Socialist millionaire: People who default on their mortgages are like rape victims or something
posted at 4:14 pm on October 7, 2009 by Allahpundit
Only now, after watching this, do I grasp the full horror of what Polanski did to that little girl. Why, he treated her like some common loan applicant, didn’t he?
Seriously, what is it with media liberals minimizing rape lately? First the Polanski spirit squad rallies to defend a child molester, replete with Obama cheerleader Tom Shales hinting that 13-year-olds should be fair game in Hollywood. Now here comes this guy treating subprime borrowers who took out mortgages they couldn’t afford like they’re Jodie Foster being slammed down on the pinball machine in “The Accused.” My memory of commercial law is hazy but signing your name to a contract does usually imply consent, no? Or does he mean to suggest that the poor, as eternal victims of the great bourgeois conspiracy, can never meaningfully consent? That would fit better with the socialist view of the lower class as essentially children, who can’t fairly be held to the same standard of personal responsibility as middle-class “adults.”
And yet, I can’t stay mad at him. For one thing, his willingness to resort to nutty rhetoric like this ensures that he’ll remain a fringe figure. And for another, check out the exchange he had with Hannity about Jesus and Al Qaeda. Sean dodges the question with a joke but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good question. Click the image to watch.










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
There is no victim in the case of a loan default, unless you want to treat both parties as victims of circumstance. The lender is screwed out of the money he lent, and the borrower is screwed out of the credit he might have had if he’d not defaulted.
Both are at fault. The borrower shouldn’t have signed the dotted line, and the lender shouldn’t have offered it in the first place. That’s what happens in a fully rational credit system unmolested by ignorant (but surprisingly vicious) Marxists like you and Moore.
spmat on October 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM
So those who willingly sign documents that they don’t understand are victiims who are to be excused from the consequences of their actions?
No wonder you are a liberal.
MarkTheGreat on October 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM
This makes it sounds like it’s banning all funds, as possibly a retalitory move for ACORN. If that’s the case I can see why 30 Senators voted against it.
BadgerHawk on October 7, 2009 at 4:58 PM
I haven’t read any of the contracts and frankly I don’t have an opinion on that. Whether or not Moore was correct in saying they were victims is irrelevant to my point anyway. Saying he “minimized” rape is a stretch, and comparing his comment here to any of those made by Polanski defenders (who flatly excused rape) is outrageous.
crr6 on October 7, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Blaming a victim is always wrong; however, those who find themselves reaping a negative outcomes from a contract they committed themselves to are not victims.
Eerily enough, not that far off. Your overall tone is a little different than mine.
Esthier on October 7, 2009 at 4:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
If only boorish Moore had watched @ 2:30 (onwards) before crying rape
macncheez on October 7, 2009 at 4:59 PM
The application of “love your enemy” is interesting (and appropriate)…
…but necessitates a broader knowledge of scripture and God’s will other than being able to quote a couple of lines of scripture.
Quick and dirty bottom line: love doesn’t mean forgoing justice and punishment.
Religious_Zealot on October 7, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Why are you minimizing rape?
crr6 on October 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM
I can remember the days when people actually had to sacrifice and live beneath their means for several years in order to buy a house, and lenders thought if a person couldn’t do that to save up a significant down payment, they were not a good risk for a mortgage. Now, people who bought houses with no money down, with closing costs folded into the principal, with interest only payments, are considered equivalent to rape victims when they default on their loans. Crazy world we live in.
mbs on October 7, 2009 at 5:00 PM
No, not really. It’s something people commonly say when whining about tea party protesters who call Obama Hitler.
Esthier on October 7, 2009 at 5:02 PM
I disagree. Moore is like every other socialist that has ever been: Socialism for thee but not for me. No socialist in history has ever intended to live as one of the proletariat. They enjoy the fruits of capitalism while denouncing it publicly.
edgehead on October 7, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Do you understand the difference between a single incident, conducted by employees vs. a pattern of behavior aided and abetted by management?
Why do liberals cling so desperately to inappropriate comparisons?
MarkTheGreat on October 7, 2009 at 5:02 PM
We’re not talking about Moore calling them victims. Moore says all sorts of outrageous stuff. We’re talking about you calling people who signed a contract, and then failed to live up to that contract, victims. I’m trying to determine if you actually believe that, or if you only meant to point out that Moore had said it, so please help me out.
BadgerHawk on October 7, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Considering Jesus said rich people can’t get into heaven, surely he’d be a fan of Moore’s. I assume he’d turn the other cheek on Al Qaeda, too. There probably would be a parable about the chicken that came home to roost.
Jesus was such a lefty squish.
Enrique on October 7, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Allah or whatever your name is,
the left use Jesus like cryptonite with religious conservatives. It is specious and sophist like all their clever arguments that impress deep thinkers like you.
RobCon on October 7, 2009 at 5:03 PM
THANK YOU EDGEHEAD!
“Some animals are more equal than others”.
Gob on October 7, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Somebody should try to talk Hannity out of trying to do hostile interviews. He just isn’t any good at it.
MarkTheGreat on October 7, 2009 at 5:04 PM
It depends on the contract and the circumstances surrounding the contract. I don’t have enough information on either right now, so as I said, I don’t have an opinion on that.
crr6 on October 7, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Heh. Remember that time where he turned all the water to organic soy milk?
But he didn’t say rich people couldn’t get to heaven. They just have to figure out way to stuff a camel through a needle.
BadgerHawk on October 7, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Just because you love someone doesn’t mean that you can’t defend yourself against them, or apply appropriate punishment when neccessary.
Jesus is telling people not to hate.
MarkTheGreat on October 7, 2009 at 5:07 PM
We’re minimizing you. I’m not surprised that you missed the difference again.
MarkTheGreat on October 7, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Jesus said no such thing.
Read up on “the eye of the needle” as the night portal of the gates of Jerusalem, and how camels had to unload themselves of their burdens before they could pass through them.
MarkTheGreat on October 7, 2009 at 5:09 PM
You were already schooled on this the last time you said that. Jesus never said that. Also, the Bible is full of wealthy people who were considered righteous, including the man who paid for Jesus’ expensive resting place.
Also, remember Job? The guy God rewarded with double his wealth?
It’s insulting when people are this ignorant on Christianity.
Esthier on October 7, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Unless you are trying to claim that the signers of these contracts were the victim of fraud, then you are stretching again.
If you have evidence of that, I’m quite sure that the Obama Justice dept would be quite eager to make examples of some greedy capitalists.
MarkTheGreat on October 7, 2009 at 5:11 PM
But its not rape-rape.
vcferlita on October 7, 2009 at 5:11 PM
I’m pressed for time so I’m going to let you punt on that one. Maybe you’ve never signed a loan for a house before, but there is a ton of redundant paperwork that lays out, in annoying detail, what your responsibility as the recipient of the loan is.
If someone takes a loan for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars without being able to figure out what they will owe, that’s on them. I might feel bad for them if they lose their home because of some crappy circumstances, but they’re not a victim in any sense of the word. If you want to go all dictionary on it, the bank could actually be considered the victim in the situation (since the other party broke contract and now the bank is stuck with a house they have to sell), though I wouldn’t go so far as to actually call them a victim either.
In summary: victim = stupid comparison.
BadgerHawk on October 7, 2009 at 5:11 PM
In fact, it means precisely the opposite. Parents who don’t love their children are the ones who let them eat junk food (all the time instead of something nutritious), keep their rooms filthy and go out at all hours of the night without a care where they were.
Esthier on October 7, 2009 at 5:12 PM
It should be noted that the “rich can’t get into heaven” is another overused and taken out of context verse.
Here is the complete context and note how Jesus moves from simply the rich to speaking about how difficult it is for ANYONE to get into heaven:
And also note at the end the statement that with God ALL things are possible.
Thus to reduce all of this to just “the rich won’t get to heaven” is a massively incorrect over simplification.
Religious_Zealot on October 7, 2009 at 5:13 PM
i understand your reaction – instant retaliation is indeed the republican m.o. – but in this case, women were actually raped.
it wasn’t a single incident. there have been several.
sesquipedalian on October 7, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Why are you blaming the victim?
lorien1973 on October 7, 2009 at 5:15 PM
You DO realize that we are NOT in disagreement?
I think it’s an extremely apt and appropriate discussion to have in regards to Al Qaeda.
But that doesn’t mean I believe that we should let them continue to kill people.
Religious_Zealot on October 7, 2009 at 5:16 PM
I like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly but really, they are not that smart or well informed. When they do these kinds of interviews they are always poor. Sean spent so much time trying to get Micahel Moore to admit he was rich – who cares? The real point is what is he suggesting we have as a system? Does he not agree this is one of the most successful countries in the history of the world and that there have been endless examples of people who have come from nothing to be successful? This system provides opportunity – socialism doesn’t. I think that is hard to refute. No ass-kissing but Michelle and Laura Ingraham are far smarter, more well informed and better interviewers – they should both have their own shows – would be far superior to Sean and Bill.
AmericanUnderground on October 7, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Unless someone is forced to sign a contract, you’re full of it. A contract might be unfair to the person signing it, but that person has the choice of not signing it.
Stupid people and their money are soon parted, but that’s no one else’s fault.
Esthier on October 7, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Actually, the reason that it’s a bad question is because Jesus did not speak to how a third party should act when he sees injustice being done (and that is what government and the military are: third parties, although third parties tasked with protecting a citizenry). Instead, Jesus teaches only how one should act in the face of injustice done to one’s self. Now, this may seem like a pretty big failing, but it actually allows Christianity to adapt itself to any social environment, as it does not place constraints on those who are not Christian. Contrast this to the source material for Islam, which is very much focused on what one should do when others do not follow the Koran, and you see how wise this was.
What is going on in Afghanistan is, thus, something Jesus never addressed. It is the realm of politics, which Jesus expressly rejected when Satan tempted him with all the kingdoms of the Earth. Dragging Jesus into a discussion about war simply reveals one to be ignorant of the Gospel. The same is true of trying to drag Christianity into a debate on any social policy: Jesus rejected politics all together, thus it would be idiotic to try to implement Christian ideas politically.
JSchuler on October 7, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Some feminists think that all sex is rape because women are oppressed by society so they are never in the position to give consent or something. I guess if he believes this too, than he can reconcile his viewpoint that those who sign morgages can never really consent or something.
Joe Caps on October 7, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Since this thread is taking this moron (Michael Moore) too seriously, I will repeat my comment from the first page:
Considering the size of his figure, it must be a pretty frickin huge fringe.
catmman on October 7, 2009 at 5:17 PM
I love al qaeda the same way I love a lame horse. I wish to ease their pain.
warden on October 7, 2009 at 5:18 PM
What he’s really saying is that he tends to believe the person is victimized without any real evidence of such. So his instincts naturally to conclude that victimization happened.
Probably also means he’s never seen nor signed a mortgage contract in his life, or he’d see how many places you have to sign and read before you complete the process.
lorien1973 on October 7, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Michael Moore is the real Sicko.
alliebobbitt on October 7, 2009 at 5:23 PM
AmericanUnderground, I like what you said and agree for the most part (although the fact that a big, fat socialist is rich is VERY important (as a very wise post-er wrote “Socialism for thee, but not for me”.)
I think I said on page 1 that Andrew Wilkow and Jim Quinn (of “Quinn & Rose”) would be the BEST to hoist Moore on his own petard.
(If you peeps don’t know about Andrew Wilkow and “Quinn & Rose” you ought to check ‘em out. It’s an education more than entertainment).
Gob on October 7, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Franken is still banging the “Halliburton evil” drum huh? What a moron – shocking.
brak on October 7, 2009 at 5:35 PM
I’m not a Republican. And I likely know a lot more about the company than you, being a former shareholder who got rid of his shares over ethical disagreements with the company.
I plan to read the full amendment when I get a chance later tonight. I’m holding final judgement until then (how reactionary!), but I’m still highly skeptical it’s as altruistic as Franken makes it sound.
BadgerHawk on October 7, 2009 at 5:39 PM
What’s Pizza da Hut jabbering about now?
It’s amazing that people still have time to listen to this stupid, worthless jackass.
NoDonkey on October 7, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Don’t understand what they are signing?
Then why don’t they hire a lawyer to look over the contract?
Can’t afford a lawyer for a contract consultation?
Maybe they aren’t really ready to buy into the financial commitment that home ownership entails?
Opportunity Costs on October 7, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Hannity spends a lot of time with politics, but I don’t think he really spends a lot of time thinking about religion.
When a self-assured jackass like Moore poses this question, turn the question back. “Do you love the 19 suicidal jihadis who murdered 3000 Americans? And if you do, does that mean you wouldn’t do everything in your power to stop them from committing those heinous acts?”
Moore is a pig who wraps himself in everything from the Bible to Money to Bacon to make himself feel justified.
Nethicus on October 7, 2009 at 5:53 PM
let me know when you find the catch.
sesquipedalian on October 7, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Moore demands attention no matter what. He’s angry, really, and his new movie might have made a few bucks but it really tanked. That pisses him off.
Truly successful people don’t go public to defend themselves.
Liam on October 7, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Because it specifically names Halliburton you ignorant pedophile. Had you actually read the language of the amendment you would know that. Tacking
Furthermore this retarded amendment fails to address the issue specifically.
Why do you cowards feel so compelled to lie to defend your corrupt actions? And if your going to sqawk about rape why did your party of corrupt pigs rape ethics by refusing to deal with Rangel?
Clean your own house first. Until you do STFU
jdkchem on October 7, 2009 at 5:55 PM
i’ve been busy watching the ensign saga.
sesquipedalian on October 7, 2009 at 6:00 PM
After watching the interview………Michael Moron is an idiot! His reason and logic was that of a long time marijuana abuser.
BigMike252 on October 7, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Other than specifically targeting Halliburton and KBR?
If that is not what was intended then your corruptocrat heroes should have been smart enough to write a better statement of purpose.
jdkchem on October 7, 2009 at 6:04 PM
When you can find a real news source to cite for our perusal, let us know.
Del Dolemonte on October 7, 2009 at 6:07 PM
al Qaeda is not just a foe nor even normal enemy. Such is the view of Law of Nations as seen by de Vattel in Book III:
By engaging in Private War, illegitimate to all of mankind, al Qaeda breaks with civilization entirely. They have declared themselves beyond the bounds of all laws and set themselves up as the only ones fit to judge their actions. Each and every member does this and, in joining with al Qaeda, steps away from the protection of the civil law prefering, instead, God’s Law of Nature which red in tooth and claw.
Nor is this isolated to just this venue, as de Vattel worked with Blackstone who wrote commentaries on the Common Law of England. Before the Revolution this is how Private War in the realm of Piracy, which is no different from any other sort of illegitimate war, was seen:
Thus Piracy is a two-fold act in the Common Law. First and foremost it is a violation of the Law of Nations, which is that area of law that we create in our associations with others. The Law of Nations is NOT part of the civil law as noted by Bracton centuries before Blackstone when he wrote his commentaries on the Laws of England. It is one of the strongest views of how we create society via those associations:
In creating families the basis for all other forms of human community are formed: without that basic understanding of the necessity to give up a portion of our liberty to sustain our children, we cannot create civilization. The civil law comes long after that basic association, which makes the law of nations, jus gentium, primary law even when it is unwritten. The writing of de Vattel was to help codify that unwritten law, to have a basis of common understanding solidified so that we could understand this thing we create called ‘nations’. Bracton continues on, and really Mr. Moore, by asking the question, raises the exact law that crosses from al Qaeda to loan holders, but he does not realize it:
Civil contract law comes from that basic law that we create amongst ourselves, the private law of jus gentium. Beyond families, when we build and create and live near to others, we have an understanding of property as the creative act is the exercise of liberty on our own behalf. It is with liberty that we create, that we do associate and that we create the very laws we live by. Liberty goes beyond property and to the very heart of all our rights: without liberty we have no rights. We yield a portion of our natural liberty, which is our negative liberty, to our associated creation which is society, the state and the Nation. In resuming these rights, those in any organization or, indeed, alone, who practice Private War are no longer bound to our loving grace. It is not we who absent them from civil society, but their actions which do so. Those who remain in the civil realm, who have exercised liberty and then are unable to sustain their contracts are bound by the jus gentium for civil penalties if such have been established and private ones if they have not. Still, via Bracton, those private ones are established by area and venue in the Common Law, and not created out of thin air but by common agreement in the local society.
The second venue is the civil law, of course, as that is part of the fruits of jus gentium. Here differing Nations decide venues for prosecution differently. Up to the time of Henry VIII the violations were those of either War or Admiralty, depending on venue for land and sea. The sea based portion, as it deals with the problems of contracts, was moved to the civil law save for those portions dealing with National Letters of Marque and Reprisal so as to harm those who have reverted to Nature and recognize no civil discourse. We withhold love and forgiveness until those who have become such enemies to all that is civilized realize their error and submit themselves to the civil law. As we are not God, not Divine and cannot hold all forgiveness in our hearts and are only mortal, we recognize that the boundaries of our very mortality guide us in creating jus gentium. We add penalties to both the civil and military realms for those who break that basis of civilization. Final forgiveness is for that which has it within them to hand out and we would presume too much and forget that we are mortal if we are expected to hand out forgiveness without seeing repentance and submission to the civil law so as to win back to the jus gentium.
In God we trust.
All others pay cash.
ajacksonian on October 7, 2009 at 6:08 PM
naming halliburton and kbr has to do with the fact that their employees were raped and were told to keep quiet about it.
sesquipedalian on October 7, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Coward and fraud. Too corrupt to rid yourselve of Dodd, Rangel, Murtha, etc. Your pathetic excuse is that you’re more concerned about one man’s affair that he admitted to that you allow years of corruption in your party to continue.
STFU
jdkchem on October 7, 2009 at 6:11 PM
LOL.
“No soup for you!”
Del Dolemonte on October 7, 2009 at 6:12 PM
Then why name them specifically as targets in the statement of purpose? Have you been ignorant all of your life?
jdkchem on October 7, 2009 at 6:13 PM
It’s not even that. Pot makes people mellow, not aggressive.
Moore came from an ‘unhappy’ home, so it make him angry even after all hos years. The anger sticks with him, unlike it does with normal people who get past those little affronts we all suffered growing up.
Moore managed to turn his pain into money. Nothing can be more capitalist and American than that. But that doesn’t satisfy him. He wants more, to destruction of everything outside him. His bucks make him feel somewhat insulated, but not even his riches satisfy him. Normal people, once they get a bank account with seven figures in stock, are satisfied; they can say they ‘made it’.
Moore is a destroyer, that’s his aim. He seeks to trash the very thing that let him beat his grade-school enemies, maybe to make sure those long-past children can never match him. It’s pure revenge.
How many hot girls, in Moore’s time, kissed him? How many wanted him around?
How many boys let such a plumpy bounding kid who probably tripped over his own feet play football with them on Saturday mornings during an impromptu game among friends?
Moore needs to execute revenge. That’s all he’s about.
Liam on October 7, 2009 at 6:14 PM
1) Hates capitalism, even though it’s made him rich.
2) Loves Al Qaeda, even though they murdered over 3000 Americans.
Well that’s about it, the man is a flaming dumbass.
kg598301 on October 7, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Franken needs to research the history of Halliburton and KBR. If he does so, he will find some big Democrat fish in there.
Del Dolemonte on October 7, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Only in America can you borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars, not pay it back, and still be a victim.
blofeld42 on October 7, 2009 at 6:43 PM
My bad, I should have stated explicitly that was emphasising your point, not contradicting it.
MarkTheGreat on October 7, 2009 at 7:07 PM
There is wine named after Moby Moore: Fat Bastard.
Where oh where is Captain Ahab when we need him?
Dhuka on October 7, 2009 at 7:21 PM
No, the fact that it’s an idiotic question means it’s not a good question.
Jim Treacher on October 7, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Only in America can you borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars, not pay it back, and still be a victim.
+2!
gmoonster on October 7, 2009 at 7:38 PM
mmmm mmmm mmmm
macncheez on October 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM
I wonder what he would call people who stole millions from him??
JellyToast on October 7, 2009 at 8:04 PM
But it’s not rape-rape.
Dhuka on October 7, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Reading amendments alone has convinced me that no bill should be over 100 pages, for any reason. Nothing but references to pages in other sections of other bills. What a headache.
That said, I didn’t see anything in the Franken amendment that specifically mentioned KBR or Haliburton (maybe that means I didn’t find the right amendment?). The one I found would strip every single dollar from every company, KBR and Haliburton included, if they have any employee sign a disclosure agreement that they won’t raise issues in a legal court.
BadgerHawk on October 7, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Hannity is fighting with a floppy rubber sword against a bloated lying sack o’ moral-equivalency sh*t who ripostes with a slightly harder plastic foil, and the result is a pathetic, inconclusive drivelfest.
Either fight against disninformationalist slimy scum like Moore with conviction and intelligence and cold fury, or don’t frikkin’ bother, Sean.
profitsbeard on October 7, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Sean Hannity sucked in that interview, I could have done better with half my brain tied behind my back.
kg598301 on October 7, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Oh gross, I am getting ready to eat dinner. Must you?
kg598301 on October 7, 2009 at 9:38 PM
So, how many counts of rape will Obama be charged with when people start getting their C4C trade-ins repo’d because they can no longer afford to make the payments on them?
Left Coast Right Mind on October 7, 2009 at 9:48 PM
You know what angers me is that I didn’t buy a damn home in the “free years” because I knew coudln’t afford it.
How stupid was I?
But Michael Moore would have told me if I had and defaulted when I knew I couldn’t afford it it would be like being raped?
Sorry Michael the statement (while making my blood boil) is just dumb and insulting.
What does Michael Moore know about being raped? just asking.
Gracelynn on October 7, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Ya know Lard A$$, the “poor” weren’t the only “victims” of “mortgage rape,” because we all know for a fact that there were plenty of middle class and upper middle class crackers who spent beyond their means and took out more loan than they could afford to pay back, or bought into ARMs or both. Those jacka$$s won’t find too much sympathy from those of us other white folk who bought what we could afford and lived wthin our means and incomes. I don’t want to hear any more effing sob stories about the a-holes who don’t know what the definition of resposibilty is. Why doesn’t Lardo ever go after the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Waxman, and Frank? This dude is nothing more than a dried up sphincter passing rancid gas whenever he opens his filthy mouth.
Goldy1 on October 7, 2009 at 11:48 PM
How am I supposed to love a beast that rapes my child? Impossible! At least for me.
Gang-of-One on October 8, 2009 at 12:06 AM
He might have sat on a petrified Twinkie that had been lost in his couch.
Left Coast Right Mind on October 8, 2009 at 12:33 AM
And yet, I can’t stay mad at him.
And yet I can stay mad at him and do (stay mad at him).
You see, Moore is the UNFORGIVEN. Metallica and Eastwood understand Moore very well, you see.
But, my goodness! What is this I behold?
A Michael Moore or less without a cap?
Without those lovely chin whiskers?
And in a suit (though voluminous) and shirt (though crumpled) and what looks to be not a clip-on necktie (though Moore is out of practice, to hazard a guess, with his necktie well-askew).
And how well-coiffed my man is today!
Most disturbing part of video I would say. Could Moore have had his little ole feelings hurt by all of the awful references to his appearance? Certainly not! Why, impossible!
Ah . . . . Allahpundit be praised, yet again the religion thing.
First note that we do have some doubt as to Moore`s firm belief in Christianity, but even so, that is indeed his choice. But for the likes of Moore to pose a question on the teachings of Jesus Christ is more than a tad facetious, wouldn`t YOU say? Offensive even.
Here is my view for you Allahpundit:
Whenever possible it is best to apply the teachings of Christ. But when these teachings from the New Testament threaten your survival, I recommend a healthy reference to the Old Testament.
Now, historically, (at times) during and after the fall of the Roman Empire and at other periods and amongst other societies, the pacifistic nature of Christianity has brought about weakness even in the face of evil.
Fortunately enough, however, Christianity must also include the Old Testament. And it is the Old Testament that most strengthens one in time of war. To the Old Testament one may also turn.
Just watch the film Saving Private Ryan. The “sniper” in the platoon quotes from Psalms. And for good reason.
Again, just my views here.
The piece above was grand . . . until the end when the “obligatory” reference to religion was included.
Did not help your piece very much.
Rather retracted from it.
Do you really want to be known as someone who really thinks Moore can ask ANY decent questions whatsoever?
Allahpundit, that is an amusing pseudonym.
Well, it is YOUR blog, after all.
Regards,
Sherman1864pundit
Sherman1864 on October 8, 2009 at 3:19 AM
Must have been something else. I can’t see a Twinkie getting lost or lasting long enough to get petrified around Mike.
ncborn on October 8, 2009 at 7:10 AM
Rape is usually defined as sex forced on one person by another against her will.
So if Michael Moore-on thinks failure to pay one’s mortgage is like unwanted sex, then paying one’s mortgage is consensual sex, and since the borrowers get money from the bank to buy their house, they must be prostitutes!
Gee, who’d a thunk it?
/sarc
Steve Z on October 8, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2