Friday, August 23, 2013

Chris Rodda on the Michael Medved Show

In the comments section at American Creation, Chris Rodda and Tom Van Dyke are involved in a spirited discussions about, among other things her appearance on the Michael Medved show. Listen to it for yourself and decide how it went.

15 comments:

wsforten said...

I have to agree with Tom on this one. Chris was unable to document her claims.

The only evidence for the incident with the soldier having a rifle barrel shoved up his nose comes from an email in the MRFF inbox. The veteran who called in was probably correct. The incident (if it happened at all) was far more likely to have been sparked by some other source of tension. Chris claimed that the JN8:12 reference was something that an Afghan soldier would have recognized, but she did not explain how unlikely it would be for a muslim in Afghanistan to recognize a verse reference which was part of the model number of the scope. The full model number is: ACOG4X32JN8:12. Here is an image of the location of the number on the scope.

More importantly, however, Chris did not provide any explanation for how these scopes were unconstitutional as she claimed. Where exactly does the Constitution state that the military cannot purchase equipment from a private manufacturer who inserts biblical references into their model numbers?

Chris Rodda said...

This isn't about whether or not you agree with or believe what I said on the show, wsforten. This is about Tom grasping at straws to try to make me look foolish by claiming that it was a "disastrous appearance" in which Medved had me so rattled that I "babbled like a fool." It was nothing of the kind, as anyone listening to it can hear for themselves. There was nothing "disastrous" about it. It was just typical for a right-wing talk show.

And I notice you didn't mention the part of the show (before it got stuck on the "Jesus Rifles" issue), when Medved said that what I was saying sounded reasonable and at least went as far as agreeing that Breitbart's reporting was misleading once he had heard the facts from me.

I wonder if Tom will jump all over you for only mentioning the part of the show where you think I was lying and ignoring the part of the show where Medved was actually agreeing with me. Tom constantly accuses me of only pointing out Barton's lies and ignoring anything that Barton says that's true, and also complains about double standards, so I expect he'll be along any minute to accuse you of ignoring the parts of the show where Medved agreed with me.

BTW, I'm assuming the screen name wsforten means you're Bill Fortenberry, right?

wsforten said...

Actually, Chris, Medved said that the Pentagon's second press release on the issue of proselytization sounded reasonable. He then followed that admission with a challenge to a position statement from the MRFF which he said was not reasonable and which you defended by bringing up the Bible reference on rifle scopes. Medved consistently maintained throughout the interview that the MRFF statement was unreasonable, and he concluded the broadcast by saying, "I think you've hyped up a false danger to try to raise money for your organization."

The more important issue, however, is that you did not point out any justification for your claim that if violates the Constitution for the military to purchase equipment from a private manufacturer who inserts biblical references into their model numbers.

Yes, I am Bill Fortenberry. I have made several attempts to change my screen name to display my actual name, but the system keeps going back to wsforten, and I've given up trying any further.

Chris Rodda said...

Medved said the Pentagon's statement sounded reasonable because I explained what it really meant, as opposed to what Breitbart.com was claiming it meant. He also then agreed that Breitbart's reporting was misleading. You are splitting hairs and still ignoring that the point is Tom's bringing up this completely off-topic radio show and making claims about Medved getting me so rattled that I "babbled like a fool."

I obviously don't expect you to agree with me on the subject matter, and have no intention of debating it with you here since it has nothing to do with the subject of this blog.

wsforten said...

That's an interesting response, Chris. I was looking forward to reading your explanation. Surely you had a reason for claiming that the use of those particular scopes was unconstitutional. Perhaps you could direct me to another website where that reason has already been presented.

Joe Winpisinger said...

Chris,

Did it ever occur to you that Tom thinks you are splitting hairs and used hyperbole against you to muddy the waters because he thinks you are doing it to Barton? :)

Chris Rodda said...

Tom can think whatever the hell he wants to. But when he starts publicly saying things about me that are untrue or intended to make me look foolish or worse to other people who might stumble upon his comments, I will respond so that those people can make up their own minds about me. I don't care what Tom thinks, or, for that matter, what any of the other people defending him here think. None of you are that important. But I don't want people whose opinions I might care about to see only Tom's, or his defenders, comments and get the wrong idea about me.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Oh, people got the right idea. Michael Medved and Bill Fortenberry exposed you. I had nothing to do with it.

Joe Winpisinger said...

Chris,

None of us are important? All 3 of us actually know enough about this History to really comment. Unlike the totally uniformed people that seem to gravitate toward your book.

I have always tried to be fair with you because I found you one of the most reasonable people that commented on Dispatches on the Culture Wars. But this statement would seem to indicate that you only care about what the faction that you care about thinks.

If true then you are not writing to help any of the Christians that Barton has mislead. They are the only ones that read his shit. You do know that right?

Stop swinging at the low hanging fruit and engage some from the Right that have actually studied this topic. If you do then you will see that David Barton is not all that important in this discussion.

Chris Rodda said...

Joe ... you presume to know what my goal is, and you presume wrong. I am not out to change the minds of people like you or Tom or Bill or any of the followers of people like Barton. That's never going to happen. My goal is to inform other people who haven't been paying attention to all the revisionism that's going on about the incredible degree to which this revisionism goes, and why it is a problem they should care about. I say that you and Tom and Bill aren't important because none of you are affecting education, elections, and legislation like Barton is, so I just don't care what you write. Take as much offense as you want to that; I don't care about that either.

King of Ireland said...

Chris,

I know what your agenda is. I assure you that the only way that you are going to affect any of the arenas that you mention above is to gain an influence outside of you own bubble and change the minds of people that disagree with you. That is possible. I do it all the time because I speak their language.

What is impossible is the way you go about it. "Liars" stops the conversation before it starts. Despite you dismissing me I have a decent amount of influence in some circles on the Right because of social media and can and do affect change in regards to this topic.

Do not get too big for your britches. I think you have some good points but in more ways than you think you mirror Barton because you have blinders on.

I posted on the main page about this. I hope you answer my question.

King of Ireland said...

Chris,

If you think I am a follower of Barton you intensely wrong. I know for a fact that Tom is not either.

I actually used to be a follower of Barton and some of his ilk when I first started studying this topic. A lot of what you and Ed Brayton wrote got me to see the other side.

Since then both you guys have began to lose me because you nail Barton but tend to make the same mistakes.

King of Ireland said...

King of Ireland and Joe Winpisinger is the same person. I signed into my old account to post and forgot to sign out.

Joe Winpisinger said...

I listened and his remarks sound a lot like many I have heard given to Chris. I stop short of saying hyperbole is used for fundraising and do not really have that much of a problem with it even if true.

But harsh rhetoric gets us not closer to the truth about the founding and religion....

Tom Van Dyke said...

I stop short of saying hyperbole is used for fundraising

Medved was being gentle. It gets much much worse.

"What sane person can doubt that anything less than a tooth-and-nail, eye-gouging fight will protect the American people from those both in uniform and [in] the House and Senate who seek to plunge the United States into an end-times war of apocalyptic proportions?

Such a worldwide conflagration of combat is precisely what fundamentalist Christian Dominionists see as necessary for ushering in the Second Coming of the Christ, or “Rapture.” They ruthlessly lust for their promised worldwide bloodbath…

The aircraft carriers, Unmanned Aerial Systems, Peacekeeper Missiles*, bunker-busters, nuclear ICBMs, and 2.35 million active duty and reserve personnel…comprise the jewel in the crown that the “Christian Taliban” aims to seize at any and all cost."

http://christianfighterpilot.com/blog/2013/08/20/michael-weinstein-goes-defensive-repeats-the-crazy/