The response (from The Daily Beast):
That’s some deep self-reflection going on there.
Does this mean that they’re now going to pray that the days of the media are short?
Isn’t this prayer thing a retread of some previous event? I think I remember this being in this thread before.
You’re not the only one. I wouldn’t be surprised if it came up in this thread no less. But it’s definitely not the first time it’s been used in reference to Obama.
16 November 2009: Biblical anti-Obama slogan: Use of Psalm 109:8 funny or sinister? from one of the better news organizations out there, and the nicely named Christian Science Monitor.
Edit: And from 22 November 2009: “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8.” Is this over the line? That’s the first thread I found. It’s in GD, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it came up elsewhere on the Boards.
Wait, what date did BG start that thread on? Odd. Or maybe a bit disturbing.
Curiosity bites. Looking to see how early a reference I could find, someone using that quote for an electoral advantage. Couldn’t get past 2009, but shit, it couldn’t have been sitting there forever and nobody picked it up to hit somebody with!
Maybe find it in an article about how “Little Jimmy” Madison is a blackguard, a scoundrel and a despoiler of maidens, from the Pawntucket Thuderbolt, circa 1794.
Any pals or gals in the Smartass Covenant with the mad Google monkey?
Probably the sort of thing Dylann Roof thought he heard. I suppose there’s an outside chance Senator Nutjob (Perdue) takes his own advice and tries to do the job himself, if not on the current president, then on the next one.
His spokesperson said he wasn’t serious. I suppose we have to go with that.
BTW, Purdue (chicken mogul) not the same as Perdue (nutcase Senator)
Yes, the following isn’t “Biblical” (then again, smiting your enemies wasn’t exactly frowned upon either )…
In 1994, Jesse “The Senator” Helms made a joke about president Clinton: “Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard.” This was on the anniversary of the Kennedy Assassination.
The media made a national story out of it, and Helms blew a fuse because he’d met it in jest. There was a video of Helms give a tongue-lashing to the press (which savoured ever moment of it). It was rather reminiscent of the Biggus Dickus scene in The Life of Brian, but without snickering soldiers.
A sampling of Republican responses to the mass shooting at a gay night club in Orlando:
Donald Trump: Congratulate me on being right about Islamic terrorists
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick of Texas: Galatians 6:7 - “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.”
Fox News: It’s Obama’s fault for not saying “Radical Islamic terrorists” enough.
This should probably go under Evil Republican Idea of the day.
Every time this comes up I scratch my head wondering what the deal is. Do right wingers think if Obama just says the magic words “radical Islamic terrorism” that al-Qaeda and ISIS will just fold? “Oh no, he said those words, guess the heretic Christians win. Time for us to go join the Methodists”? Do they really think our government and security forces aren’t trying to identify and eliminate threats to Americans?
Or is it just a shorthand dog whistle for “Obama’s really one of them, you know, not one of us true red-blooded USA folks. If he were he’d say those special words!!”
Yeah, yeah, I know the answer. It just makes me sad there’s enough dimwitted yokels to make it a thing.
Not doubting anything you wrote here. But did you get all these quotes from a single article? And if so, my I have a link? (I suspect you got them from sevral articles though.)
Thanks.
It’s more that in order for the American public to be rallied, the enemy has to be named. If we’d use the rhetoric of today during WWII, Americans would be very confused: are we fighting Germany, or only the Nazis in Germany? Are most Japanese people good people who reject their extremist leaders and don’t want war with the US? Does this alliance of countries against us have a name? I hear crazy conservatives call them the “Axis powers”, but the President simply calls them “adversaries.”
“It’s more that for the German public to be rallied, the enemy has to be named. It isn’t enough to say ‘our enemies.’ We must name The Jews.” Some fellow with a silly moustache.
Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
It’s from several places.
Trump - Trump gets self-congratulatory after Orlando mass shooting - CBS News
We put Japanese-Americans in camps during WW2. Should we put Muslims in camps too?
Michelle Malkin thought so. She thought both were just peachy. Wrote an entire book about it.
In WWII our leadership identified the enemy as “Nazi Germans” to make clear we were fighting Germany as well as Nazism.
This post reads as if you think our leadership should identify our enemy as “Islamic Extremists” to make clear we are fighting Islam as well as extremism.
I think this is exactly correct. This mania to “name the enemy, and make sure you include Islam in there, okay, Sparky?” seems to be the angle to, well, name Islam itself as our enemy. Which, if these same conservatives actually valued the First Amendment as much as they treasure the Second, would make obvious that the notion is laughably unAmerican and unconstitutional on its face.
The comparison to the Axis doesn’t really hold. What nation (other than ISIL, which is a nation only in its own mind) are we fighting in this global war on terrorism? Are we only to combat Islamic terrorists, and not the Dylann Roofs or Adam Lanzas of the world? Where’s our congressional declaration of war, so we know which capital to invade and which national leader to oust so we can proclaim victory?
Declaring war on an entire religion is not wise. I can’t imagine how that could possibly turn out well. Let’s focus on stopping the individual criminals here, and maybe, I dunno, figuring out some way (background check) somebody being watched by the FBI (background check) might be prevented from working for a mercenary operation and purchasing weapons (background check). Or does a job with a mercenary company count as a well-regulated militia? I really can’t keep track.
We will never win the war until we can reduce the enemy to a single syllable. In WWII, we fought the Krauts and the Japs. We didn’t confuse GI Joe and Rosie the Riveter with multi-syllabic epithets; likewise, by the time their modern counterparts can say “Radical Islamic Extremism” they will all be blown to flinders. So what’s it going to be, that one word we can spit out like a phlegm ball, to make them less than human?