any way to guarantee that I’ll survive. There’s not. I might just die before my time at the hands of a natural disaster or another person or just some freak accident. DEAL. WITH. IT.

  • Anonymous

     The people who are making themselves out to be the sole-survivor types when the collapse comes are going to be amongst the first to be turned into Objectivist jerky because they woefully overestimate how prepared they are and grossly underestimate the opposition who will be coming for their marrow.  And, really, the whole “My AK-101 and flashbangs mean I will survive!”* thing is a Mad Max fantasy.  I don’t know if Tina Turner in chainmail is a common theme of such fantasies, but lots of motorcycles, leather, and weird hairdos, and copious amounts of random violence seem to be the unifying themes.  Dunno, maybe it’s their version of Left Behind where they get to say “Neener neener!”

    * – Did you think I would crumble?  Did you think I’d lay down and die?  Oh no, not I!  I will survive!

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Things like that almost make me wish their fantasies would come true just so poetic justice would be served as all the gungoons end up wiping each other out and us sensible folks could get on with getting things right the next time.

  • http://www.oliviareviews.com/ PepperjackCandy

    This reminds me of how the gun nutsenthusiasts were all talking about how once the concealed carry law was implemented in Texas, anyone without a gun would be set upon by robbers every time they leave their houses.

    It has been 17 years and I am as yet unset-upon (Now I half-expect to be mugged on my way home from work tomorrow).

  • Lori

    Yes! So many of these people dream of the collapse of society because they imagine that a swarm of their neighbors will be rushing their house, and they can shoot them, and life will finally be as fun as Call of Duty!

    The thing that always strikes me about this sort of person is that they fancy
    themselves long-term thinkers, but they’re not. They never seem to mentally get beyond the first weeks after the Collapse Of Society. What are they planning to doonce they’ve repelled the invaders? Are they planning to spend the rest of their lives sitting in their hole eating pork and beans and MREs and drinking bottled water in solitary splendor?

    I have a couple of acquaintances who actually do have the kind of skills that would make them more likely to survive if the shit really hits the fan. None of
    them thinks that those skills are a guarantee of anything and none of them have ever even considered building a bunker. As one of them once told me, “Any crisis that I can’t survive without digging a hole in the ground is
    probably not a crisis that I want to survive any way.”

  • Anonymous

    The comments on the Nation post have some toxic stuff there. FYI for anyone who is tempted, as I was.

  • Damanoid

    Am I hallucinating or is there a guy seriously endorsing the Biblical defense of slavery in the comments for that last link?

  • Anonymous

    You aren’t hallucinating; I went there and checked because it seemed so incredible, and he is indeed endorsing the Biblical defense of slavery. I now need to endorse the Biblical defense of drinking wine as a consequence of reading that.

  • Tricksterson

    If you mean Jack Wolford, i didn’t get that but he was being a racist asshole.

  • JessicaR

    And it’s worth remembering that one AK-47 isn’t going to do you a hell of a lot of good against 10,000 desperate, hungry people clutching broken bottles and bits of pipe and sticks. It’s bascially a fantasy for the day you can go George Zimmerman on Those People with impunity.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve always been so annoyed by doomsday preppers.  Nobody can survive on their own.  It’s impossible.  The reasons humans as a species have been so successful is our extreme society.  We all need each other to be successful.  The best way to deal with the collapse of society is to rebuild society.

  • MaryKaye

    I think an example of a law which would be beneficial but (putatively) currently unconstitutional would be a law overturning _Citizens United_ or otherwise limiting the ability of corporations to spend on political advertising.

    I can’t immediately think of another example, though.  It’s possible there’s something in the neighborhood of straightening out the insanities caused when federal and state drug laws contradict each other (my state may be about to legalize marijuana so this is much on our minds).

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

     In my favorite post-apocalyptic novel, World War Z, the survivalists did not do well. The people that did well, and that ultimately survived and reclaimed the planet for humanity, were those who worked together across boundaries.

  • Base Delta Zero

    Insurance companies have been charging women $1 billion more than men for the same coverage.

    This may be true for Health Insurance, but for Life and Auto insurance, premiums are almost universally higher for men.  You can’t say one is wrong without saying the other is wrong as well.  And I wonder, for health insurance, how much of the difference is due to the relatively higher complexity (and therefore, fallibility) of the female reproductive system.Personally, I’m of the opinion *both* are wrong-headed, but if we allow insurance companies to calculate their prices based on gender-derived predictions, then we should not be surprised when they calculate their prices based on gender-derived predictions.

    My objection to so many of these profiled [Doomsday Preppers] is that they are preparing to fend off their neighbors, not help them.

    I imagine this sort either starving in their well-fortified basement, or getting shot trying to raid some settlement/by other raiders.  (Seriously, they aren’t even bright enough to form a gang).

    And it’s worth remembering that one AK-47 isn’t going to do you a hell of a lot of good against 10,000 desperate, hungry people clutching broken bottles and bits of pipe and sticks. It’s bascially a fantasy for the day you can go George Zimmerman on Those People with impunity.

    If you’re a godlike shot, you’ve still got 9,970 desperate, hungry people after you, and now your magazine is empty… (and no matter how many character points you put in reloading (because life is, in fact, an RPG), you won’t be able to stop them all).

    What are they planning to do once they’ve repelled the invaders? Are they planning to spend the rest of their lives sitting in their hole eating pork and beans and MREs and drinking bottled water in solitary splendor?

    Nah, most seem to plan to become raiders.  This is not a good plan, either.

  • Anonymous

    “Attention all GSBC members and friends of GSBC, it has been requested that you remove from Facebook and/or any other public site, any video showing footage from the Sunday Evening service of March 18, 2012.”

    From my Facebook page link to the article:

    Really?! REALLY??? Do these morons actually think that simply because they think that they can wish away the video of their “pastor”‘s (and I use that word loosely — as, apparently, does Rev. Terry) hate-filled diatribe that it’ll actually *go* away? Sorry, guys. One of the dirty little secrets of 21st Century technology is that pretty much *EVERYTHING* photographic, videographic, or cinematographic that gets put on the web *STAYS* on the web. That’s right! From now until the last server powers down (and probably even after that if people download it and store it in personal hard drives or other digital storage media like flash-drives or SD cards) your inhuman screed (and the fact that Rick Santorum was happily listening to it) is now immortalized for God, man, woman and child to see and hear. I can only wonder if your 19th Century brain can comprehend the implications of that little piece of news…

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     I suspect it’s less about making people forget, and more about being able to point and say “What video? I don’t remember these events at all. How DARE you accuse me!”  It won’t convince anyone, but it will let them play the victim of a “Lamestream Media” attack, and the people who *already agree with them* will all nod and cling even more tightly to the redacted version of reality. The very same people who took the clip down are the ones who will most vociferously deny that it ever happened.

    The point isn’t to convince anyone of the lie, it’s to get their own *invested* in the lie.

  • Anonymous

    “It won’t convince anyone, but it will let them play the victim of a ‘Lamestream Media’ attack, and the people who *already agree with them* will all nod and cling even more tightly to the redacted version of reality.”

    (…)

    “The point isn’t to convince anyone of the lie, it’s to get their own *invested* in the lie.”

    Hmmmm… Stalinist historical revisionism meets Evangelical Christianity. Can’t say I’m surprised. The Catholic Church has had a certain amount of success at this in regards to pedophile priests, so why shouldn’t these guys try it in regards to their hatefulness and racism?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X