quote:It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. That’s what we are waiting for. That’s part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, that’s how they won. And that’s how they are, even today.
posted
Lisa, from that quote he seems to be saying that Jews are top businessmen and women, people of integrity, and a model for Christians to follow. How exactly is that anti-semitic?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How is that anti-semitic, Lisa?
It's the old Jewish banker schtick. Man, I wish I was a rich Jewish banker with my tentacles controlling the world...
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only possible way I can stretch that quote into something anti-semite is that by saying that the Israelites "won" when they really haven't is overstating the accomplishments of Jews by a dangerous degree. This is in the neighbourhood (a big neighbourhood, perhaps the same "county") of the old "jews as bankers and controlling the world" meme.
Personally, I think kmbboot's point is rather more on the ball.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Larry King Live. They go over his usual Holocaust denial, anti-Israel, peaceful nuclear program stuff, but King also asks if he has any preference as to the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election. He claims no preference because regardless of what candidates say during campaigns, there's no way to know for certain what they will actually do when in office.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reading the transcript of the Larry king interview was fascinating. Ahmadinejad definitely doesn't seem like the monster I've seen him portrayed as in the American media.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you guys kidding? You don't see how that was anti-semitic? Throw out "that's how they won" and look at the base assumption: Jews are in control of the economies of nations. Same old rap.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the "that" in "that's how the Israelites won" meant "they won by having bankers," then I agree that it would definitely be stereotyping. But the way I parse the sentence, the "that" in "that's how the Israelites won" meant "they won by having people of integrity running things."
I haven't read the context, though, since I typically don't follow links to sites I don't recognize when I'm at work. Context could easily change it, since I do see the other interpretation even without the context. It just wasn't how I initially read the sentence.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
McCain has announced that he plans to suspend his campaign and return to Washington DC to help with the economic crisis.
What's worse is that he's asking Obama to join him. Especially after its already been confirmed by both campaigning parties that it was Obama who originally contacted McCain about making a joint statement regarding the economic crisis.
I can just see the wheels turning in McCain's head. Instead of having this discussion with Obama and truly making a joint decision, he decides to go on tv and play the situation as if he's the good guy taking the lead.
McCain knows he's behind Obama in the polls in regards to the economy and now he's ducking out of the debates. Could he be more sneaky??
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: Are you guys kidding? You don't see how that was anti-semitic? Throw out "that's how they won" and look at the base assumption: Jews are in control of the economies of nations. Same old rap.
I assumed he was talking about the state of Israel. I'm not sure what else he would mean by "the Israelites won."
That is, I take the whole bit to mean "our financial institutions are corrupt; we should have Christians running them, because Christians are people of integrity. Look at the success of the Israelites in re-creating the state of Israel; that was acheived by having people of integrity running things."
Of course, I imagine plenty of the people running the US economy are already Christians. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is, I take the whole bit to mean "our financial institutions are corrupt; we should have Christians running them, because Christians are people of integrity. Look at the success of the Israelites in re-creating the state of Israel; that was acheived by having people of integrity running things."
I think that is the kindest possible interpretation of those words, an interpretation that seems totally counter-intuitive to me, and creates a meaning that is the opposite of what I took it to be.
In fact... I kind of can't imagine how that came from the original quote:
quote:It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. That’s what we are waiting for. That’s part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, that’s how they won. And that’s how they are, even today.
Which I take to mean: "Jews have won the battle for control of the economics of our nations, by being the top businessmen, women, and bankers. It is high time we replaced them with people of integrity -- Christians."
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: If the "that" in "that's how the Israelites won" meant "they won by having bankers," then I agree that it would definitely be stereotyping. But the way I parse the sentence, the "that" in "that's how the Israelites won" meant "they won by having people of integrity running things."
I haven't read the context, though, since I typically don't follow links to sites I don't recognize when I'm at work. Context could easily change it, since I do see the other interpretation even without the context. It just wasn't how I initially read the sentence.
The context of the quote is Thomas Muthee explaining that the reason why he is asking the congregation to pray for Sarah Palin is because God's Kingdom needs to infiltrate seven areas of society. According to his beliefs, the economy is one of those areas.
quote:So the second area whereby God wants to penetrate in our society is in the economic area. The Bible says the wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous.It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. That’s what we are waiting for. That’s part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, that’s how they won. And that’s how they are, even today.
quote:That is, I take the whole bit to mean "our financial institutions are corrupt; we should have Christians running them, because Christians are people of integrity. Look at the success of the Israelites in re-creating the state of Israel; that was acheived by having people of integrity running things."
I think that is the kindest possible interpretation of those words, an interpretation that seems totally counter-intuitive to me, and creates a meaning that is the opposite of what I took it to be.
In fact... I kind of can't imagine how that came from the original quote:
quote:It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. That’s what we are waiting for. That’s part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, that’s how they won. And that’s how they are, even today.
Which I take to mean: "Jews have won the battle for control of the economics of our nations, by being the top businessmen, women, and bankers. It is high time we replaced them with people of integrity -- Christians."
In my initial read, "that" refers to the same thing each time: "having people of integrity in positions of authority."
"It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. [Having people of integrity in positions of authority is] what we are waiting for. [Having people of integrity in positions of authority is] part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, [having people of integrity in positions of authority is] how they won. And [having people of integrity in positions of authority is] how they are, even today."
Here's your version:
"It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. [Having people of our religion in positions of authority is] what we are waiting for. [Having people of our religion in positions of authority is] part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, [having people of their religion in positions of authority is] how they won. And [having people of their religion in positions of authority is] how they are, even today."
The difference between our two interpretations is a matter of whether "that" refers to the people in positions of authority being Christian or being people of integrity. You assumed the former and I assumed the latter.
In any event, context clears the whole thing up.
quote:Originally posted by Cerridwen: The context of the quote is Thomas Muthee explaining that the reason why he is asking the congregation to pray for Sarah Palin is because God's Kingdom needs to infiltrate seven areas of society. According to his beliefs, the economy is one of those areas.
quote:So the second area whereby God wants to penetrate in our society is in the economic area. The Bible says the wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous.It is high time that we have top Christian businessmen, businesswomen, bankers, you know, who are men and women of integrity, running the economics of our nations. That’s what we are waiting for. That’s part and parcel of transformation. If you look at the Israelites, you know, that’s how they won. And that’s how they are, even today.
That certainly makes me think that he meant TL's read rather than my read.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: McCain has announced that he plans to suspend his campaign and return to Washington DC to help with the economic crisis.
What's worse is that he's asking Obama to join him. Especially after its already been confirmed by both campaigning parties that it was Obama who originally contacted McCain about making a joint statement regarding the economic crisis.
I can just see the wheels turning in McCain's head. Instead of having this discussion with Obama and truly making a joint decision, he decides to go on tv and play the situation as if he's the good guy taking the lead.
McCain knows he's behind Obama in the polls in regards to the economy and now he's ducking out of the debates. Could he be more sneaky??
That's certainly how it looks. Hard to see what the fallout will be. I'm betting he sends Palin on a solo tour, which is fine since she's the one all the people want to see anyway, but the press will still not be allowed to see, touch or talk to her.
Obama already has done his last rally before the debate anyway, so he and Biden could go back to Washington to work on this mess. I wonder how much being back in Washington really matters though. Frankly I don't think it does, but this is McCain's chance to try and put himself on equal or even higher footing than Obama on an issue the majority of Americans trust Obama more with. If he can come out of this looking like it's Obama who agrees with HIM, then he can try to steal the issue away.
I think it's a stunt move, but potentially a brilliant one. It's the kind of thing the media loves to pounce on. I don't know how the American people will take it in, I think that'll still depend on how this thing plays out, but Bush's doom and gloom threats of what will happen if Congress doesn't roll over seems to have been virtually ignored by Congress and the American people. Apparently somewhere around $700 billion is when people start paying attention.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One rather frightening passage is where Rev. Muthee encouraged infiltration of education.
quote: Number three, or number four, it’s the area of education. We need believers who are educationists. If we had them, today we would not be talking about the Ten Commandments being kicked out of the church, I mean out of our schools. They would still be there. One of the things that you, you know, I would love you to know, I’m a child of revival of the Seventies, and that revival swept through the schools. They are open to preaching, you know, open. Open. Wide open. You go to any school, there is what we call Christian Union. Christian Union is nothing more but a bunch of kids that are born again, spirit-filled, tongue-talking, devil-casting. Is anybody hearing me? All over the country! Is anybody hearing me?
We need God taking over our education system! Otherwise, we, if we have God in our schools, we will not have kids being taught, you know, how to worship Buddha, how to worship Mohammed, we will not have in the curriculum witchcraft and sorcery. Is anybody hearing me?
Yikes! Sorcery? I wonder if he is talking about halloween parties or chemistry class. Sounds way more interesting than anything I was taught in public schools.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Witchcraft and Sorcery was my favorite class. They sandwiched it in there between World History and AP English. Then lunchtime.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I would love to see Obama and McCain coauthor the bill that actually passes.
That would be an amazing show of solidarity for the nation, an amazing and unprecedented historical acheivement, largely because it's so rare that two senators run for president.
Whichever candidate wins, they're going to have to deal with the aftermath of all of this--it makes sense for both of them to get knee-deep in the legislation that deals with it.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sad thing about this is that Rev. Muthee's going to get a free pass on this, while Rev. Wright was driven out of the public sphere in disgrace.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The sad thing about this is that Rev. Muthee's going to get a free pass on this, while Rev. Wright was driven out of the public sphere in disgrace.
Now that I'm home and have read the entire thing, I agree completely.
It also strikes me as kind of funny that while I found Wright's snippets damning out of context but found most of them not damning (and in some cases not wrong) in context, I found Muthee's snippet not damning out of context but utterly horrific in context.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is probably part of why Tom is right -- too many people will only read/hear the snippets.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: It also strikes me as kind of funny that while I found Wright's snippets damning out of context but found most of them not damning (and in some cases not wrong) in context, I found Muthee's snippet not damning out of context but utterly horrific in context.
I found Wright's speeches to be damning in context, but not for the reasons that the snippets would indicate. His invocation of the power of racism and slavery to declare that "God Damn's America," were unpleasant and alarmist, and they also promoted the status quo of racial division and distrust of the American government by black people, who he encouraged not to be a part of the political process, because of America's history. Now, he had a lot of that history correct, but it had no bearing on his message, which was hateful and self-aggrandizing. Ultimately, when you listen to those speeches, you just get a sense of someone drunk on his own ability to yell and invoke the name of God, and to feel powerful.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: McCain has announced that he plans to suspend his campaign and return to Washington DC to help with the economic crisis.
What's worse is that he's asking Obama to join him. Especially after its already been confirmed by both campaigning parties that it was Obama who originally contacted McCain about making a joint statement regarding the economic crisis.
I can just see the wheels turning in McCain's head. Instead of having this discussion with Obama and truly making a joint decision, he decides to go on tv and play the situation as if he's the good guy taking the lead.
McCain knows he's behind Obama in the polls in regards to the economy and now he's ducking out of the debates. Could he be more sneaky??
Well that is plausible, but Obama has also said he would help in anyway he can if asked, but that he is wary of introducing, "presidential politics" into an important political development.
Obama seems to disagree with suspending the campaigns and emphatically thinks the debates NEED to happen. I'm not sure how I feel about the matter, my gut reaction is that all the debates need to take place if reasonably possible.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems unlikely that a few hours for each debate couldn't be found in all the weeks left, especially if they were held right in Washington.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course they need to take place. And they will.
And if the first debate is on a day other than Friday, it actually means more people will probably see it than if it happens Friday.
McCain is doing what he always does in situations like this: he goes to Washington, creates a bipartisan solution that's so far left it ticks off the conservative base, but makes him adored by the mainstream media and the left.
However, he's never been the opposition candidate before, and in presidential elections, people tend to see anything their guy does as being great, and anything the other guy does as being bad.
Ultimately, it's going to come down to whether the McCain solution passes and whether it works. If it does, it will make Obama look as innefectual standing there by himself at the debates as Bush looked during Katrina. McCain will get credit for dealing with a serious issue (and make no mistake--this is a stone-cold-serious issue) quickly and decisively.
If it doesn't pass--and I suspect that in an election year, this is actually going to turn into a huge stand-off against McCain in the senate, a stand-off he's never experienced before when he's reached across the aisle like this--I think he's going to come away looking inneffectual and it's going to delay a solution for political purpouses.
That's actually what I see as the most likely outcome, despite my support for McCain.
But who knows. Maybe with their own jobs on the line this year, some senators won't want to be seen as holding up the show and they'll work with him so they can be seen as helping solve the problem.
Ultimately, the best solution would have been exactly what McCain proposed. Both candidates to go back, both candidates to put their name on the solution, that way everybody could be seen as supporting it in both parties without it giving anybody political motivation to block it or political motivation to get a bad bill passed just to be seen as "the guy who did something."
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There isn't really a dichotomy between working on a solution for the economic crisis and participating in the debate.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Of course they need to take place. And they will.
I don't get how that goes with this:
quote:Obama ... standing there by himself at the debates
---
Edited to add:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: There isn't really a dichotomy between working on a solution for the economic crisis and participating in the debate.
Or, what Threads said. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: [qb] Of course they need to take place. And they will.
I don't get how that goes with this:
quote:Obama ... standing there by himself at the debates
I meant to say, ". . . standing by himself at the debate." Meaning this Friday's. Something is going to happen on Friday. Per the Associated Press:
quote:Asked whether the debate could go forward if McCain doesn't show, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs replied, "My sense is there's going to be a stage, a moderator, an audience and at least one presidential candidate."
From there, things will end up being scheduled such that there are still three debates.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: There isn't really a dichotomy between working on a solution for the economic crisis and participating in the debate.
Listen closely to the announcements of both candidates today.
McCain isn't "just" backing off the debates. He's suspending all campaigning, except for (I believe) one appearance. He's not going on Letterman like he was scheduled to, he's not doing commercials, nothing. It's pretty much the same thing as canceling the opening night of the Republican convention because of the hurricane. There's a big crisis, so let's not be seen as going on about our business like we didn't know it was going on.
At the very least, even if the debate happens, I like the idea of changing the topic from Foreign Policy, as the topic is scheduled to be, to economic issues.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: There's a big crisis, so let's not be seen as going on about our business like we didn't know it was going on.
At the very least, even if the debate happens, I like the idea of changing the topic from Foreign Policy, as the topic is scheduled to be, to economic issues.
That sounds like a great idea. It seems like an ideal time to vet presidential candidates by listening to how they think we should respond to an economic crisis.
I can't think of a good reason for McCain not to do this, as those few hours could be instrumental in informing the electorate, hopefully in such a way as to pick the best person to assure this sort of issue is dealt with in skill and competence. I can't imagine a better way for a presidential candidate to spend three hours, actually.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: At the very least, even if the debate happens, I like the idea of changing the topic from Foreign Policy, as the topic is scheduled to be, to economic issues.
posted
We, as human beings and as a country, tend to make bad decisions when we go into "crisis mode." When we suspend regular activities unnecessarily, we may add heat to a situation rather than adding light.
I think it makes sense for both presidential candidates to meet with the president as he has requested and to take care of their senatorial duties - just as other senators are doing and just as they would do for any important vote. Going beyond that would seem to me to be likely to tangle up the mess with politics and hinder rather than help the situation.
edit to add: I also think it makes sense to stick to the foreign policy topic rather than make this financial situation a political football while we are still determining what is going on.
There is a difference between a timely response and a rush to react. Panic and hurried judgments will make things worse, not better.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: At the very least, even if the debate happens, I like the idea of changing the topic from Foreign Policy, as the topic is scheduled to be, to economic issues.
I like that idea.
IIRC, the economy usually comes first -- but both campaigns believed that they would have an advantage if they moved FP to the front and reschedule economy (under "Domestic Issues") last. The schedule was written some time before all of this happened.
quote: I can't imagine a better way for a presidential candidate to spend three hours, actually.
Then you're not using your imagination.
Don't get me wrong--I absolutely agree that there are a ton of reasons why people will see this as dodging. For all I know, McCain is just dodging.
But imagine that one of the presidential candidates was, say, a key official in FEMA. Should they go on with the debates during Katrina?
Again--I'm not saying the answer is definitively yes or no. I am just saying there's a debate there, with valid reasoning on both sides.
Like I said in my post--I think it's a mistake. I think McCain is going to come out of this looking bad for not debating, and looking bad at the politically-motivated stonewalling he faces in the Senate when he gets back to Washington.
Again, I'm by no means arguing that McCain's response was the only one. However, it also isn't insane. The debates can be rescheduled. Nobody's going to miss out on their chance to see the candidates speak and decide who to vote for. But the situation is serious, and failing to understand the seriousness of situations soon enough is one of the biggest faults the public see in the current administration. McCain's actions are clearly more motivated by the desire to distance himself from Bush in terms of Leadership Capacity than of trying to distance himself physically from Obama and the TV cameras on Friday night.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
