What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Barack Obama: Self-Refuting Man

images.jpeg"It’s always a bad practice to say 'always' or 'never."

Comments (10)

ah, charity.

ah, charity.

Instructing the ignorant is one of the spiritual works of mercy.

Nice, but not quite as delicious, in my judgment, at least, as this great example out of Reagan's mouth from Oct. 16, 1984 -- while he was President:

And I've said repeatedly that the President should never say never, but I will never hold still for, as I say, pulling the rug out from those people that are dependent on that program.
( http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=39251 )

But to each his own.

Touche' Keith!

You have to admit though that Obama's gaffe is far more eloquent and uplifting than Bush's.

But isn't Reagan acknowledging that he is breaking his own rule of never saying "never"? Which makes it not a gaffe, but intentional, and thus a serious statement of his commitment to whatever he was talking about. Which makes Obama's much the funnier. (Says she who has probably said something equivalently silly every time she speaks off-the-cuff.)

*sigh* once again "charity" being played like the race-card and trivializing the word to meaninglessness.

Well, in the spirit of charitable interpretation, couldn't it be reasonable to assume that Obama was simply demonstrating the maxims' functional incoherence...thereby, giving us reason to reject it, always?

scott,
isn't the mere mention of the 'race card', race-baiting? or is that uncharitable?

isn't the mere mention of the 'race card', race-baiting?

I'm sure we could find someone who would fly apart like a helicopter with its rear-rotor shot off at the mention of it, but for us normies, not so much.

But isn't Obama acknowledging that he is breaking his own practice of always avoiding saying "always" and "never"? Which makes it not a gaffe, but intentional, and thus a serious statement of his commitment to whatever he was talking about. Which makes Reagan's much the funnier?

No, I wouldn't think it right to be so friendly in interpreting one while sticking it to the other.

Seriously, my best guess is that both were at least semi-intentionally playing around with the self-referentially paradoxical nature of their statements.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.