Video: Scary Larry O’Donnell melts down over Romney’s “ridiculous religion”
posted at 8:05 pm on December 9, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Don’t take it personally, Mitt. This happens every six months or so, as regular as the changing seasons.
In fact, to see just how regular it is, follow that last link and compare the April screencap to this one. Same shirt and tie even, huh?
Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Nope, that’s Bill Paxton, he of “Game over, man!” fame.
O’Donnell was a bit player, I hardly remembered him.
And Big Love makes fun of the polygamist sect, not the mainstream Mormons.
None the less, he is completely unhinged.
SouthernDem on December 10, 2007 at 9:04 AM
Thanks, bnelson. It appears that Reid is neither lapsed nor a hypocrite–he’s just wrong. ;-)
aero on December 10, 2007 at 9:13 AM
Note a large number of flashing lights in Vegas.
Speakup on December 10, 2007 at 9:13 AM
Mitt should not be held responsible for the actions of his “fathers”. But he is held up to the standard of the doctrine that he follows, that was established and embraced by the fathers of his faith.
What the leaders say in public, and what their official stance is could be two different things. Words are cheap.
*
Since people demand specifics, here is one:
Polygamy, and specifically polygamy with children. The Mormon church denounces the action, even to the point of ex-communication. However, the official stance, the canonized belief, the true belief that they have not struck from their doctrine. Embraces polygamy, ratifies it, okays it (section 132), even to the point of not placing age limits on it, just that they be a virgin. Which is why Smith, Young, and others had child brides of 14, and they thought that was just fine.
So Mitt does not “embrace his fathers” actions, but he condones the doctrine (btw, people who have fought to have that struck out, have been labeled apostates).
I guess the word that is so popular is NUANCE.
I have a feeling (a burning in the bosom) that when someone can reconcile Smiths and Youngs actions academically while striking the canonized sections out…the ” president and prophet” will have a revelation from God, and have it removed. Just like 1978 and blacks, a convenient way to change doctrine.
right2bright on December 10, 2007 at 9:21 AM
Larry the Cable Guy would be a better choice of panelist.
This clown has been kicked off of almost every network he has appeared on. O’Donnell will now be banned from the McLaughlin Group for his childish tirade, leaving him with only the Jewelry Channel as the sole remaining cable outlet for his buffoonery.
Mature up Lawrence, you remind us of a three year old throwing a temper tantrum. I wonder what his faith is, besides communism.
fogw on December 10, 2007 at 9:32 AM
Face it, the truth is that if the people of the United States had ANY real idea what goofiness Mormonism teaches, and worse, what it has taught in the past, Mitt couldn’t get elected dog catcher in any State but Utah.
Oh, and by the way, God HATES false religions too…throw away your Book of Mormon lies and read your Bible if you think not…
NRA4Freedom on December 10, 2007 at 9:35 AM
Oh, don’t we ALL miss the lovely and talented Bethany.
otcconan on December 10, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Wack job on crack.
saved on December 10, 2007 at 9:49 AM
At the risk of getting targeted for flaming, I’ll stick up for this guy and say in no uncertain terms that … He’s right.
Mormonism is VERY ridiculous, and unlike what the PC police or the LDS-approved sources would like you to believe, having the words “Jesus Christ” in your organization’s name doesn’t make it Christian.
Ryan Gandy on December 10, 2007 at 10:18 AM
I think there are some people who post on here that are at least as bigoted as O’Donnell against Mormons. My suggestion would be to seek psychological counseling. (No ad hominem attack either. I’m being very serious)
davenp35 on December 10, 2007 at 10:28 AM
What a friggin baffoon!
Winebabe on December 10, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Good heavens, the last few posts have seen the anti-mormonites come out in force, haven’t they?
You know, the people who, in no uncertain terms, will tell you what the LDS church “really believes, because, you know, it’s no use asking a member of it–we people who hate it really know what they preach!”
As for O’Donnell–I do hope he has medical attention nearby. And I wonder if he would get himself killed if he somehow ended up in the presence of one of the LDS general authorities by forcing the security to have to defend them.
Vanceone on December 10, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Shades of the Lawrence O’Donnell and John O’Neil exchange. Whoa!
Lefty Lawrence loves movin’ that goal post for conservatives. He’s looks cwazed.
sinsing on December 10, 2007 at 12:36 PM
“A lying, fraudulent, criminal named Joseph Smith” How aobut saying “A lying, murderous, child rapist named Mohammed?”
Hilts on December 10, 2007 at 1:49 PM
If a devote Muslim (who whole heartedly embraced the faith of his father and sought in his life to emulate the works of his prophet) was running for President of the United States of America, would we be discussing these questions:
What exactly are the religious tenets in the Koran?
What exactly did Muhammad do during his lifetime and what example has this prophet set?
(Let’s ask Robert Spencer)
Of course a Muslim would be allowed to run for POTUS and would not be prohibited by law merely due to his religion from running, but there is nothing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING un-American about holding a person to account for his belief system. If a Scientologist were running we would be discussing L. Ron Hubbard and his writings. So, what the hell is wrong with discussing Mitt’s religious texts (that are filled with impossible history and racist sentiments), the actions of Mitt’s prophet (a con-man arrested for glass looking four times who later fabricated a false religion), and the revealed word of God as set forth by his church leaders (that keeps changing).
The history of his religion is replete with examples of the purported word of God being changed for political convenience. Polygamy outlawed by the church to gain Utah statehood. Blacks allowed to keep tax exempt status, “white and delightsome” changed in 1981 to “pure and delightsome” to make the religion seem less racist and more PC.
Similarly, Mitt’s political positions are replete with examples of changes for political convenience. When running for governor of Pro-Choice Mass., he has an epiphany because a close relative died in an illegal abortion that leads him to the position that abortions should be legal and safe. Then months before running for POTUS as a Republican he has another (less convincing) epiphany while studying stem cells that makes him ardently pro-life. Mitt has a well deserved reputation as a flip flopper that takes positions for political convenience. The Mormon religion and its prophet is rightly criticized for changing the purported word of God because it is politically convenient. Do you see a connection, I do. It’s fair comment.
Have we become so PC, that any discussion of religion is verboten, or does it depend on the religion. Christian religions are off the list, but any non-Christian religion is fair game. Where do the Jews fit it. “They can’t recognize the Messiah when he’s standing right in front of them, I gonna trust one as POTUS?” Which religions can be considered in a candidate before I become a bigot?
Mitt made this an issue by trying to whip up hatred for secularists. “The basic foundation of our shared faith can be considered but not the details, or your a bigot.” How convenient for Mitt. The broad basic issues in common should be considered, (to exclude Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Atheists, Agnostics and Secularists), but all the insane things believed by me and my co-religionists are out of bounds. Mitt you cannot have it both ways.
tommylotto on December 10, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Well, considering I haven’t been posting here for a week or so and the gibots are still crawling out of the woodwork like cockroaches, I guess I’m not to blame for their vile rants. Excellent! Romney’s speech accomplished another goal. It forces the gibots to expose themselves to their family, friends, and fellow parishioners. They will still be able to rant anonymously from their grandmas basements, but they wont be able to show their giboted faces in public.
csdeven on December 10, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Tommy,
My 1:54 rant wasn’t directed at you.
csdeven on December 10, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Thanks for the clarification. I was wondering where you’ve been with your favorite son in the news on such a hot topic issue.
tommylotto on December 10, 2007 at 3:36 PM
The problem is that, other than with Islam which is a “religion” of conquest and subjugation and diametrically opposed to the U.S. Constitution, we are suppose to be having a political contest to elect a President, not a religious contest to argue about who’s religion is the most false and weird and to elect a Grand Poo-Baa religious Big Head.
At least that’s what our founding fathers thought.
John McCain stumbled recently when he said that the Constitution had established the United States as a Christian nation, which it most decidedly did not.
In fact the wondrous thing about the Founding of the nation is how consciously and how carefully the Founders went about securing liberty of conscience.
Washington said that the government of the United States was “to give to bigotry no sanction … and to persecution no assistance.”
Jefferson said that his Virginia act for religious liberty was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu, and infidel of every denomination.”
And Madison said, “The religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man.
- Jon Meacham
MB4 on December 10, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Why is it that the biggest nutjobs posting here all feel the need to put all of their words in bold?
Zetterson on December 10, 2007 at 4:29 PM
That last comment was directed at NRA4freedom. NRA4freedom = boldface liar
Zetterson on December 10, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Oh my.
MB4 on December 10, 2007 at 4:43 PM
I wonder where the post I made in response to Vance and davenp35 disappeared to.
I guess its okay to blindly call someone a bigot if they disagree with you.
Ryan Gandy on December 10, 2007 at 5:14 PM
I wonder if O’Donnell’s personal religious beliefs qualify him to comment on anyone else’s. Give it a rest, zealots. Religion is a set of unprovable beliefs, not facts. We are all entitled to our own imaginary friend, and you have hundreds of various belief systems to choose from. Just make sure to pick the right one, or else you might end up in a bad place. For eternity.
I find young men knocking on my door at the unGodly hour of 9 AM on a weekend much less troublesome than: (tens of ?) thousands of sexually abused children, the subsequent Catholic church-wide coverup, and billions of donations wasted in legal payoffs; the endless persecutions of women and non-believers by Muslims; etc., ad nauseum.
Let’s stick with political qualifications, shall we??
fred5678 on December 10, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Larry O’Donnell is on Hugh Hewett
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 6:56 PM
The truly scary thing about that exchange is that the only only person who seemed to know what he was talking about was shouted down by others who didn’t like the truth he was speaking.
That’s scary.
Jaynie59 on December 10, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Which he could have done as Joseph Smith thought he was the second coming of Muhammed. I have a very, very (as in ancestors dating back to 3 brothers who came here in 1636 from England) distant cousin who was a Mormon polygamist appointed to the High Council by Smith himself. He surveyed land in [Mexico] where a Romney ancestor built a home.
Connie on December 10, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Ah yes, “the religion of his fathers”…
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, un-comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin…”
Brigham Young
http://www.mrm.org/topics/miscellaneous/black-skin-and-seed-cain
Mormons lie by NOT revealing their true beliefs. But if Mitt gets far enough in this election, you can bet that the Mormon religion of goofyness will be “outed” once and for all, and Hillary will then look like the only sane person running…
NRA4Freedom on December 10, 2007 at 10:25 PM
intollerance, larry o’dingat is thy name
DrW on December 10, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Standard Mormon fare, people post the simple truth about the false teachings of Mormonism, and followers of Mormonism always reply with either “everyone claims they know what Mormons believe but they never ask us real Mormons” or “all you people are just bigoted intolerant anti-Mormons” or they just call you names.
Fact is, the truth is the truth, regardless os whether you happen to like it or not. But, it’s a free Country, so believe all the crazy crap you want, just don’t try to pass that stupidity off as “Christian” or “normal”…
NRA4Freedom on December 10, 2007 at 11:15 PM
The hypocrisy that bothers me on issues like this is how the left will use Romney’s chosen faith as evidence that he’s outside the norm, because it differs from Biblical Christianity, but they’d rather have you vote for Hillary, whose faith cannot be determined by word or deed.
The specifics of someone’s religion have far, far less bearing on their fitness to be the President than their commitment to honor the oath to protect and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I’d sooner see Romney in the Oval Office than anybody from the left, but I’d prefer a true conservative over Romney. And yes, I’d prefer someone whose faith is closer to Biblical, but then I’d prefer that in my co-workers and family members also, and that isn’t happening anytime soon, yet I’m not quitting my job or disowning my family.
Freelancer on December 11, 2007 at 4:18 AM
Psycho
RobCon on December 11, 2007 at 10:20 AM
For some reason the blowhard jerk is AWOL when it comes to muslims. I wonder why? BTW, take the finger your pointing and…………….
RobCon on December 11, 2007 at 10:23 AM
I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m getting real tired of this who can shout loudest over the top dialogue that’s becoming so popular on all the talk shows lately. Maybe it’s just a symptom of the polarization that has engulfed our politics.
I’m starting to hit the channel button when they escalate to that level.
Ernest on December 11, 2007 at 10:34 AM
I agree, about time someone has a “bouncer” that comes in a escorts these loudmouths off the set.
right2bright on December 11, 2007 at 11:25 AM
If people get into religion vis a vis Mitt… Then the media needs to do it’s job a bit more failry:
OBAMA’S DAD THE POLYGAMIST
James on December 11, 2007 at 9:41 PM
It’s time for your medication now.
WasatchMan on December 11, 2007 at 10:10 PM
From another country where many of the men are polygamists. (My father, from the same tribe, is considered progressive for believing in one wife at a time.)
baldilocks on December 11, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2