Hannity v. Moore: “When Catholics Collide”
October 8, 2009, 8:41 am
Posted by David Gibson
A funny exchange between Michael Moore and Sean Hannity:
Heck, glad I didn’t have to recall the Gospel from last Sunday. (Here it is for those getting sweaty about a pop quiz.) I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I am intrigued by what I hear is Moore’s apparent channeling of Catholic social teaching. He is a propagandist, yes, but a talented one. Much more so than Bill Maher et al. And, alas, he’s been right.
Above all, a tip of the hat to Deacon Greg Kandra, from whence this comes. The Deacon’s Bench, his successful blog, has migrated to a bigger stage at Beliefnet. Check it out here.
As long as Hannity made it in time for the collection. That’s what is important
Anthony, Rich Lamb of CBS tells a story of going to St. Pat’s one day for mass when a newly-ordained priest was celebrating. Rich realized that at some point the young fellow mized up or left out some prhases at the consecration, and he worried whether it was a valid Mass. He called a bishop-friend afterwards and put the question to him and his first response was: “They took a collection? It’s a valid mass.” (His second response was, yes, from what Rich related, it was legit and Rich’s soul was safe–though for how long is anyone’s guess.)
Did Moore ever manage to finish making his point? Did he have a point? I’m wondering how last Sunday’s gospel — everyone’s favorite hard-line-on-divorce-and-adultery text, with an optional “suffer the children…” extension to cleanse the palate — shapes his politics!
Both Moore and Hannity wanted to be priests. Moore says so in the movie and Hannity went to a minor seminary. Moore won the name calling . ‘You’re a socialist’… ‘no I’m a Christian’.
Also his suit and tie instead of his usual sweats and baseball cap shows Moore knows his audience. Another win for Moore was his appearence on the Call CNBC business news.. His interegators 4 to 1, were gleeful before his appearence and yet failed badly in their attempts to get him off message. Can’t we just boast that the left has all the rhetorical creds?
“I believe in what Jesus said.” – Michael Moore
If this statement were true, then Michael Moore would believe The Truth regarding God’s intention for Marriage, to begin with. “But from the beginning of Creation, God made them Male and Female. For THIS reason, a Man shall leave his Father and Mother and be joined to his Wife, and the two shall become one flesh, so they are no longer two but one…”
I nominate Nancy for Sean Hannity’s job.
One thing about Moore is that he certainly gets enough to eat. Perhaps if he consumed less food, and gave the surplus to the poor, he would be more credible. But then, he’s a multimillionaire and, you know, it’s hard…
Bob said: “One thing about Moore is that he certainly gets enough to eat. Perhaps if he consumed less food, and gave the surplus to the poor, he would be more credible. But then, he’s a multimillionaire and, you know, it’s hard…”
Help me out here. He’s a multimillionaire, so he’s supposed to be a Republican? But then, are all Republicans multimillionaires? No, that can’t be it.
He talks against the rich, but he’s fat so he should identify with the rich? No, that can’t be it either.
Wait, I got it. He shouldn’t criticize the economic system because he’s rich, so it makes him a hypocrite. And if he’s a hypocrite, he can’t be right, no matter what his criticism is. And if he says that the American economic system tends to exploit its workers, then unless he gets exploited in the same way he doesn’t have any credibility. Sorta like saying that someone can’t talk about cigarettes causing cancer unless they themselves smoke and have cancer too, right?
I can’t read Bob’s mind, but I believe his criticism of the porcine mountebank is probably similar to that of the American Federation of Teachers.
http://ct.aft.org/index.cfm?action=article&articleID=728d33ed-25ea-44ea-ad69-fc75ad459543
In San Francisco we had the gospel for the feast of St. Francis.
Bob S: Moore is in good company with Rush Humbug when it comes to being rotund. Too bad the drugster doesn’t give some more of HIS money to the pobrecitos (would HE use that word?) del mundo.
I guess, though, that one cannot use the name of Limbaugh and the word credible in the same thought or sentence.
Hannity said “Socialist, or whatever name you want to be known by” and that’s when Moore said “Christian” — indicating that this is the name he wants to be known by. I give him credit for it. Hannity didn’t even hear him. His response: “I’m a Christian” showed that he hadn’t listened, and he certainly wasn’t prepared for what followed. Points go to Moore.
Unagidon:
You should know (full disclosure here) that I have an intense dislike for Moore. There’s something about this shambling, unshaven loudmouth that sets my hair on fire and my teeth on edge. Its a personal thing. Many of your criticisms of my post are right on point, but he’s still a shambling, unshaven loudmouth whose use of non-union workers just confirms my emotional reaction; what can I say?
I’m confused, is this supposed to be a FAVORABLE snippet of Michael Moore? This childishness is funny to some people?