While meeting with Conservative Jewish leaders earlier this week you stated that you probably know more about Judaism than any other president because you read about it.
How much have you read about Catholicism?
Any light reading about Poland — particularly during World War II?
What other subjects do you probably know more about than any other president?
Are there any bounds to this guy’s ego?
Everybody knows only Obama has an incentive to read history. It’s not like the other guys had such a job or such ambitions. Reading is hard. You really do need an Obama to do it right. How could anyone else have more experience or knowledge. I mean look how well he’s done with saving a creating job and moving the economy forward. Ever forward. We’d all be living in caves if it wasn’t for the one.
Does it still count if he only read about Judaism in the Koran?
I think there’s good reason why Obama never released his college transcripts. He was poorly educated. His performance in office shows he has no grasp of even basic economics. He probably never took even an intro econ course unless it was on Marxist theory. He’s profoundly ignorant on history. Remember the old chants of, “Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Western Civ has got to go!” Obama was probably there.
Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects. Obama is woefully (and likely willfully) ignorant on many important topics that every president should have at least a basic knowledge. The man just isn’t very bright nor intellectually curious.
Are there any bounds to this guy’s ego?
Maybe the James Webb telescope will be able to see them.
Forget dark energy. Obama’s inflated ego is what’s causing the acceleration in universe’s expandion.
Did you just say the universe is trying to get as far away from this man as fast as it can?
Either that or the strength of his ego is causing the galaxies to fly away from each other even faster than before.
From Wikipedia:
The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor has a positive second derivative,[1] so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time.[2] The first suggestion for an accelerating universe from observed data was in 1992, by Paál et al.[3] In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating[4][5] since around redshift of z~0.5.
And what what was Obama doing in 1992?:
That was a year after he graduated Harvard Law. That was the year he married Michelle. That was the year he began his efforts as a community organizer and other nefarious acts.
Coincidence? I think not!
“Maybe the James Webb telescope will be able to see them.”
Webb sees in the IR, not visible spectrum. Of course, that makes it a match: seeing more heat than light, in this case.
Which US President do you suppose knows or knew the most about Judaism, if not Obama?
Maybe Grant, who learned a lot as he sought to repent:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/grant.html
Really Bob? How about any president that grew up in the christian tradition? Since the Hebrew bible leads to the Greek bible? Even the early Christians were almost all Jews. Obama apparently doesn’t know that, believing the promise to Abraham is through Ishmael is the correct interpretation in all 57 states.
What is Obama’s background? Before 20 years of liberation theology (where Jesus explains Marx to Lenin) he was a Muslim (whose only Jewish connection is that they hate them.)
I’d say just about any president from the first until Obama knows more about Judaism.
But this thread isn’t even about that. It’s about the fact that he could even make such an absurd claim. Secondarily it’s about you: Defending such a ridiculous claim.
Ken, I grew up in a neighborhood which was 100% Christian (other than my family). It was generally a mix of Catholic and Lutherans and Methodists. It was only natural that the other kids in the neighborhood would be ignorant regarding Judaism, but their parents would ask my parents the most amazingly uninformed questions.
“Do you have birthdays?” was my mom’s favorite example.
“No, we hatch from eggs.”
It wasn’t really as silly as it sounded: their reasoning was that if we didn’t celebrate Christmas, maybe we didn’t celebrate other important occasions either…
Later on, in grad school, I became friends with one of the leaders of the Church of the Lutherna Confession (http://clclutheran.org/) Not only was he was one of the nicest people I’ve ever met, but he could read Aramaic and Hebrew, and he knew the Bible backwards and forwards. Despite his extensive knowledge, he really didn’t know much about Judaism as it is practiced today (and he’d be the first to admit that, and he was eager to learn, always asking questions, and politely refraining from evangelizing all that much.)
So, no, being Christian, even being a full-time professional Christian, doesn’t mean you’ll know much about Judaism and Jewish culture.
I’m with Ken on this one. The point is that Obama has this silly attitude that he is apparently the Best. President. Ever. The past 3 1/2 years might have given lesser men (who live in the real world) some pause before going on such flights of ego, but Obama isn’t much for introspection.
Bob, you’re talking about culture. Judaism is also about history.
Do you really think Obama knows Jewish culture? He doesn’t even know American culture… except perhaps for weed.
Which US President do you suppose knows or knew the most about Judaism, if not Obama?
I’d pick Thomas Jefferson because of his religious interests, solid intellect, and being well-read.
“Hey, I knew enough to know I needed to be in Washington to get a job. I don’t know what my next gig will be, maybe I can be a Rabbi! How’s the pay?”
He could always be a mohel. The pay is lousy, but the tips are good!
That just doesn’t sound halal.
President Dunning Kruger strikes again!
Sorry to interrupt Bob schooling us on Judaism and how Bob’s personal history reflects the President’s, and previous President’s, knowledge of Judaism, but a question for Bob: Did you see the Diamond Jubilee celebrating 60 years of the UK Republic, today?
Did you find out what reserve powers are yet?
If so, did you figure out which ones the Queen actually has?
It’s the straw you clasp to remind us all how weak your arguments are.
What in the world is weak about it? A monarch with no reserve powers at all (as in Japan or Belgium) is the symbolic leader of a republic. The UK is the interesting case, since the true extent of the modern monarchy’s reserve powers are untested and unknown. Even more interestingly, perhaps they are unknown only to the general public — perhaps there is a secret set of contingency plans regarding reserve powers held by the Monarchy and by 10 Downing Street. This is a completely fascinating subject, and you’re missing out because you’re not open to thinking about it.
perhaps there is a secret set of contingency plans
Perhaps… Whatever makes the logic work in your own mind.
I’m not trying to raise the specter of conspiracy theories – I’m simply wondering what happens if you get something like the Australian Constitutional Crisis of 1975 in the UK itself. Throw in more political divisiveness in the general populace and an unpopular monarch on the throne, and you might find that the UK is a republic after all.
Indeed, if you believe that a past event, which didn’t result in Australia becoming a Republic, were to happen in the UK, but with a bit more anger and resentment against a popular monarch; then the current situation of the UK not being a Republic may change.
There’s also a chance someone runs across bigfoot and discovers they exist after all. Except that’s a poor analogy. If you discovered bigfoot existed tomorrow, then it’s likely it was around the day before, which is today. If the UK overthrew it’s monarchy tomorrow, it would still not be a Republic today.
So I repeat, whatever makes the logic work in your own mind, Bob. Just assert Obama is the closest Ger toshav among US Presidents and it will at least be true to you!
Your answer suggests that you don’t understand what it would mean to have the equivalent of the 1975 Australian crisis in the UK. In Australia, the situation was resovled for better or worse by the Governor-General, who was chosen by Australians, even if he was symbolically appointed by the Queen. The Queen herself declared that not only would she decline to particpate, she didn’t even have the right to participate, due to Australia’s Constitution. The Governor-General then took on the role that a President takes in a republic with a parlimentary system.
If the same thing happened in the UK, the Queen (or her successor) would be put in the role of the Governor-General. But this would mean the monarch would have to act as if she (or he) was the President of the UK. I don’t think the Royal Family wants this role, and I don’t think the British government or the British voters want them to have this role. Would the monarch take on this role anyway? I don’t think anyone knows. A state of ambiguity currently exists because the UK has an unwritten constitution.
You can pretend that you know what would happen. You can pretend that the answers are cut-and-dried. But you’re missing out.
I think that what would happen is that the monarch would either clarify the situation by explaining that they simply had no longer had reserve powers, or they would step down temporarily, as was done in Belgium the day abortion was legalized. Either way, if I’m correct, it means that the UK is already de facto republic, just as Belgium and Japan are.
If the same thing happened in the UK
if I’m correct
If unicorns existed, then they would shit skittles. You’re missing out on free skittles, Bob.
“Are there any bounds to this guy’s ego?”
I presume that was a rhetorical question?