Brooding on Swine of the Week

Last week, I declared GOP minority whip Eric Cantor “Swine of the Week” for his lame attempt to blame the Democrats for the threats they’ve been receiving from teabagger-conservatives outraged over Big Health Insurance’s loss of the right to fuck them over.  Cantor’s claim that he, too, has received threats — which he nonetheless refused to make public — was met with hoots of derision and ultimately, my Swine of the Week award.

Then it was discovered that Cantor had indeed been threatened — on Youtube, no less — by some bathrobe-clad offside nutcase by the name of Norman Leboon.  Gaze into the Face of Terror, if you dare:

Well, it doesn’t matter what the guy’s wearing, or if he looks like he’s three sheets to the wind — a threat is a threat, and this guy made one against Cantor and his family, which is all kinds of Wrong.  It is appropriate that he’s since traded his bathrobe for a prison uniform.

What is a little inappropriate is the GOP’s response to this brain-damaged foul ball and his incoherent threats — some of them are a little too giddy about it, as if a threat to a Republican somehow “cancels out” threats to Democrats.  Forgetting for a moment that Leboon seems to be an equal opportunity hater who also threatened Barack Obama last year (even though he donated to Obama’s campaign), Babe the Pig and others, the GOP’s takeaway from this madness shouldn’t be “Nyeah nyeah nyeah, they do it too”.  It should be an acknowledgment that the escalating rhetoric about the Obama administration in general and health care in particular has provoked all kinds of brainless psychos to slither out from under their rocks, and that is not good for anyone.

13 Responses to “Brooding on Swine of the Week”


  1. 1 Brian Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 9:59 am

    I would think that spending so much time generating propaganda would get boring after awhile. Doesn’t it? I mean, come on…

    You can’t really think that presenting this one buffoon, and “discussing” the context passes for having really made any points?

    Politicians get threats all the time. So do radio and TV personalities. It just goes with the territory. It makes it necessary to have someone do “triage” on the threats to pass the apparently serious ones on to law enforcement, but the point is that it happens all the time. And buffoons post videos all the time…

  2. 3 psa Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 11:48 am

    brian, have you had a little too much of the water into wine already? given yesterday’s christian terrorists arrested in michigan one might think it wouldn’t be the best of days for a christianist to be making excuses for uttering threats.

  3. 4 Brian Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    PSA,

    I’m not a Christianist, I am a Christian.

    How can it be that so many liberals are unable to distinguish between isolated cases by out-of-the-doctrine nut jobs, and the doctrine of the group in question? I mean, really: it’s not difficult stuff.

    There is not one word in the Bible lending any support to “Christian militia.” The Bible is the source document for Christianity. If someone calls themselves Christian, then goes through the neighborhood killing all the pets “to leave more food for God’s children,” it is just impossible (from an informed position) to use that to show that Christians are secretly anti-pet. It is the same deal with Christianists (which is the name properly ascribed to these terrorists who call themselves Christian) who want to kill police.

    You just look stupid (or deliberately dishonest) when you use an isolated event like this to vent your anti-Christian position. I am not saying that you look stupid to be anti-Christian, because clearly that is your right; I think it is wrong, not stupid. But to take that position, and try to give it wings on the backs of these terrorists who call themselves Christians is stupid (or deliberately dishonest).

    Someone who is deliberately dishonest in an attempt to further an agenda is a propagandist. You don’t want to be that, do you? I mean, they are so vile, right? — Hermann Göring, David Duke, et al.

    Beside that, I wasn’t even “making excuses for uttering threats.” I was saying that one case here or there does not a movement reveal, and the allegation by politicians that they are getting daily threats seems somewhat akin to suddenly “revealing” that the get votes at election time, in that, despite the difference in nature between the two, they nonetheless are both events which happen all the time.

  4. 5 JJ Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Brian – You seem to have missed the point of my post. I was basically saying nobody should be subjected to threats, regardless of what end of the political spectrum they inhabit. Even douchebags like Cantor.

  5. 6 Janus Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    “I’m not a Christianist, I am a Christian.”

    No you’re not.

  6. 7 Brian Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Yes, in fact, I am.

    But I’d find it interesting to know why you disagree.  Will you tell me?

  7. 8 Brian Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    … nobody should be subjected to threats, regardless of what end of the political spectrum they inhabit …

    I totally agree, eh?

    (Excepting “threats” like “I’m going to work to get you defeated in the next election,” or “I am going to donate time and money to your opponent,” etc., of course.  But I know that’s not the kind you had in mind.)

  8. 9 JJ Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    Brian

    (Excepting “threats” like “I’m going to work to get you defeated in the next election,” or “I am going to donate time and money to your opponent,” etc., of course. But I know that’s not the kind you had in mind.)

    Those aren’t threats, those are perfectly legitimate expressions of taking part in the democratic process.

  9. 10 Brian Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Exactly. That’s why I excepted them.

  10. 11 Cornelius T.Zen Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Good morrow, all!
    Brian: I notice one thing about Christians who quote from the Bible: They tend to quote from the OLD Testament, which is, oddly enough, the Book of the Jews. And they tend to NOT quote from the NEW Testament, which is, appropriately, the Book of the Christians.
    Jesus said that He wished to provide “new wine in new skins.” Are today’s “Christians” so “fundamental” that they refuse to acknowledge what Jesus said about things?
    And to listen to today’s “Christians” *kvetch* about being persecuted? Oy, if they made better chicken soup, they’d *be* Jewish!
    As the Jewish prayer went: I thank Thee, oh Lord, for making the Christians and the Muslims Your Chosen People. For all the good it ever did us, may it do as much for them!
    Good night, and may your God go with you – CTZen

  11. 12 Brian Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 9:03 am

    … Christians who quote from the Bible … tend to quote from the OLD Testament, which is, oddly enough, The Book of the Jews, and they tend to NOT quote from the NEW Testament, which is, appropriately, The Book of the Christians.

    The OT is not solely The Book of the Jews, though there’s reasonable cause for calling the NT the Book of the Christians.  (I would say that that is overstating the case a little, but it’s pretty close to the truth.)

    If you quote only from the NT you will be quoting a LOT of the OT, because the “Book of the Christians” is absolutely chock full of quotes from the OT.

    (Job, at least, predates the Jews, and much of Genesis covers a pre-Jew period.)

    In addition to that, in the NT you’ll find (emphasis added) “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16,17).  And as for what might be called Scripture (with respect to both– or just the New Testament (emphasis added), “…just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Pet. 3:15b, 16).

     

     

    Jesus said that He wished to provide “new wine in new skins.” Are today’s “Christians” so “fundamental” that they refuse to acknowledge what Jesus said about things?

    Some who don’t understand Christianity do, I suppose.  For instance hyperdispensationalist insist that the Church did not come into existence until after the events of Acts 28, and insist that baptism is not for Christians.  Of course, that is unsound teaching, and contradicts the Bible.

    But consider that the author of this new wine constantly quoted the Old Testament to establish that He was not contradicting what had come before.  If we are to have no truck with the Old Testament, then you find yourself in the position of saying that the person to whom we are to listen should not be listened to because He was quoting from the wrong book — a classic catch 22.

    Much of the Old Testament is the presentation of the Mosaic Law (the Law).  The Law is not obligatory upon Christians.  Christians are free to keep the Law, if they so choose — as long as they place no hope in the Law.  But, even in not keeping the Law, there is a lot to be learned from the Law, and the historical results that its incumbency had upon the Jews.  As Paul says, the Law was a burden that they could not bear. There is something to be learned from that for anyone who wants to choose between faith alone, or faith plus works.  Reading about what came before is very helpful in framing how grateful we should be for the salvation that God has provided for anyone who will take it.

     

     

    And to listen to today’s “Christians” *kvetch* about being persecuted?

    Today’s Christians are certainly under attack, but persecution really is too strong of a word for what is happening.  But that shouldn’t come as any surprise, we were told to expect this:

       “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’  If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
       “But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me” (John 15:20, 21)

     

     

    So I am not clear what you are referring to by “Christians who quote from the Bible” tending to quote excessively from the OT, but I would not see any problem with that, even if they did.  And you say “Christians who quote from the Bible” as if Christians ought not quote from the Bible!  What’s up with that?  If you are finding fault with Christians quoting from the Bible, to me that would be like finding fault with Supreme Court justices quoting from the Constitution.  Am I misunderstanding your thrust?

  12. 13 Brian Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 9:10 am

    Janus

    “I’m not a Christianist, I am a Christian.”

    No you’re not.

       I repeat, yes, in fact, I am.

       But I still would find it interesting to know why you disagree with that.   Will you tell me?   Hello?   After all, having made a concrete assertion such as this, it would be good if you would explain yourself.   (Or are you just throwing bombs?)
       What is it that makes one a Christian (the sine qua non), and in what way do I miss that target?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 619,377
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers

%d bloggers like this: