Videos of Hilarity
Hilarious…and true! As always with Klavan.
I also love this one of Alito making a face and responding to BO’s silly attempt at interpreting last week’s opinion.
What You’re Saying
Verse of the Day
Blogroll
- Albert Mohler
- American Thinker
- Ann Coulter
- Big Government
- Big Hollywood
- Big Journalism
- Breitbart
- Camille Paglia
- Charles Colson
- Christianity Today
- Denver Journal
- Dick Morris
- Drudge
- Epiblepo
- Heritage Foundation
- Huff Post
- Hugh Hewitt
- Leadership Journal
- Michelle Malkin
- National Affairs
- National Review
- Peggy Noonan
- Philip Yancey
- Real Clear Politics
- Red State
- Robinson and Long
- Rush Limbaugh
- Steven Crowder
- Townhall
- Upside Down Group
- Weekly Standard
39 Responses to “Videos of Hilarity”
Follow Rev Nev on Facebook
Eric Nevins on Twitter
Tags
abortion
Acorn
Atheist
Bill Kristol
BO
Buck Stops
Charles Colson
Christopher Hitchens
Church
conservative
Conservativism
Constitution
Dan Hoffman
Divorce
Drudge
Fairness Doctrine
Fox News
Fred Barnes
Freedom
Freedom of Speech
Funny Tuesday
future
Haiti
health care
Health Insurance
jokes
Links of the day
logo
LWM
Newt Gingrich
Obama
Polanski
POTUS
Reformation
religion
Richard Dawkins
Roman Polanski
RSS
Rush Limbaugh
Scott Brown
Steven Crowder
Stimulus
Tort Reform
Tuesday
UK
Klavan was spot on!
See, this is what I can’t stand about people like Klavan: They tie lies in with truths and call it ALL fact. Example: The part that Klavan chose to speak about regarding JFKs’ Presidency, while true, was not what earned Mr. Stone his Oscar nomination. That was ONE PIECE of JFKs’ tragically short term. But, a “war-time” President has to make “war-time” decisions. And what was he supposed to do? Just LET the Ruskies build their missile base in Cuba? Just let them keep them there so that if Russia got angry at the USA for whatever reason they could just push a button? That example alone is why no one can convince me that democrats are weak on national security. This guy was willing to go to NUCLEAR WAR to ensure to safety of this great nation!
And Lee Harvey Oswald was not an “America hating leftist.” He was a WORLD hating, self proclaimed Marxist. A medically documented narcissistst. In short, he was crazy. Truth mixed in with lies.
I don’t have too much of an opinion regarding Terri Schiavo… as a matter of fact, I do. You know, people really need to just mind there own dang business. Do I think the way that Mr. Schiavos’ decision to starve his wife to death was cruel and inhumane? ABSOLUTELEY. But, that is HIS wife and if she is not in a position to speak for her self then ultimately, the decision is HIS. Not the churches. I’m sure he was in enough agony having to make a decision like that in the first place without all the extra going on. Not even God FORCES his will on humanity, why do Christians think that THEY can? Where any of the people that were protesting to keep her alive willing to take her in and care for her themselves? I seriously doubt it.
Now lets move on to the movies. Isn’t this fun?
In all three movies named, Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas and Avatar (Best. Movie. Ever.), a civilized man didn’t simply stumble upon a primitive society and discover that their values were far superior to his own. It was a woman. All three of the protagonists in the aforementioned movies went into these primitive cultures with an army, on a mission to take something that they wanted on these primitive peoples land if not the land itself, by the way, and fell in love with one of the native women. Truth, mixed in with lies, and labeled fact. And since Klaven went on about Avatar, I suppose I will too. I’m pretty sure that Klaven has not seen this movie. If he had, then he would have mentioned that it wasn’t about an ALIEN primitive tribe at one with the planet that they lived on, and the antagonist the EDF (Earth Defense Force), not the US Army, came to their planet in search of natural resources because humans had squandered all of the natural resources on Earth. I won’t spoil it for anyone who hasn’t seen it and wants to, but by the middle of the movie you will be rooting for the Na’bu. And yes, the culture of the Na’bu was far superior to ours because it was a MADE UP, SCIENCE FICTION BASED culture. The planet was freaking AMAZING!!! Finally, Klaven is stretching preeetty far to compare the worship of a planet by a primitive ALIEN tribe, in a SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE, to the disaster in Haiti. In fact, that was just a dumb a** comparison! What, is he implying that we should place blame on the Earth instead of seeing it as it is: a NATURAL disaster? Dummy.
Baxter, at no time have you interacted with what Klavan was saying. But I’ll let RevNev address that if he thinks it would be profitable.
Hey, just my two cents is all. That’s what this site is about, after all.
Rev Nev Reply:
January 29th, 2010 at 10:18 PM
Baxter – Actually, this site is about a conservative Christian view of politics and culture. It’s not to discuss alternative views except to critique them. While I respect you, posts like your last are silly. I’ve said this to you before when we had debates on Facebook. You often miss the forest for the trees. You look at the details and divert attention from the point the speaker has made. In the end, you set up a straw man and knock him down. But that is not a debate. It’s a screaming match.
Ben Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 7:25 AM
Even then his grasp of the details is woeful.
For example, anybody who wants to can read up on Oswald and find out that Klavan was right: He was a far leaning leftist who defected to the USSR, etc. His “remark” about God not imposing his will on humanity (again, woefully inept and myopic)…
But it really is typical leftist stuff, isn’t it?
Baxter Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 10:38 AM
I did a term paper on Oswald in a psychology class in college as psychology was one of my double majors. So I know what I’m talking about. You’re right. Anybody who wants can read up on Oswald. Perhaps you should before you start typing. Start like I did with his biography.
Second, Ben, read any of your posts and then you decide who’s the “myopic” contributer is on this site.
Last, I watched the video, saw things that I disagreed with, and shared WHY I disagreed with them. If this site is for nothing but “critiquing” opposing views then pull my account. I’m surprised you let me stay this long since it seems you have no interest in any view but your own.
It’s been fun.
Baxter –
You have a habit of replying to things that were never said and points that were not attempted to be made. You went off on this “Oswald hated the WORLD, not just America” tangent as if it was in any way relevant to the point trying to be made by Klavan. And to make it worse, your point – or was it an attempted correction – was fallacious. He DID hate America. People made fun of him in the Marine Corps for it…. he was public about it. He defected to the USSR because of it. Once back in the USA, he wanted to go back to the USSR… he tried starting a pro-Castro group in his area… I mean, he DID hate America and he was an avowed communist. Andyou think that you can somehow distract people from that by saying “He hated everyone?” Are you kidding me?
Anyway, the POINT that Klavan was trying to make was that in reality JFK was a serious, commie-hating, tax cutting, president who was shot by an American-hating lunatic… but in “the culture” JFK is seen as a demuring, almost-pacifist, who was killed by a vast right-wing conspiracy. He may be incorrect in his assessment of the picture attempting to be painted by the culture, but THAT was his point. And instead, like some half-informed Poindexter, you took exception with him saying that Oswald hated America. Give me a break.
Baxter Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 11:53 AM
It was the “leftist” comment that I took issue with. That was not true, so I took it upon myself to let everyone know his true political views. That he hated the world (America included in there) was just filler.
Ben Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 12:16 PM
Well, since on the commonly referred to “left/right” political scale developed by liberals political scientists Marxism falls on the LEFT side… In that respect, Klavan was correct.
Second, I’ve read a lot about Marxism and while most American leftists don’t take their practical conclusions to the “extreme” that professed Marxists did/do, nonetheless their logic and rhetoric is almost identical. So if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
Due to the close philosophical relationship between liberalism and Marxism, they are for all practical purposes synonymous. I believe that the only reason leftists don’t like the Marxist label is because they don’t like the “baggage” that comes with the term.
So while you may not like that Klavan used the term LEFTIST, while it may not have been as precise as you would have preferred, he was not incorrect.
But again, it doesn’t matter to the point he was trying to make. You chose to blow smoke to distract from the real point.
Baxter Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 11:55 AM
I guess I should have typed marxist in all caps instead of world.
Touché, Ben.
But I’m sure now you can see why I chose to speak on that piece. If I posted a piece saying that Hitler was a “far right winger”, as Nazism is a “far right” form of politics, you would definitely taken issue with that.
Ben Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 3:59 PM
I just KNEW you were going to say that!!! I anticipated it and therefore reminded in my post that the “commonly referred to left/right political scale” was concocted by leftists.
Tell me, why would it be in the interests of leftists to create a scale with communism on the one end and facism on the other? I can tell you why, but let’s see if you can figure it out.
To see through the “conservative ends in facism” line, one simply needs ponder: how can a political ideology that rejects a large and intrusive government logically result in a form of government that is large and intrusive?
Hmmm. Sit back and smoke a pipe and think about that for a bit. And while you do, perhaps watch this Klavan clip – for purposes of the “right wing is nazism” line, you only need to watch his thing involving Limbaugh. But you can watch the rest of the video… it would do you good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqgYpfsrcJw
I’ve seen another “left/right” model that goes from NO ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT on the right to TOTAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL on the left… when you plot things on the scale in accordance with the amoun of government influence and control, facism and communism are very similarly located. There are, of course, differences between facism and communism… but in practice they look very similar.
Ben Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 4:08 PM
And to clarify the point I’m making here:
I say that liberalism and Marxism differ only in degree of application. You seem to agree that they are in some way related, though you would see them as distinct. You in turn try to show why you’re offended by them being thought of as being closely related by “reminding” me that facism is on the right with conservative. To be clear: it is the idea that facism and conservative are philosophically, rhetorically, logically, or practically related that I reject outright as a liberal lie.
Ben Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 4:04 PM
But as a point of reminder: Klavan’s point remains… There is reality and there is liberal fantasy.
I could go with the examples: Reality… America’s ideas, ideals, and institutions were the product of white, Protestant men. These institutions have made us great.
Liberal fantasy: Diversity is what made America the best place ever!
Need more? Why don’t you deal with the point. And the point is that liberals are guilty of redacting history, and painting a picture that is not in accord with reality.
Hey, calm down there, Plucky.
Look, we always get off on tangents that had nothing to do with the original post.
Bottom line: RevNev posted a clip. I watched the clip. Some of the things on the clip that I knew were not at all acurate, I talked about. Out of all three of the issues that I touched on regarding the whole clip, you took a snippet and RAN with it. So I’m done going off script with you.
I’ll leave, on script, with a piece of liberal reality: America, as a nation, its ideas, ideals and institutions was built on the backs of slaves. Diversity is what makes it great today.
Ben Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 8:22 PM
Actually, I am pretty fairly convinced that the postmodern and existentialist notions of “diversity” and “tolerance” are leading to the death of Western culture.
Baxter Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 9:05 PM
What aspects of diversity and tolerance are you talking about? Specifically.
And please, be completely honest. Because this next response, coupled with your “white protestant men” being the SOLE reason this country is great line may make this my last post.
I didn’t say that “white protestant men being the SOLE reason this country is great.” I simply pointed to the historical fact the political and philosophical ideals that provided the foundation for our country, the legal and legislative “wrangling” that occured setting up our nation’s insitutions were all of the same background. But see, this is part of the problem with leftists: reality is hate speech. Gimme a break.
Baxter Reply:
January 30th, 2010 at 11:20 PM
That’s your reality alone. My reality of what jump started this nation is a little more grim. But again, in classic Ben style, you are going off topic. I asked you a very direct, very pointed question. And again, in classic Ben style, you danced all around it. What aspects of diversity and tolerance, two virtues that make America America, is destroying this country?
Thank you for bringing it full-circle, Baxter.
See folks, THIS is what Klavan’s point was and is: Liberals look at history and call it “our reality” but they get to have “their reality.”
Libs and leftists genuinely hate the America of reality, so that with our POTUS’s wife they can say that “for the first time” they’re proud of America when the America they see for a moment jives with their leftist, anti-traditional fantasy.
And thank you for showing your true colors with your refusal to answer a simple question. This is one of those instances where silence (or in your case a bunch of “blah-blah-blah” and tap dancing) speak louder than words.
Baxter Reply:
January 31st, 2010 at 7:45 AM
This is probably my last post. In reality, Ben, you are a sad representation of your party and should not be taken seriously by anyone. A stereo type or caricature. People like give the right a bad image. You’re unreasonable. You fancy yourself a man of God, but your heart is brimming with hate towards anyone who doesn’t think like you. You, being a man WITH sin, take joy in casting volley after volley of stones at your opposition. You are alone 99% of your rants. No one agrees with most of what you say.
Thinking in hindsight, I’m the idiot for entertaining you for this long. But no more. From this moment on I will regard you as I see you: a clown. Someone to watch, laugh at, and shake my head at their nonsense.
Ben Reply:
January 31st, 2010 at 6:34 PM
I DID IT! I DEFEATED BAXTER!
… And folks, when you don’t play their games you’re accused of being self righteous and unrepresentative of anyone. They say the same things about all of us. The Tea Party movement is “artificial,” “town house meeting protestors” are the mob, etc…
Remember: Though I’ve not been entirely successful, I’m trying to keep this post “on topic.” And the point of the Klavan video was to show the difference between reality – which is conservative – and liberal fantasy – which is a redaction or recasting or in some cases a complete fabrication of history.
Wow…just wow…what a conversation. This weblog proposes to be about religion and politics (a nasty mixture, for sure), but in the end, as always, the true colors are always shown (no pun intended). Baxter, if you log back onto this blog please tell where we can dialogue with you moving forward. I don’t see the need to read this without your input; otherwise it’s just one-sided ranting.
Rev Nev Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 8:51 PM
Lourdes – I’m not sure I’d consider what Baxter was doing “dialogue.” (Keep in mind I know him personally. This is difficult for me to say.) Then again, personal, ad hominem arguments are not what I have in mind for this blog.
Whether we like it or not, faith and politics have always mixed and always will. What I want to do is explore the intersection of them in American politics. Sometimes that means criticizing the way Christian faith is portrayed in the culture and the assumptions underlying the portrayal. I’m convinced Evangelicals need to be engaged in politics but are looking for new ways of doing so. Will this site defeat liberalism? No. Can it offer a way forward for Christians? Definitely. That’s what I will work harder to do. It’s why I am not entirely happy with conversations like the one above.
KrimsonHULK Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 11:22 PM
(This is Baxter peeved)
Heh. Dang, Nevins. I dropped by the site to see how it was doing without me… very slow and dull I see. (Ben still hasn’t responded to Vitamin K) But I didn’t think it was a burden on you just KNOWING me!
Lourdes, look me up on Facebook and I will tell you where I will be blogging at. (Baxter Porter VI) Put “Lourdes – RevNev” in the friend request message box.
Dang, Eric. I was just trying to add a liberal perspective to your site. I thought you were gonna have a regular liberal commentator on the site for 2010. Just talk I guess.
I’m actually kinda hurt.
I am begrudingly going to make some comments here as well. For non-believers, many of the conversations on this blog are a terrible witness. We’re basically saying that our unity in Christ is trumped by our political leanings. Passages like Titus 3:1&2 are totally disregarded. “Remind the people…to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.” Or Colossians 4:6: “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.”
I just so happen to be so conservative that I’m somewhere right of Atilla the Hun. Frankly I barely, if at all, consider myself a Republican anymore. But I prefer to dialogue in a way that just gets others to think and to bring viewpoints to their logical conclusion, while respecting them both as a person and particularly respects them as a brother or sister in Christ.
In the future, I suppose I just may begin making some comments on this sight to hopefully increase some discussion. But let’s start seeing ourselves as Christians first rather than Republicans (or liberals) who just so happen to be Christian. (Now, that’s off my chest…it’s been bothering me for a while.)
Rev Nev Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 11:20 PM
Thanks, Mike! I would add that being Christians does not mean we cannot have a spirited debate.
KrimsonHULK Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 11:39 PM
Nevins, you implied you don’t want debate! You said this site is “not to discuss alternative views except to critique them.”
Ben Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 7:10 AM
Indeed, one of my problems with Evangelicalism (and therefore one of the reasons I do not accept the label Evengelical) is that Evangelicals have forgotten at least two things. First, they’ve forgotten that Bible piety, is not simple “being nice” or “not ruffling feathers.” Second, they’ve forgotten that one’s practical stances flow from their worldview and beliefs (or non-beliefs) about God. To be liberal is to have wrong theology. One’s political views are not amoral “personal opinions” in the vein of one’s favorite pizza topping.
I see leftists as being dangerous for America. And as such they are an enemy to be defeated.
KrimsonHULK Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 7:49 AM
Heh. You know what’s even more dangerous to America than lefties? Bigots, suffering from PTSD (granted you’ve ever seen combat, which I doubt, but if you have it would explain your insanity) who have a problem with all the “diversity” and “tolerance” that’s allowed in America.
Those are the people that you have to worry about walking into a rally with an assault rifle, taking out as many people as he can, before putting the barrel in his own mouth.
Mike-
KrimsonHULK Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 11:35 PM
Unfortunately, it’s too late for that. Look at past posts… (Biblical thoughts on poverty; Sudden Prayer Warriors; Example of Liberal Lunacy). People on this site do not want to acknowledge what you just said. In their minds, I, because I am liberal, am the offspring off Lucifer himself.
There we go. This is my angry face.
Like a moth to the flame…
I am certainly not against spirited discussion…nor am I that concerned with people liking me. But I also understand that people’s situations often affect their viewpoints. I’ll give one case in point. I happen to strongly disagree with one of Eric’s suggestions on the State of the Union that the $8000 first time homebuyer credit should be extended. Why should taxpayer money be plundered from me and given to somebody else to purchase a home. My wife and I saved up for our own down payments. We put about 35% down on our current house partly so that we wouldn’t have to worry about being underwater of our house value declined by 10% or more. So why do some arbitrarily receive assistance while others do not based only on timing of their first purchase. BUT…I understand that Eric is coming from a viewpoint where he would probably like to buy a house in the not too distant future. That credit would help him greatly, I am sure. I can certainly disagree with his viewpoint without relegating him to “evil”.
And in regard to Fannie and Freddie…while Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd are certainly primary culprits in that sham, many Republicans were benefiting as well and certainly “looked the other way”. I don’t necessarily blindly support Republicans either as the ’squeaky clean’ party.
And frankly, none of these things are “salvation” issues. While I agree that prosperity is certainly in jeopardy and that the sense of entitlement that is engrained in our culture and that it is perfectly acceptable to live off the efforts of other people if a few breaks go against you is wrong, I just try to keep things a bit in perspective.
FreemarketMike, thank you for the thoughtful post. It almost made me reconsider what I wrote earlier, however, reading Ben’s last post where he generalized people of left-leaning beliefs as being false Christians disheartened me again. You see, I am what some would consider a liberal (although I disagree with labels in general because people are individuals with individual thought processes), hard-core Christian. My faith hasn’t come by birthright, or dogma, but by personal experience, growth, and miracles. I have studied many traditions, and come back to my Christian faith. To say that “to be liberal is to have a wrong theology” is to me what’s completely wrong with trying to mix politics and theology. That statement comes from a political belief, in my opinion, and not from a Christian belief, which for me means that our belief in God is THE most important part of our lives, not our lousy political beliefs, and that THE most important part of our lives should be what keeps us together, even if our politics differ. By my, perhaps impossible hope in humanity, if we were to truly practice Christianity we wouldn’t have the kinds of divides that we see today in our country, which causes me a great deal of pain, to see Americans tearing each other down the way we do. We have lost our way, and need to find a way BACK to God. This us vs. them mentality is about as far away from the teachings of our Saviour as it gets. Why can’t we talk about the things that we share, even if we agree to disagree? I’ll tell you why, because we are SO divided that you can read a post from someone who claims to be a man of the cloth saying “the postmodern and existentialist notions of “diversity” and “tolerance” are leading to the death of Western culture” and “Reality… America’s ideas, ideals, and institutions were the product of white, Protestant men. These institutions have made us great. Liberal fantasy: Diversity is what made America the best place ever!” The kids at my church say WWJD?. Would Jesus say that about the beautiful rainbow of God’s greatest creation made in his image, yes, all of us, not just white Protestant males? Somehow, I believe not; I believe he would be hurt by words like that coming from someone who professes to teach his word.