Stefan catches city council candidate Venus Velazquez below in a thinly veiled appeal to race. Her campaign responded this afternoon with an email dodging the issue and changing the subject. Rather than explaining her comments, she labels her opponent, Bruce Harrell, as a Republican, assuming that is the kiss of death in Seattle. Full text of her email after the break.
For what it is worth, I've seen Harrell at many community meetings over the past several months discussing issues with the voters and listening to their concerns. I've never seen Velazquez at such a meeting.
Text of Velazquez's email entitled "Republican blogger supports Bruce Harrell". (Note the title is deceptive. Stefan never declared support for Harrell, just noted disturbing coded language from Velazquez.)
Why would the state's leading Republican blogger support Bruce Harrell?Posted by Andy MacDonald at September 14, 2007 08:01 PM | Email ThisThe biggest Republican blogger in the state has weighed in on our race for Seattle City Council. Stefan Sharkansky over at Sound Politics attacks our campaign by trying to insinuate that Venus is using race as an issue in her campaign. You can see the attack at Soundpolitics.org.
Venus strongly believes that our council should reflect the diversity of the city. Bill Clinton said when he was putting his first cabinet together that it should reflect America. In that same spirit, Venus believes that our city council should reflect our city.
So, why would a Republican blogger support Bruce Harrell?
We checked it out. It turns out that Bruce Harrell has very good Republican credentials. Here are a few facts:
Bruce Harrell is the only Seattle City Council candidate who worked for a Republican (Paul Kraabel).
Bruce Harrell has given only one donation to a federal level candidate. That candidate was Republican Nebraska Senator Jon Christiansen.
Bruce Harrell is the only Seattle City Council candidate to receive endorsements from three former Republican elected officials (Paul Kraabel, Chris Bayley and Paul Barden).
Venus is proud to be endorsed by many prominent Democrats, including Seattle City Councilmembers Peter Steinbrueck and Richard Conlin, Senators Margarita Prentice, Ruth Kagi and Claudia Kauffman, labor unions, and the 34th, 36th, 46th and King County Democrats.
at least she's married to a man...that moves her to the right..
Posted by: righton on September 14, 2007 08:27 PMWell I am not too sure how many people will reach the "ATTACK" by typing www.soundpolitics.org.
I usually read Stefan on soundpolitic.com. But then of course the derailed web site will likely keep the trolls away.
Is this town and the secular progressives that populate it so stupid that they can't chew gum and walk at the same time? A question to the Vasquez campaign and campaign supporters, what issues supported by Harrell do you disagree with and why? Another question, what would you do better than Harrell were you elected to the city council? What programs and issues would you support? If all you can do is call some one a republican without telling me why you are better, guess what girlfriend, you just won a voter for Harrell.
Posted by: WVH on September 14, 2007 10:55 PMI sincerely hope that Bruce caves her ass in at the polls.
Posted by: Hinton on September 14, 2007 11:32 PMTo bad the County has repointed its name to Dr. MLK. I can't imagine he'd be proud to associate his legacy with those who choose based on color and culture.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 15, 2007 08:26 AMAs long as the council is made up of liberals.
If Velazquez was committed to diversity of opinion instead of using race as its only definition she would welcome a Republican to the race. And besides, Republicans are an opressed minority in Seattle.
Not that Harrell is a Republican. What a laugh.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 15, 2007 08:58 AMAnyway, Venus not only says bald-facedly racist things, she is also a liar. Take this nugget: "Venus strongly believes that our council should reflect the diversity of the city." No. She believes that brown people should vote for brown people. That's not the same as having diversity. If a white person in a predominantly white neighrbohood said "vote for me because I am white," he would be called a racist, so what she said is racist too, plain and simple.
Bill Clinton said when he was putting his first cabinet together that it should reflect America. In that same spirit, Venus believes that our city council should reflect our city.
You don't vote for a cabinet. So she says plainly racist things, she lies, and she provides obviously false analogies (either that, or she does not believe in democracy).
Posted by: pudge on September 15, 2007 10:44 AMI agree with Venus when she says "that our council should reflect the diversity of the city. Bill Clinton said when he was putting his first cabinet together that it should reflect America. In that same spirit, Venus believes that our city council should reflect our city."
Seattle is a progressive city committed to inclusiveness and diversity. Everyone knows that Republicans are exclusionary and divisive. Venus is right to take a stand and protest Republican interference.
Posted by: howDAREyou on September 15, 2007 10:55 AMLiberal
Socialist
Democrat
Female
Black
Homosexual
Green
Asian
Hispanic
Transgendered
Qualified
Conservative
Republican
Harrell should have no problem.
Posted by: Organization Man on September 15, 2007 11:19 AMEverytime I see quotes like this it just screams racism. The City Council should reflect the VIEWS of a city, not some arbitrary racial quota.
For a candidate to say they represent you based on a racial background is just appealing to the stupid.
If you want your city carved up in to little racial divisions keep voting these people in.
Posted by: Vince on September 15, 2007 11:44 AMWhy, because "progressives" say so?
Maybe some examples would be appropriate instead of blanket statements like this. Or maybe this was meant as a joke.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 15, 2007 12:29 PMI just came out of warching FN for several hours. I am very frightened by what I saw. How do you concervatives feel about the media using conditioning mehtods? SeattleJew
How can Republicans "interfere" in something unless they're being excluded from it? Which brings up the question, how can you be inclusive if you're being exclusive of those that disagree with you? Isn't that being a bit divisive? And how can you be diverse if you only include those like you?
[sitting back and waiting for "howDAREyou"'s head to explode]
Posted by: Mike H on September 15, 2007 12:54 PMI think it would be far more realistic to say that most members of those groups choose not to be part of the Republican party. Republicans don't "exclude" anyone. What would you call Ron Paul?
Would it be fair to say that SeattleJew exhibits predjudice against those he does not agree with, and those whose views he does not understand?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 15, 2007 01:06 PMDiversity is a good thing, but should never be the lead in anyting you do. Politicial correctness is the lead to the new socialism.
Posted by: Dengle on September 15, 2007 04:52 PMThe subject was a challenge to identify people excluded by the Republican party.
The issues i see is that the Republican party has caught tiself in an illogical vice, a combination of polcies that are inconsistent.
Examples:
small government vs. drugs=gw ars, sex laws
fiscal responsibility vs, unlimited debt
appeal to lower class religious folks vs. tax policies that favor the rich
commitment to modern industry vs. commitment to antiscientific religious points of view.
@24 Brandon
I would appreciate your pointing out the intolerance you note. I try hard to recognize my areas of intolerance and more than welcome anyone who can show me an error of fact/
Let me point out that one reason I have been posting "right Flight" at SeattleJew is to point out that there ARE valid conservative POV that desrve to be in the public debate. I 'spect you and I would agree on many of those if your read my blog.
Let me give you one example. I believe in small schools, controlled by the parents. The only workable way I can see to do this in our system is by charter schools bit I would support private schools if we could mimic the English system. I also oppose the teachers' unions on most issues. Finally I beleive in true merit scholarship systems and the limitation of UW slots ot those who can use the UW.
NOW ... this is pretty conservative, BUT I am also an atheist. support abortion, stem cells, gay rights, free speech, and want action on global warming.
Another exmaple, I am not a fan of C Gregoire and would love to support a responsible opponent.
On the left, I can discuss these ideas and find others who agree with me. For the most part where flks disagree, they argue facts.
On the right, there is a kind of a catechism, most of which excludes folks like me from particpation.
Lets talk about the gov. I feel she is a poor leader who is wasting a chance ot get real reform. I voted for Rossi .. but can not do so again unless he somehow extricates himself from issue that really should have nothing to do with the governor's job ... just listen to Lou Guzzo.
Of course I have opinions. BUT, as a blogger I usually focus on issues that are, if opinionated, mostly about the importance of facts. let me finish with a specific example,
Stem Cells
Virtually none of the stem cell opponents have the least idea what a stem cell is. I actually have respect fr the few who d .. e.g. the Pope or a muslim who accepts the literal word of the Quran.
However, most of what I read on the right is idiocy, ideas put forward be ignorant people who have no idea, for example, that they practice the equivalent of an abortion every time they shave or that 1/3 of all impregnations end in spontaneous abortion.
So, you can call me names or disregard what I write. or ... try me. use me. I have a lot of knowledge and have never refused to do my best to correct myself if I erred.
So .. here is an offer. I honestly want to help. I know a lat and am happry to share. I also love to learn, if you know things I do not know then teach me. Lets be rational.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 15, 2007 05:00 PMAnyone who believes they can have a coherent discussion with someone who makes a statement like this might as well beat his head against a rock. You just can't make this stuff up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 15, 2007 05:23 PMFYI, when you shave you shed some living cells. Based on recent work from japan, it is likely that those cells, like the stem cells in an embryo, can be reactivated to produce an individual. Of curse, I do not think that this pre-empts the religous person's belief in some mystical property that makes a stem cell unique, but it does mean that a lot of the factual arguments about stem cells require rethought.
Similarly, the advent of cheap ways to read human genomes will have a dramatic effect in my religion on orthodox scholars who follow the teachings of Maimonides. That rabbi taught that new knowledge of science does not mean the Torah is wrong, but it may mean it has been misunderstood.
Again, my offer is open and heart felt. If you know things I do not know, I am happy to learn. Frankly, most people know things I do not know and I enjiy learnng very much.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 15, 2007 05:37 PMWho do you read?
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 15, 2007 05:42 PMWell, I guess you an't find any.
Let me tell yo where I am intolerant:
FWIW
I do have prejudice vs. the very wealthy.
I am angry at the Roman Catholic Church and Islam for what they have done to my people.
I am intolerant of people who lie and this includes people unwilling to tell the truth about GWB.
your turn.
NOW ... this is pretty conservative, BUT I am also an atheist. support abortion, stem cells, gay rights, free speech, and want action on global warming.
Well, add in your stance on charter schools and I'd say your candidate should be Rudy Giuliani - pretty much 100% of your stance. Oh, by the way, he's been leading the Republican primaries for several months.
On the other hand, can you identify ONE Democrat candidate who supports full 2nd Amendment rights, charter schools, privatizing Social Security, and tax cuts?
Maybe, just maybe, the Republican party is a bit more inclusive than you surmise, and the Democrat party is a lot more exclusionary than you care to admit...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 15, 2007 06:10 PMOf these Romney would likely be my choice if, like Clinton in his frst race, Romney would come out against the extremists in his own party, make a realistic proposal on Iraq, and make a realisitc proposal in re our debt.
I am interested in his proposal for savings reform. I would be more enthusiastic if he would
explain how he would be for the exemption. My preference would be an increase at the upper levels of the estate tax. I also believe on taxation of foundations. It seems to me to be absurd that be declaring itself non-profit, a corporation can exoist for ever w/o taxes. If it is OK for a Church and for Gates it should be OK for me too.
Really? Well, then somebody forgot to give me the memo on that one. I'm part hispanic AND female and somehow I feel very comfortable voting for republican candidates. My very dark-skinned latin american-born dad felt comfortable voting for them, too.
Sorry, howDAREyou, but you have been brainwashed by somebody somewhere along the way and haven't bothered to try to see reality. Pasting labels on other people is a lot easier than admitting that Venus wants people to vote for her because of her race and not some actual qualification. That is very weak. What would MLK say??? How about judging someone on the content of their character and not the color of their skin?? That's what my dad and I did/do.
BUT, you are mistaking the issue .. at least from my POV. I think there was time when the R. party was openly racist, that is how they "took" the south. There was also a time when the dems were racist. Today if anything i ouwld say the Rs are less racist then the Dems because the R party is ideological and part of that ideology denies the racial profiling that dems still think is important in a positive way. A plus for your side!
However, the problem for Rs is an absolutely bizarre pot pouri of beliefs that make no sense as a whole. In contrast the current Dem policies are at less arbitrary and the Party is generally broad minded about divers issues such as abortion and even tax policies. The only orthodoxy in the Dems is probably in re the Bush war.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 15, 2007 07:38 PMName ONE issue that you find consensus on amongst the Republican candidates. There's a WIDE variety of opinions and positions there.
I'll name a dozen locked-in positions of the Democrat candidates, where positions are identical or both on the same side of the debate, just differing in how far over on that side they are.
Cases in point: abortion. Iraq. Taxes. Gay rights. Immigration. And racial profiling.
In each of those cases, you'll find voices for and against in the Republican party's standard-bearers.
And in each of those cases you'll find the Democrats solidly on just one side of the issue.
The Democrat party is hardly broad-minded; it's incredibly narrow-minded, highly intolerant of any viewpoint different from the "correct" one, and dripping with hate and the politics of personal destruction.
Just witness what happened to Joe Lieberman, who's ONLY disagreement with the Party is his position on Iraq - other than that, he's 100% in agreement with the Democrat party. Kicked out and actively campaigned against for breaking with orthodoxy...
The party of the KKK, the party of a $12 TRILLION dollar wealth transfer that hasn't done a thing, the party of racial divisions, the Democrat party is the epitomy of intolerance.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 15, 2007 08:02 PMMine is that the R party has adopted an awful lot of positions based on religious or non rational stands.
abortion.
REP .. There is an acceptance of the existance of some magic thing that gets into the cell at fertilization. There is no scientific meaning to this concept.
Iraq.
. REPS: refuse to admit the objective fact that we we f'd up.
How we get out is a valid POV.
Taxes.
REPS: there is a MAGICAL belief that some magic mechanism will pay for things even if we do not collect taxes.
Gay rights.
I am not sure about your point here.
REPS: Being gay is a sin. This is religion, not fact and ought not to be a right or left issue.
Immigration.
REPS: beleive a fence will work .. something no responsible authority agrees with.
Racial profiling.
Here i agree with you. The dem stand is as unrealistic as many Re. stands.
Here are some more:
Creationism:
REP. credo This is religion, not fact and ought not to be a right or left issue.
Global Warming NOT
REP: credo. This is religion, not fact and ought not to be a right or left issue.
stem cell = life
REP:credoThis is religion, not fact and ought not to be a right or left issue.
My concern is NOT with matters of opinion .. it is with the large number of places where the R party insists on fanatasy rather than fact.
The arguement that a stem cell is life, is specious. The fact is that had the normal proocess of maturation been allowed to continue to completion, the result would have been a child. The difference between a skin cell and a fertilized ovum is difference between a piece of bark and a seed. All the genetic information for the individual is available in both, but planting beauty bark will not produce a redwood tree.
Edward's "Modest Proposal" was intentionaly offensive to make the point of the official mistreatment of the Irish. I fear that today, were it read, the utilitarian crowd and those whose world view is scientism, would take it as reasonable action.
Jonathan Edwards was a preacher of different mettle...
Posted by: mark on September 15, 2007 11:37 PM@40 Mark
quickly I DO believe religion is relevant thougth I think the pol who is honest abotu his or her beiefs these days is rare. My guess is that most pols are really secular or atheist but can nto say so. Those who are devut ans mean it help us all decide whom to elect .. in the current set that inlcudes few ..Brownback, Huckabee, Obama, come to mind.
Sorry, but you ,may not know what a stem cell is. Theyreally are not any more normal then a cell you shave of with the Gillete in the AM. I will assume we are talking about embryonic cells? Do you know how these are made?
I too have some misgivings about stem cells, and I have no problem with someone claiming a religious stance on this issue, though even there I wish they would show me where they get their ideas from their bibles. To the best of my knowledge the Torah does not mention stem cells or anything like them. The Quran s a bit closer if you think blod clot is a synonym for embryo.
As a scientist I am far MORE worried about xenobiotics and chimerics than I am about stem cells. I also think Bush has as much deep belief in his own stem cell policy as he does int the Texas rangers.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 16, 2007 12:19 AMIn any case what in hell does creationism, the resurrection, transubstantiation, angels, etc have to do with R vs D?
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 16, 2007 12:24 AMHow is it taking life to make a stem cell grow?
My guess is that you think that somehow growing the stem cell means a life will not occur? First that is not really true. It depends on how the cell is obtained. Second, if this were really important then one could use the stem cell itself to "make" a baby. Third, the cells in qustion ar eonly derived from concepti that would otherwise be discarded .. i.e. never used to make a life. Fourth, ay least 2/3 of these would never mature to become people even if they had nver been removed form the woman. If anything, the procedure means an increased probability of making life.
Please understand. My concern is that neither party should make decisions based on religious views of what is really science. I have nothing wrong with anyone whose religion says "when the sperm and egg fuse, THAT is the moment of conception" because that is a statement of something that is not a scientific issue. I realize that some religions have prophets or priests who claim to speak for the deity. On the other hand there are other whose religions, mine in fact, says that life of the individual must come first ... therefore we would be required to use stem cells to save life. Both are religious points of view. How society resolves these different realities is a real problem.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 16, 2007 07:47 AML'shona tova!
It would be wonderful if the goyem would adopt our tradition of ten days of reflection.
Be good.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 16, 2007 07:58 AMLike this: "@18 atheists, pacifists, choice, peaceniks, ... do you need more examples?"
Actually, I know many atheists, pacifists, choice, and peacenik Republicans. I know almost no pro-war or pro-life Democrats, and increasingly few religious Democrats.
The most obvious part of the lie is on abortion. There are many pro-choice Republicans in Congress. You can count the pro-life Democrats on one hand.
If there's any party that actively excludes certain groups, it's the Democrats.
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2007 08:25 AMYou're as guilty as Velazquez of pandering and profiling; in this case you're being ideologically ignorant, and playing strictly on stereotypes.
Abortion: Giuliani, Romney, and many more support full abortion rights.
Iraq: John Warner, Ron Paul, and many others are opposed to the war.
Gay rights: Schwarzenegger, Giuliani, Romney and others support gay rights.
Immigration: President Bush wants amnesty and comprehensive immigration reform.
Creationism: Huckabee is the only unabashed creationist in the Republican field, and even he's unequivocally stated he wouldn't push for mandatory creationism teaching.
Global warming: Bush, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, and many others support global warming. The issue on the Right is not whether or not global warming is happening, it's the anthropogenic nature of that warming. At least there IS a debate...
Stem cells: Schwarzenegger, Giuliani, Romney and many others are NOT opposed to embryonic stem cell research. In fact, President Bush is the ONLY president to PROVIDE federal funds for such embryonic stem cell research! He's limited the number of embryonic lines that are federally funded, but at least there's dollars there (yes, this is a fact - even Clinton did not fund embryonic stem cell research).
So bottom line, if you're a scientist, you need to accept these basic facts: the Republican party is the ONLY party that is completely inclusive. You can hold positions on any side of these debates and STILL be a leading Democrat.
Ask Joe Lieberman about being pro-Iraq war.
So, name ONE leading Democrat who is one of the following:
- Pro-life.
- Pro-Iraq War.
- Anti-gay-rights.
- Pro-immigration-control.
- Pro-creationism.
- Anti-AGW.
- Anti-embryonic stem cells.
You can't. If you hold ANY of those positions, you're not welcome in the Democrat party.
My basic premise is that the stridency and divisiveness of Velazquez is not unique in the Democrat party; it is the only position allowed!
Furthermore, your claims that Democrats are broader in appeal and positions is patently and demonstrably false; again, ask Joe Lieberman.
The Democrat party of today is incredibly divisive, intolerant, and full of hate. It does not tolerate anyone taking a different stand on ANY issue.
Conversely, the Republican party is nothing at all like you claim, nor the Democrats and those in the media try to portray. You can actually hold a wide variety of positions and still be a leading Republican. There isn't the monolithic ideology demanded. It truly is the party of tolerance and acceptance.
To state otherwise flies in the face of the hard facts, and if in fact you are a scientist is intellectually dishonest.
Hold your position, and prove the intolerance and divisiveness of Velazquez, the pandering of the Democrat base, and the vitriol and hate spewed at those who happen to believe differently.
Intolerant republicans, indeed!
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 16, 2007 09:24 AMAnd George Washington did not fund space travel! The first human embryonic stem cell line wasn't created until 1998, largely because of restrictions imposed by the Gingrich congress. Clinton's administration decided in 1999 that they could fund research on those lines despite the restrictions, and began accepting grant proposals in 2000. When Bush stumbled into office in 2001, he directed the NIH to not review those proposals regardless of scientific merit, and of course subsequently imposed the greater restrictions that slow research today. So Edmonds Dan's facts, while technically correct, are misleadingly incomplete.
Posted by: Bruce on September 16, 2007 09:49 AMSo you mean the Democrat mantra that SeattleJew and so MANY espouse - that George Bush refuses to fund embryonic stem cell research - is wrong? Wow! Imagine that...
And thanks for confirming that the Democrat party (which, by your admission acts not in a democratic manner) is monolithic and intolerant of positions that don't hold to the "true" position.
Democrats are devisive, intolerant, and compassionless. They will lie, manipulate, and backstab to simply advance their agenda. Much like Velazquez.
Look no further than the latest General Patreus dust-up. The DEMOCRAT CONGRESS unanimously approved the General - even though he was advocating a surge - and the Democrats passed the LAW requiring the White House to prepare the September 15th report.
Lo and behold, the White House and the General DO what the Democrats wanted, and they're excoriated for it because the conclusions - that the surge was working - ran counter to their expectations.
A reasonable person would compromise their position and change their position based upon the facts that came from the requirements and procedures they required.
Not the Democrats! In this case, even though the White House and the General did EVERYTHING they demanded, they are still wrong because they didn't fail...
Yes, that is a party of logic, of consistency, of substance!
Oh and Bruce? About the Republican position? We have positions, but simply being a Republican does not mean you need to 100% conform to all positions. You see, we tolerate, and in fact welcome debate and diversity in opinion.
We see people as people, with independent minds, experiences, and thoughts. People like Velazquez and most of the Democrat party see people as colors and sexes only. There can be no diversity of opinion.
Joe Lieberman being the prime example...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 16, 2007 10:20 AMAnd on the issues, your comments are just wrong:
Of course Bush doesn't refuse to fund embryonic stem cell research. Anyone who says he does is factually wrong. Bush does impose severe restrictions based on political/religious/"ethical" (in quotes because there's no real ethical distinction) grounds rather than scientific merit. That's disgraceful.
No, the Democrats aren't upset because the surge is "working". It's failing dismally according to the benchmarks. If "working" means having some effect, then you could spin it as "working". But it's a failure according to the criteria Congress set out. You are correct about one thing, however: The fact that some Democrats approved it (disproving your claim of Democratic monolithicness) means that they share the blame.
Posted by: Bruce on September 16, 2007 11:14 AM1. Feminists said that women candidates would be
better and more attune to issues facing the average family. So, the I hate Bush program is part of that?
2. What are progressives going to do when Bush leaves office? Who do you hate then?
3. Is the progressive movement in favor of anything that is a life affirming? Is all progressives have to offer a visceral hatred that seems to permeate all their interactions. Do you offer more than just an eternal flaming anger that seems to strike at anything within range?
I would love to know what Ms. Velazques stands for. I hope it is more than Harrell is a republican.
Posted by: WVH on September 16, 2007 11:45 AMMaybe in your world calling people "liar" is considered polite but not in mine. I am perfectly capable of being wrong or even playing a joke, but I NEVER LIE.
This may seem strange to you but I take that commandment seriously. Calling me a lier is, to me, like calling me a traiter or theif.
If you can not discuss things without epithets, I have little use for your comments.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 16, 2007 12:02 PMDon't take it personally, I went through serval pages of comments being called a liar, vicious, vile and other names. Can't remember if I was called a moron, but there were definite asserts about intelligence. It is what it is.
One comment to you though, I know that this so far off topic that if it gets flushed, oh well.
You mentioned your hatred of Roman Catholics and Muslims for what they have done to your people.
Aren't you just as bad as the specific inidivduals who may have harmed others by declaring an entire group at fault? I don't particularly care for Islamofacists, but I have no problem with other Muslims. In my experience, many secular Jews and Jews who are atheists at the core hate Christians and Christianity. I have found it far easier to deal with practicing Orthodox or Conservative Jews that don't seem to hate me or my religion.
If I were to get this back to the topic, seems to me that many progressives are just filled with rage and hate.
Posted by: WVH on September 16, 2007 12:20 PMI must not be doing a good job of communicating. Both parties have stands,as they should. What distinguished the current Republican is a set of beliefs that are not based in reality. BTW ..Schwarznegger, McKay, O'Neil, Greenspan are all saying similar things.
I am also not saying that there is some affidavit Repubs need to sign, but they also can not speak out against these fantsies. There may be some similar issues on the Left, but the gap is no where near as wide:
Reps:
ID
Creationism
Gay=immoral
Bush Iraq policy not a failure
Bush tax policies not a failure
Stem cells have the essence of life
Humans are not causing ecological disaster
Reagan rebuilt the US military
US is highly taxed
Marijuana is a addictive
Star wars is feasible
A wall can be built that will keep us safer on the southern border\
The Stars and Bars is as offensive to many as the hackenkreuz
The founder believed in the divinty of Jesus.
These are all (with the possible exception of Gay=immoral) errors of fact. A Republican running for President may or may not hold all these, but he surely can not speak out against them.
Are there similar errors of fact on the Demo side?
Let me see what I can do:
Islam does not have a major ethical problem
all kids can learn
racial inequlaity is due to societal prejudice
IQ is not real
races do not exist
That is the best I can come up with.
@50 Tx Bruce
Actually prior to Gingrich and Bush, there were no laws limiting stem cell research. I attended a meeting in the 80s wher a major topic was a human cell line many beieved could be used to clone people. There was no controversy over how this work was funded.
@52 Edmond Dan
I think you really mistake my position. I honestly do not consider myself as a member of any political party. I have given money and support to McCain and Rossi recently. I would LOVE to see what i call a Rational Republican oppose Sunny Jim her ein the 7th. I would love to see the Rep part y run s RR vs. Gregoire.
BUT, that will not happen until the GOP finds it equivalent of Clinton, a leader witht he skill to move the Radical Religious Republican part to the sidelines.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 16, 2007 12:31 PMI enjoy talking wiht you .. hope to see you some time at SeattleJew
My message to pudge was meant to tell him that I am insulted. If he needs ot call people names, fine. I do not need ot respond and he should know what I think of his name calling.
In my oist, I tried to be honest. That is a step beyond not lying, no?" I think you know me enough to know that I am tolerant of the same people I have prejudices against but I need ot work at it.
In re islam and Christianity, where you and I may differ is that I see a major shared flaw in both of these. That flaw has resulted in huge harm not just to Jews but others.
Let me give you a small example. In your culture it s normal to use the term pharisee as an epithet. My son is named for the chief Pharisee .. Hillel .. who modern scholars feel was the source for much of the message you and I both admire in Christianity.
I would like to leave of this thread here, can we find another venue?
@52 Edmonds Dan
Actually both parties, by and large, treated Petraeus with respect. The Genral fgave facts .. the spin is what matters. You might look at the constructive remarks of Lindsay Graham (R SC). He, along with Obama and Clinton are calling for a unified policy with a clear strategy. Hard to achieve in an election season!
@54 WVH good questions. I wish that is how we f=did politics. I think I can answer a bir of what I expect Clinton or Obama to achieve:
a. health care reform
b. improvement on opportunity for poor people.
c, rebuilt international alliances.
d. rebuild the military
e. rationalized tax policy
No, I am not intending to be polite. That's a silly allegation to make.
I am perfectly capable of being wrong or even playing a joke, but I NEVER LIE.
That is yet another lie: not only do you lie "sometimes," but you do it ALL the time. You lie more than anyone else on this site. I just gave another example, and I have given many in the past, and you've never rebutted a single example. You've either just ignored it, or you've attacked me in return, instead of showing that you were either correct, or simply mistaken. And then you go on to repeat your lies, which only proves that you are lying: it's not mere error to repeat something you have been told is incorrect. It's lying.
This may seem strange to you but I take that commandment seriously.
Your incessant lying shows that either you do not take the commandment seriously (it would, of course, be perfectly in keeping with your lying personality), or that you have a psychological problem that you cannot control that forces you to lie.
Calling me a lier is, to me, like calling me a traiter or theif.
Yes, it is to me, too. I am glad you are insulted: you should be. I insulted you. But nothing I said is nearly as bad as your incessant lies.
If you can not discuss things without epithets, I have little use for your comments.
So? How much do you want to bet that people on this site have more use for my comments than yours? :-)
WVH: shrug, you did lie. You said another poster was a racist. Then you tried to prove he was, and having utterly failed, you resorted to the dishonest "well the proof is there, YOU find it." Except, of course, I didn't know what to look for, and you allegedly did, and yet YOU were incapable of finding it. It was dishonest to claim he was a racist, dishonest to say I should look for it when I didn't know what to look for, and dishonest to imply it was there when you tried to find it and couldn't (indeed, you even identified a specific thread you said was "the thread," that in fact didn't even mention race!).
At least you had the good sense to drop it after a time (until now).
And no, WVH, I don't believe I ever attacked your intelligence. I did call you irrational, but that is not about intelligence, but wisdom, judgment, and understanding. Intelligence is a different category. Indeed, YOU are the one who called ME an "idiot." Your "selective memory" is betraying you once more. I suggest you drop it before you venture from mere mistake into lie.
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2007 03:47 PMGuess the meds haven't kicked in yet.
Posted by: WVH on September 16, 2007 03:54 PMI must not be doing a good job of communicating. Both parties have stands,as they should. What distinguished the current Republican is a set of beliefs that are not based in reality.
Lie #1, although it is a blanket lie for the lies to come. He calls these errors of fact by the Republican party:
ID
SeattleJew has been told what ID actually is, and, in fact, there is no set of facts proving ID is, in any way, errant in any facts. Also, this is not a Repuiblican party position. Lies #2 and #3.
Creationism
I will grant that science appears to show creationism is wrong on the facts. However, that doesn't mean it IS in error (see: old earth Creationism). However, I'll call that a disagreement, and not a lie, and merely note that, in fact, this is not a Republican party position. Lie #4.
Gay=immoral
Is not an issue of fact (though you concede this later), and is not a Republican party position. Lie #5.
Bush Iraq policy not a failure
Also not an issue of fact. Bush's Iraq policy has from the beginning been a very long-term policy. He even said years ago that "we'll all be dead" before we can know whether the policy has succeeded. Only history can judge that. Lie #6.
Bush tax policies not a failure
In fact, the data for saying the tax policies have been a success FAR exceeds any data showing it to be a failure. Lie #7.
Stem cells have the essence of life
Once again, this is neither provable as a statement of fact either way, nor is it the GOP position. Lies #8 and #9.
Humans are not causing ecological disaster
No one claims this. Lie #10.
Reagan rebuilt the US military
In fact he did. Lie #11.
US is highly taxed
Yes, it is. Lie #12.
Marijuana is a addictive
It is. If you mean physically addictive, yes, it is not. But it is psychologically addictive to many. Also, this is not the Republican position. Lies #13 and #14.
Star wars is feasible
Of course it is. Lie #15.
A wall can be built that will keep us safer on the southern border
It can be, even if it is unlikely to happen. Lie #16.
The Stars and Bars is as offensive to many as the hackenkreuz
This is not a Republican party position. Lie #17.
The founder believed in the divinty of Jesus.
Which founder? I'll assume you mean "founders." And some did. If you mean "all founders believed in the divinity of Jesus," then you are lying by saying this is a Republican party position. If you mean "some founders believed int he divinity of Jesus," then you are lying by saying that it isn't true. Either way: lie #18.
These are all (with the possible exception of Gay=immoral) errors of fact. A Republican running for President may or may not hold all these, but he surely can not speak out against them.
Lie #19. Indeed, we know examples of many who have spoken out against many of them.
Are there similar errors of fact on the Demo side?
I won't go over each one, but again, you are wrong on every single one. But worse, the Dem candidates hold to some of the former as much as the Republican candidates. Except for Kucinich, they are as anti-gay as the Republican candidates, and they believe in creationism and ID just as much (even if they, like you, do not know what "ID" means ... except that I told you what it means, so you have no excuse). Further, the war on drugs, including marijuana, is more an invention of the Democrats than of the Republicans.
I'll add a list of errors of fact by you Democrats:
* The federal government is not one of limited powers
* The three branches of government are coequal (in fact, the Congress has the most power, then the President, then the Court)
* The Congress has micromanagement authority over the Executive Branch
* There is not an individual right to keep and bear arms
* The government has the right to force parents to submit their children to certain educational requirements
* The government has the right to force us to have health insurance
* Significant anthropogenic global warming is established fact, and there is no debate
* Oil companies control gas prices
Here's some more fun errors of fact that I separate because they are of a different category:
* Cheney ever said he was not in the Executive Branch
* Bush said the Constitution was "just a goddamned piece of paper"
* Alberto Gonzales ever said he was not involved in any meetings about the firing of U.S. attorneys
* Joe Wilson was right
* The government has any obligation to "listen to the people" and pull out of Iraq
* The President has any obligation to "listen to the people" about ANYTHING
* The President has any obligation to discuss anything with Congress, except where specifically noted in the Constitution
* The Congress got a mandate in 2006 to pull out of Iraq
* The President should follow what the generals say (unless of course, the generals are saying something we don't like!)
In my oist, I tried to be honest.
Lie #20.
I think you know me enough to know that I am tolerant of the same people I have prejudices against but I need ot work at it.
No, you are not tolerant of the people you are prejudiced against. You are extremely intolerant. Lie #21.
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2007 04:13 PMDoes your selective memory include not posting the entire section from the State Department requirements for obtaining a passport and only posting the section for those who can't obtain a passport. Then, saying the reason you didn't post the entire section was because you thought I was intelligent enough to read it? Dude, you have some serious anger issues and issues of slamming people. Shrug, I know that you don't care about that, but at least don't get offended when some one challenges you. Seattle Jew is capable of speaking for himself, but it seems you go ballistic and call every one a liar who doesn't agree with your limited views. Now, let's get it straight, based upon my opinion of a series of postings by JDH, I called him a bigot. that was my opinion based on those postings and I am entitled to it. You inserted yourself into that discussion. That discussion was none of your business and still isn't.
Now this is the definition of bigot in the context that I was using it:
big·ot
-noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
[Origin: 1590-1600; Hello Again,
Does your selective memory include not posting the entire section from the State Department requirements for obtaining a passport and only posting the section for those who can't obtain a passport. Then, saying the reason you didn't post the entire section was because you thought I was intelligent enough to read it? Dude, you have some serious anger issues and issues of slamming people. Shrug, I know that you don't care about that, but at least don't get offended when some one challenges you. Seattle Jew is capable of speaking for himself, but it seems you go ballistic and call every one a liar who doesn't agree with your limited views. Now, let's get it straight, based upon my opinion of a series of postings by JDH, I called him a bigot. that was my opinion based on those postings and I am entitled to it. You inserted yourself into that discussion.
Now this is the definition of bigot in the context that I was using it:
big·ot
-noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
[Origin: 1590-1600; Hello Again,
Does your selective memory include not posting the entire section from the State Department requirements for obtaining a passport and only posting the section for those who can't obtain a passport. Then, saying the reason you didn't post the entire section was because you thought I was intelligent enough to read it? Dude, you have some serious anger issues and issues of slamming people. Shrug, I know that you don't care about that, but at least don't get offended when some one challenges you. Seattle Jew is capable of speaking for himself, but it seems you go ballistic and call every one a liar who doesn't agree with your limited views. Now, let's get it straight, based upon my opinion of a series of postings by JDH, I called him a bigot. that was my opinion based on those postings and I am entitled to it. You inserted yourself into that discussion.
Now this is the definition of bigot in the context that I was using it:
big·ot
-noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
[Origin: 1590-1600; Hello Again,
Does your selective memory include not posting the entire section from the State Department requirements for obtaining a passport and only posting the section for those who can't obtain a passport. Then, saying the reason you didn't post the entire section was because you thought I was intelligent enough to read it? Dude, you have some serious anger issues and issues of slamming people. Shrug, I know that you don't care about that, but at least don't get offended when some one challenges you. Seattle Jew is capable of speaking for himself, but it seems you go ballistic and call every one a liar who doesn't agree with your limited views. Now, let's get it straight, based upon my opinion of a series of postings by JDH, I called him a bigot. that was my opinion based on those postings and I am entitled to it. You inserted yourself into that discussion.
Now this is the definition of bigot in the context that I was using it:
big·ot
-noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
[Origin: 1590-1600;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot
I believe I asked you at that time are you the sheriff policing the site.
As for the definition of racist, that was on another thread involving Velazquez. Since your selective memory goes back to the time the earth cooled and I will be called a liar, vile, and irrational anyhow, I might as well take full advantage of the moment and say that much of your name calling of others is based on your own feelings of inferiority and ill at ease with those who are different. Yeh, your brother in laws in law was big in civil rights in Mississippi and those good deeds don't necessarily follow you. Yeh, I called you an idiot and the more posts like this will probably confirm that assessment. So, shrug, shrug, call me a liar, call vile, guess what I'm me.
Posted by: WVH on September 16, 2007 04:16 PMIf you don't like it, you shouldn't have brought it up. I have nothing to be ashamed of here: I didn't say a single thing that's untrue, that I couldn't back up.
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2007 04:31 PMDoes your selective memory include not posting the entire section from the State Department requirements for obtaining a passport and only posting the section for those who can't obtain a passport.
There was nothing wrong with that. Your claim was that proof of citizenship was required. Logic teaches us that a single counterexample disproves an absolute. I gave what was necessary to disprove your claim. Feel free to believe I was wrong, but I wasn't.
Then, saying the reason you didn't post the entire section was because you thought I was intelligent enough to read it?
No. That was only part of it. Which you were. As you proved, by doing so.
The main part is that it was not logically necessary.
Dude, you have some serious anger issues and issues of slamming people.
Huh. Correctly judging your intelligence means I am angry, or slamming you?
I know that you don't care about that, but at least don't get offended when some one challenges you.
No, you got offended when I challenged you over your libel of JDH. I did not get offended at any point of you challenging me. I don't know what you think you're referring to.
Seattle Jew is capable of speaking for himself, but it seems you go ballistic and call every one a liar who doesn't agree with your limited views.
Nope. In fact, that has never once happened, ever. I said you lied when you said something that was false, and then insisted it was true when you even failed to find any evidence supporting it whatsoever.
I called SeattleJew a liar when he incessantly repeated things that are lies, over and over and over.
It's not about disagreement. It's about saying things that are true, and even when shown to be incorrect, repeating those claims. That is lying. And it is remarkable to me that people get pissed off when I use the word "lie" when the LIE ITSELF is far more offensive than a silly word.
Now, let's get it straight, based upon my opinion of a series of postings by JDH, I called him a bigot.
Correct.
that was my opinion based on those postings and I am entitled to it.
Correct. However, then you said that this opinion was based on bigoted and racist things he said. That was the lie, as demonstrated when you tried to show him saying racist or bigoted things, and showed nothing remotely racist or bigoted.
You inserted yourself into that discussion. That discussion was none of your business and still isn't.
Incorrect. That is now how these discussions work. Everyone is a welcome participant in any part of a discussion on Sound Politics and all web sites like it.
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2007 08:43 PMJust got back from the Market Theater. For those of you who like Improv. Check it out. OK, now where were we.
1. Hey have you trademarked "shrug" because I have a great way to get 2 1/2 minutes of fame. I have just come up with a new dance called the shrug. Here is how it goes. Stand still because an individual that constantly calls people liar and vicious obviously has no rhythm. Raise shoulders and then lower them, don't worry about moving to any beat, since rhythm isn't necessary. Can't wait for the next auditions of America has Talent to premier my new dance. Sanjeeya, are you listening?
2. Never said that you should be ashamed of anything. For most here, blogging is a hobby and although people may heatedly disagree about topics and issues, in my opinion, most people do not mean to be harmful or hurtful.
3. Some extremely intelligent people are cursed or blessed depending upon how one looks at with memories that do not allow them to let go of anything. Sometimes it is helpful to occasionally empty the trash bin.
Anyhow, since most of us here are never going to be big time on a sports team, back to our version of trash talking.
I have no idea of what you think you are achieving. nor is it worth the pixels required to go on and on with you.
As I said, I d not lie. I may be wrong and if so I am happy to be shown my errors, but I have never knowingly, other than in jest, as sock puppetry, or as intended irony lied.
BTW, I do not think you lie either and I respect your intelligence. It would be a pleasure to be able to discuss issues with you stripped of invective.
WVH
The more I see of your comments, the more interested I am in learning more. I hope you understand that my agenda is not anti the Rep party. I do not want that party, like its predecessor the Whigs, to die because of attachments to irrational ideas (or in the Whigs case a failure to understand the practical implications of the Revolution). IMHO there uS suffered greatly because the WHIGs died. A rational opposition to the dems of that day might have averted the Civil War.
I am curious about how you feel about Rossi and Guzzo?
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 16, 2007 09:05 PM1. I don't belong to any party, I suspect no party would have me.
2. I really do vote issues and I don't care about labels.
3. Candidates don't have to necessarily agree with me on all positions, I am looking for integrity, intelligence, either some one who works hard or has enough sense to hire people who work hard.
4. I will limit my remarks to my communtiy. What has allowed Blacks to survive over 400 years in this country is at the core, sorry you probably don't see it this way, a strong Christian faith. People of all political ideologies cite Dr. King, guess what, he came from a line of ministers. Until the 50s, Blacks might have lived in segregated environments, but per Monynihan's research there were two parent families or at least strong committed relationships. I am not advocating segregation, I do advocate strong families. Secular progressive ideology as typlified by the "Great Society" is in conflict with what has historically helped Blacks to survive in this country.
5. There are certain issues that I see will be difficult for parties to resolve, one is the issue of abortion and gay marriage. For those Christians who read the Bible literally and not all do, the American liberal Anglican Convention, for example. Several conservative Anglican churches are now under the authority of African Bishops.
6. I am pragmatic enough to know that we, as Rodney King would say, all have to get along. I don't object to domestic partnerships, no to gay marriage. On abortion, let each state deceide. This means that Christians and other people of faith will have to step up support for those choosing to have their babies.
7. I use to be a dem, but since I am an imperfect conservative Christian, I sometimes swear, I found being a dem tough sledding.
In any event, I look at the individual candidate, which is why Venus lost a voter with her lame reply.
Posted by: WVH on September 16, 2007 09:59 PMAs for Christianity, by now you know me well enough that I can see more than one side. I credit Christianity with many good things .. some great things including charity, the enlightenment, and democracy as we know it.
That said, I do have troubles esp with the Christianity of the black community since i know, as you do how this was inflicted on the slaves. I worry that the good things that the Church does, including Dr. King and Dr. Jeffrey, may come at the expense of the eventual growth of the community as an intellectual entity. The problem is that it seems to me that Christianity always comes up against its own founding story and that story conflicts with a lot of the higher ideal I see in humanism.
Still if I were Black I. like you wo0uld treasyre the tradition and try (as I do with Judaism) to evolve my own take out of the best of my heritage. To be honest that is what I believe Jummy Carter and MLK have done.
As for parties, you and I are likely very close ..though we might disagree on individuals. Until Bush is dosposed of and his mes is cleared up, I tend ot vote Demo if only to over ride the idiocy he does. At the same time I worry a lot about what will happen if the radical repubs do not reform.
It would be great fun to get together some time in person. My treat?
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 16, 2007 10:18 PM1. Christianity was not inflicted on the slaves any more than Judism was inflicted on the Ethiopians after the Queen of Sheba arrived back home with King David's son. It is an interesting story of the airlifts of Black Jews to israel. Careful, your secular progressive tendencies are showing. I already know Pastor Jeffrey. You and Bruce tend to like a certain type of Christian leader, less fundamentalist. Dr. Jeffrey instituted Black Dollar Days to produce economic advance in the Black community and I agree with that. Here is an interesting bit about Christianity and Africa:
"Christianity first arrived in North Africa, in the 1st or early 2nd century AD. The Christian communities in North Africa were among the earliest in the world. Legend has it that Christianity was brought from Jerusalem to Alexandria on the Egyptian coast by Mark, one of the four evangelists, in 60 AD. This was around the same time or possibly before Christianity spread to Northern Europe.
Once in North Africa, Christianity spread slowly West from Alexandria and East to Ethiopia. Through North Africa, Christianity was embraced as the religion of dissent against the expanding Roman Empire. In the 4th century AD the Ethiopian King Ezana made Christianity the kingdom's official religion. In 312 Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
In the 7th century Christianity retreated under the advance of Islam. But it remained the chosen religion of the Ethiopian Empire and persisted in pockets in North Africa...."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index_section8.shtml
2. One of the sore spots between Evangelicals and the government of Israel is the issue of conversions. I'm not sure if Daystar, a Christian Broadcaster has had their license revoked.
3. "Still if I were Black I. like you wo0uld treasyre the tradition and try (as I do with Judaism) to evolve my own take out of the best of my heritage. To be honest that is what I believe Jummy Carter and MLK have done."
You and Bruce crack me up. First, both of you are atheists with an agenda. Frankly, I don't see how you can be Jewish and not believe in Jehovah, although you say that is possible. The future of Blacks in this country will not be determined by
Jimmy Carter, but by Evangelicals like Bishop TD Jakes and Dr. Creflo Dollar. They are Old School and very much in to that old time religion which is strongly Scripturally based and they are making alliances with Roman Catholics and Orthodox churches.
So you and Bruce on Christianity, not even close and as Bill Clinton would say, no cigar.
Posted by: WVH on September 16, 2007 10:58 PMmost people do not mean to be harmful or hurtful.
Agreed. However, you were the exception, when you decided to slander someone as a bigot without any evidence whatsoever that he was a bigot.
SeattleJew:
I have no idea of what you think you are achieving.
I notice you don't even attempt to defend your lies. Regardless, what do YOU think YOU are achieving by spreading your extremist liberal nonsense on Sound Politics?
As I said, I d not lie.
Yes, you do. Often.
I may be wrong and if so I am happy to be shown my errors, but I have never knowingly, other than in jest, as sock puppetry, or as intended irony lied.
That is, of course, a lie. You said many things that are lies. I quoted 21 of them. And don't say you didn't know they were lies. You know ID is not factually incorrect, because I explained it to you. You know that Creationism is not in the Republican platform. And so on. You repeated that incorrect information knowing it to be false: that is lying.
The more I see of your comments, the more interested I am in learning more. I hope you understand that my agenda is not anti the Rep party.
I believe that, too, is a lie. I believe your agenda is precisely that, which is why you lie so often about what the Republican party beliefs ARE.
I do not want that party, like its predecessor the Whigs, to die because of attachments to irrational ideas (or in the Whigs case a failure to understand the practical implications of the Revolution). IMHO there uS suffered greatly because the WHIGs died.
Uh. The Whigs as a party did not begin to exist until the Revolution had been over for more than 50 years, and it was dead within about 20 years. But then again, you still think James Madison didn't believe in enumerated powers. You really have a very poor grasp of American history.
Also, regarding "rational:" you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Indeed, I am quite certain it does not, since you are completely incapable of showing that the overwhelming majority of things you call "irrational" are actually irrational, but a fundamental characteristic of rationality (and irrationality) is that it can be logically deduced (even if not to perfection, it can at least be shown to a high degree of certainty).
So either you are too lazy or cowardly to back up your claims of rationality, or you simply cannot; if you cannot, it is because you simply do not have the ability, or because it cannot be done, because it is false. As I've shown, the overwhelming majority of the time, it is the latter. Whatever way, it's pathetic.
We are not far apart.
Another lie. You are extremely liberal, she is very conservative. You are very far apart, on almost everything.
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2007 11:08 PMWhat got you out of your slumber. Look, I'm entitled to my opinion and if I decide to call you pudgy, is that slander if it my opinion? Besides, JDH and I agree to fight the good fight on issues we agree on. You need to find out where the delete button is in your brain and use it.
Posted by: WVH on September 16, 2007 11:22 PMYou make the typical Christian and fundie error of accepting myth as fact. We are not even sure Solomon existed much less Sheba. If she did exist, it is not clear that she came from Ethiopea. Moreover Jews have never practiced forced conversion and AFIK the Ethiopean myth does not describe a hallachik conversion.
I also fear you make the afrocentric error of treating Africa as one people and ne place. Ethiopians, for excample, are semites .. at least culturally quite distinct from the majority of Africans. North Africa is yet another group or groups and quite distinct from the Bantu derived folks of the sub sahara and west coat. Most American slaves came form the West Coast. To the best of my knowledge there were no ethiopean slaves.
I ma not an expert on the indigenous religions of West Africa in the slavery period but my understanding is that most slaves came from nativist cultures. Have you read Achebe's Arrow of God? One of my classic! His image of the confrontation between nativism and Xtainity is wonderful. It makes me wonder how much African slaves lost on the way to slavery.
I do not know about Daystar but Israel has very good reason to tamp down evangelism. There is enough trouble without that.
BTW are you aware that the "J" word you use for God is an epithet that is prohibited in the bible? If Jesus had used that word he would have been stoned to death according to the law of that time. In any case, the Christian concept of the Jewish Deity is almost totally different from G-d as described within Judaism. It certainly is abhorrent to Judaism to imagine a Deity who crucifies his son.
As I have explained before, Judaism has NO credo. and never has had one. the majority of Israeli Jews are secular or atheist.
Finally, I assume you realize that early Christianity of N Africa was declared a heresy by the romans? You might enjoy learning about the bene Noach.
Pudge
As I have said. You are bright and it would be good to be able to "talk." However, I d not so invective.
As I was taught the Federalists were called Whigs. Their use of the Alien and Sedition Act doomed some good people to the ash heep.
BTW, not to fly cast but I regularly post on the decline of the Repricans under the tile Right Flight at SJ. You might find a lot there ot accuse me of lying ..though mostly it is just links to news articles about republicans deserting the ship.
'
What got you out of your slumber. Look, I'm entitled to my opinion and if I decide to call you pudgy, is that slander if it my opinion?
It could be, yes, of course. Opinions are not immune to being slander. Slander and libel both fall under the general heading of defamation, which is a (usually false) claim that can harm a reputation. It doesn't matter if it is an "opinion."
You need to find out where the delete button is in your brain and use it.
Um, once again, YOU brought it up.
Posted by: pudge on September 17, 2007 12:06 AM1. You have an agenda. Dr. Jeffrey is indeed a devout Baptist. There are different denominations of Baptists. What you fail to recognize is that the key difference, no matter what the denomination is whether the Scripture is read literally. The Vatican is cracking down on a theologian at Georgetown for deviating from the stricter interpretion of the Scripture. One can be a devout anything. Strict reading of Christian Scripture creates problems for your secular progressive ideology and I understand that.
2. I am not familar with Hebrew and Aramaic. So, the term Jehovah is what English speaking Christians like me use. I suspect that in Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek, the English term I am using is less offensive.
2. I think your understanding of African tradition is based upon Liberation Theology which a lot of secular Black elite like the Rev. Ann Holmes espouse. No, Africans and slaves were not forced to adopt Christianity, they embraced it, just as many all over the world do.
Finally, I really don't understand atheists, I have to admit. Your life must have a part missing. There must be something about Christians and Christianity which really frightens you, otherwise, you wouldn't try to hard to tear it down. Every time we chat, I feel so extremely Blessed that by the power of the Spirit, I'm secure in my faith. I'm turning into a pumpkin. Good Night.
Posted by: WVH on September 17, 2007 12:25 AMYou make the typical Christian and fundie error of accepting myth as fact.
False. WVH did not do that. Also, you do not know what "fundie" means. You've probably never even heard of The Fundamentals, which is what "fundamentalist" in the Christian context refers to.
Indeed, you are -- as usual -- being hypocritical, applying a tougher standards to others than to yourself. You can't prove your claims as fact (or not-myth) any more than she can prove hers.
I also fear you make the afrocentric error of treating Africa as one people and ne place.
No, she did not.
BTW are you aware that the "J" word you use for God is an epithet that is prohibited in the bible?
No, it is not. You are wrong here on two counts.
Fits, Jehovah is not an epithet, it is a pronounciation of the four letters that constitute his name: JHVH (or YHWH). I have no idea where you got this "epithet" nonsense.
Second, there is nothing in the Old or New Testament prohibiting the utterance or writing of the name of God, whether "God" or "Yahweh" or "Jehovah." It's simply not in there.
If Jesus had used that word he would have been stoned to death according to the law of that time.
Jesus said and did a lot of things that the Jewish authorities considered against the law, so that hardly means anything. Indeed, he was killed for claiming he was the Son of God, if you recall.
In any case, the Christian concept of the Jewish Deity is almost totally different from G-d as described within Judaism.
That's not true.
It certainly is abhorrent to Judaism to imagine a Deity who crucifies his son.
It certainly is abhorrent to claim that God ever did such a thing in Christianity.
As I have explained before, Judaism has NO credo. and never has had one. the majority of Israeli Jews are secular or atheist.
That makes no sense whatsoever. It is not possible to adhere to Judaism and be an atheist. The two are opposite. Then again, you are a diehard liberal and you claimed to be a conservative, so maybe impossible contradictions seem normal to you. You can be a Jew and be an atheist, but you cannot belong to or profess Judaism and be an atheist. Hint: the "ism" directly implies a philosophy of some kind.
As I was taught the Federalists were called Whigs.
That doesn't say much for who taught you that. They were not called Whigs.
Their use of the Alien and Sedition Act doomed some good people to the ash heep.
There was no Alien and Sedition Act. The Alien Act and Sedition Act were two different things. Further, the Federalists did many great things, in terms of forging the foundations of the nation, in foreign policy, military, interstate commerce, constitutional interpretation, and more. Only a fool would dismiss the Federalist Party merely because of the Alien and Sedition Acts (the former of which was never even used!).
And the Whigs did not even exist until the Alien and Sedition Acts had been expired for more than 20 years. They were not the same as the Federalists. Many accused the Whigs of being a reconstitution of the Federalist Party, but that's a shallow understanding of its makeup, which actually brought in a lot of groups that never were a part of the Federalists, including many ex-Jeffersonians.
And while the Federalists disintegrated in large part because of their mistakes made at the end of Adams' presidency (including the aforementioned Acts), as well as lack of leadership and a growing agricultural population, the Whigs disintegrated for only one reason: lack of unified opposition to slavery.
Side note: one of the oddest things about the history of the time is that Alexander Hamilton is generally more well-regarded than John Adams, mostly because of the Alien and Sedition Acts, but Hamilton had far more to do with them (as de facto leader of the Federalists, despite Adams being the President and a Federalist) than Adams did. Perhaps that's because Hamilton never became President and died early (at the hands of the traitor Aaron Burr).
Posted by: pudge on September 17, 2007 12:55 AMAetheism ... hay iof my atheism strengthens YOUR beliefs , that means I am doing a mitzvah! Yay me!
Pudge
WADR ... there is NO word spelled as you do in Hebrew bnecause Hebrew does not have vowels. The word you refer to is NEVER prolnounced as you do, that ouwld be cionsidered "taking the nake of God in vein" The translation of those letter is "I am that I am. "
Just go to any Jewish website and look up the issue.
As to use of the term Whigs, the most recent reference i heard was by Ken Burns. Was he misinformed?
Given that his execution was Roman, the crime would have been treason for claiming kinghood. As for the Deities will .. what I said is right out of conventional doctrines of the RC Church.
BTW .. tx for not going on about lies. I appreciate it. In that same spirit I did not say that the Federalists did not do many things of value. I know very well the differences between Adams, Marshall and Hamilton. IMHO the US exists because of the miracle of Jefferson and Adams.
You also find there is no such things as "professing Judaism" we are a people and I am sorry but you will find the most orthodox rabbi the world will always gladly welcome my membership in that people.
Moreover, the Jewish deity gave us 613 laws, not beliefs, laws. I can certainly recommend good reading if yo want to learn more about us. Goyem are also welcome and of course not evangelized in our synagogues.
Be good.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 17, 2007 01:18 AMThe J word. Actually no. In Judaism the word you use is considered blasphemous
Not according to the Bible itself, no. Nothing in the Old Testament says this.
and certainly would not have been used used by Jesus.
False.
WADR ... there is NO word spelled as you do in Hebrew bnecause Hebrew does not have vowels.
Um, can you read? Or perhaps you don't know what a vowel is? I said it is spelled YHWH or JHVH. None of those letters are vowels.
The word you refer to is NEVER prolnounced as you do
False, and self-contradictory. If the name of God is not pronounced that way, then what's the problem with using it? (Duh.) It is true that the word "Jehovah" was likely not prounced this way thousands of years ago, but it is pronounced that way now, often.
that ouwld be cionsidered "taking the nake of God in vein"
"Vain." And no, it is not. That's a common misconception. The practice of not writing the word actually comes from Deuteronomy 12:3-4, where it is said to tear down the names of other gods, but to not do so to the name of God. In order to make sure that doesn't happen, the tradition began to simply not write down the name of God. Problem solved!
There is some truth that the commandment against taking the name of God in vain has contributed to the custom of neither writing nor speaking the name of God, but there's no direct causation. The practice of not using it is more out of a general sense of respect than anything else, and it is in no way considered blasphemous by the Bible.
The translation of those letter is "I am that I am. "
Yes, I am quite well aware of that. That fact does not disagree with anything I said.
Just go to any Jewish website and look up the issue.
I already know the issue quite well. You're wrong on most counts.
As to use of the term Whigs, the most recent reference i heard was by Ken Burns. Was he misinformed?
If he said the Federalists were called Whigs, then yes, he was mistaken. Though it is probably more likely that you misunderstood.
Given that his execution was Roman, the crime would have been treason for claiming kinghood.
Except that the Romans didn't care and were pushed into it because the Jewish leaders thought he was blaspheming.
As for the Deities will .. what I said is right out of conventional doctrines of the RC Church.
False. There's no truth to that at all.
BTW .. tx for not going on about lies. I appreciate it.
Shrug. Thanks for not lying this time. If you repeat lies, I will call you a liar again.
In that same spirit I did not say that the Federalists did not do many things of value.
I never said you did.
I know very well the differences between Adams, Marshall and Hamilton. IMHO the US exists because of the miracle of Jefferson and Adams.
No, you do not know those differences very well. If you did, you would not so drastically misunderstand Madison, and you would know that Federalists were not Whigs. Similarly, your claim that you agree with and support all of the Bill of Rights is false, because you don't even understand the Tenth Amendment, and you disagree with what it actually means.
You also find there is no such things as "professing Judaism"
False. Professing Judaism is defined clearly as following and believing what we Christians call the Old Testament.
we are a people and I am sorry but you will find the most orthodox rabbi the world will always gladly welcome my membership in that people.
Sure. But being accepted as a Jew does not mean you profess Judaism. "Being a Jew" does not equal or imply "Judaism."
Moreover, the Jewish deity gave us 613 laws, not beliefs, laws.
You say that as though it in some way contradicts anything I said. Why?
I can certainly recommend good reading if yo want to learn more about us.
Shrug. I obviously know more about Judaism than you do, in many ways, such as your misconception about the Bible saying that it is blasphemous to speak the name Jehovah.
Be good.
You first.
Nuff said.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 17, 2007 09:00 AMRemember the word which Moses the servant of Jehovah commanded you, saying, Jehovah your God giveth you rest, and will give you this land> Joshua 1:13
Now, I assume that you're familiar with Joshua. If he could use the name Jehovah, and use it to describe who Moses was (another pretty important figure in Jewish and Christian theology), then the name Jehovah is pretty OK to use.
Far be it from me to call you wrong, but I'll stick with what Joshua, David, and a few hundred other Biblical figures common to Jewish and Christian theology use as a name for God.
Now, back on subject... Note how the liberal posters in this thread love to change the subject? Just like Velazquez...
It's about division, and when called up on their lies and deceit they try to change the subject, to avoid the bright lights of truth.
Velazquez is a race-baiter, pure and simple. Unfortunately that seems to be the main mantra of the Democrat party these days...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 17, 2007 11:47 AMBut he can't even say Judaism says that it is blasphemy, because that would be contradicting his claim that Judaism doesn't recognize the existence of God!
Posted by: pudge on September 17, 2007 04:30 PMAs for the original post, Harrell is shopping this video around now, months after the event, because his campaign is floundering. He is literally trying to motivate voters through fear. That should cause any voter to question his real motives.
Posted by: Timothy on September 17, 2007 07:41 PM1. Sometimes the group does get a bit off topic, but usually the discussions are good and even if I don't agree with everything, I learn a lot.
2. I am an indie, you seem to be a Venus supporter, so answer the following:
a. Does Venus have any comments which directly relate to the video. It has been proven time and time again that negative campaigning works. In big cities like Philly, NY, Newark, and other places campaigns emphasizing the race of the candidate work, but they have polarized those cities into enclaves. What, if anything, was Venus attempting to accomplish with her comments to HATEFREE ZONE?
b. My observation is that many progressive have as their platform, "I hate Bush" and that is the sum total of their platform. Does Venus have anything to offer other than Bruce is a republican?
c. What is so bad about being a republican, a green party or a whatever. Shouldn't the quality of a particular candidate be paramount. The original thread had a comment that Venus is a mother. In my mind that neither qualifies or disqualifies. Britney Spears is also a mother and I wouldn't vote for her, she is a moron. Also, I am pleased that both Venus and Bruce are running, but I'm not voting for either solely on the basis of race. I vote for candidates with integrity, intelligence, a committment to the public good and those willing to work for the public interest. Since I don't belong to a party, I don't feel the need to vote for anyone on the ballot. We have an easy write-in and I can vote for Micky Mouse.
I assume that you don't have an official position with Venus' campaign, but if you as they say know people- What are the answers to my questions?
Posted by: WVH on September 17, 2007 08:06 PMWhy should I care what his motives are, when it is clear that Venus is either a racist or race-baiter, depending on how you define your terms (happy, WVH? :-)?
Anyway: it is probably true that the Democrats finally hit Mark Foley last year because they needed the boost before the election. Does that mean Foley should be excused for hitting on minor pages? Of course not. If she's wrong, she's wrong. And she's very wrong.
I also have no problem with fear as a motivator, as long as that fear is grounded in reason. And I would be afraid of having a racist/segregationist/race-baiter/whatever like her as my representative.
(Also re WVH: I also tend not to care about the original topic. Discussions are what participants make of them. Unfortunately Sound Politics' software does not lend itself to threaded discussions so we can't sequester these off-topic discussions, but oh well.)
Posted by: pudge on September 17, 2007 08:18 PMTx for taking the trouble to look up pudge's source cite. I did not have time to do sao and, in any case it is useless. Pudge has a filthy mouth and no interest in anything other than being insulting.
He also confuses biblical myths with history and claims the right to tell other what they believe. I have begin to think that his brand of conservatism does not border on a metal illness.
FWIW, there is one form of Judaism that may agree wiht him .. the karaites. There are about 40,000 of these folks left in the world though once they were more numerous. They reject Talmud and claim a direct intellectual tie to the Temple. They are vernally disliked because supposedly during WWII they approached Hitler with a proposal yo NOT be considered Jews. I am noty sure but they may use a name for God. ALL other forms of Judaism or at least 1800 years prohibit the use of any name for God. The word that pudgicles refers to is explained in Jewish bibles as the Deity responding to the quesion about his anme as "I am that I am." Based on this and the mitzva NOT to use the nakme of God in vain, Jews refer to the diety as "lord" or "the name."
According to Josephus, James was stoned to death for misusing the name and claiming that Jesus was the son of Hashem. Assuming modern Jewish law correctly described the law at the time of the second Temple, Jesus himself woould have been stoned death by the Jews for balsphemy...not crucified for trason by the Romans.
In contrast to our religion, our arcahelongy does say that a deity with the J name did exist as one of the deities that eventually fused as the Jewish one God. Among the others I personally like el Shaddai and Ashera.
Jews in general are used to Christina disrespect. However, a sone Jew who respect my fellow Jews and my own ancestors I will never use the J word. I personally have a lot of respect for Christians who also follow this tradition out of respect for my people and the laws that are supposed to have governed Jesus. I do ask Christian friends not to use the word around me out of respect just AA friends have asked us all not to use the N word. In the same spirit I no longer use the diminutive names for Jesus out of respect for Christians who might be offended by this perfectly correct Jewish term.
I gues by the poudgilistis standard I am PC?
Back on topic. I like many conservatives oppose reverse racism. That said I do not think her statement was that big a deal. Frankly, Bruce Harrel's making this an issue is probably going to get me to vote against him .. he has changed my vote.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 17, 2007 11:23 PMTx for taking the trouble to look up pudge's source cite. I did not have time to do sao and, in any case it is useless. Pudge has a filthy mouth and no interest in anything other than being insulting.
Hm. First you refuse to bother to back up your claim. Again.
Second, you accuse me of being insulting, and having a filthy mouth for saying "the f bomb," none of which is half as insulting or as filthy as your incessant lies. There is no such word in existence that is as offensive as lying.
He also confuses biblical myths with history
Another lie. I never did any such thing.
and claims the right to tell other what they believe.
Another lie. I never said what you believe. I said only that the Bible does not say what you claim. That does not imply you can't believe it, only that the Bible doesn't say it. I guess this means you were lying when you said you cared about facts.
I also said Judaism requires belief in God, which is, of course, necessarily true, according to your own claim: how could saying "Jehovah" -- or anything else -- possibly be blasphemous if there is no God?
And further, you compound your lie with hypocrisy, as you were (incorrectly) telling Christians and Catholics that they believe God killed Christ.
I have begin to think that his brand of conservatism does not border on a metal illness.
Right, bcause this isn't being "insulting."
FWIW, there is one form of Judaism that may agree wiht him .. the karaites.
No. Any Jewish scholar will agree with what I said. A Jewish scholar -- unlike you -- knows quite well what the Bible says, and that it does not say use of the name "Jehovah" is prohibited.
There are about 40,000 of these folks left in the world though once they were more numerous. They reject Talmud and claim a direct intellectual tie to the Temple.
Ah, you once again resort to the "shift the goalposts" logical fallacy (which is, of course, also a form of deception). You said Bible, not Talmud. I don't know what the Talmud says, and it is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the Bible itself does not say it.
ALL other forms of Judaism or at least 1800 years prohibit the use of any name for God.
Ahain (as usual for you), that's not true. However, that is beside the point: I only said the Bible didn't prohibit it. I never stated or implied, in any way, that Judasim did not prohibit it. More lies from SeattleJew.
According to Josephus, James was stoned to death for misusing the name and claiming that Jesus was the son of Hashem.
False. Josephus does not detail what James' crimes were, though we can assume it was blasphemy (Christ the son of God), there is no evidence presented or claimed that he also "misused" the name of Jehovah. Yet more lies from SeattleJew.
Assuming modern Jewish law correctly described the law at the time of the second Temple, Jesus himself woould have been stoned death by the Jews for balsphemy...not crucified for trason by the Romans.
False. You are making the irrational claim that just because the Jews COULD have stoned Jesus to death, they therefore WOULD have. The story we have depicts the decision to have Jesus killed as a highly political one -- Jesus was a hero to many -- and there's obvious motive for the Sanhedrin to get the Romans do the deed.
You're right that Jesus' "blasphemy" was against their law and justified a penalty of death: that is why, the New Testament says, the Sanhedrin had him killed. Duh.
Not that I expect you to be rational.
Jews in general are used to Christina disrespect.
You are the one disrespecting Judaism by claiming that the Bible says something it does not; by saying you take the commandment to not lie seriously, and then lying every chance you get; and by, above all, saying there is no conflict between atheism and Judaism.
I respect Judaism far more than you do.
I do ask Christian friends not to use the word around me out of respect just AA friends have asked us all not to use the N word.
That's idiotic. Which is normal for you. And it's not even remotely supported by either the Bible or Talmudic Law, which, according to Judaism, applies only to Jews!
Back on topic. I like many conservatives oppose reverse racism.
Your language implies you think you are a conservative: another lie from SeattleJew.
That said I do not think her statement was that big a deal. Frankly, Bruce Harrel's making this an issue is probably going to get me to vote against him .. he has changed my vote.
You are lying again, of course, by saying you are going to oppose Harrell because he is pointing out obviously racist statements: if Venus were a Republican, you would be all over her as a terrible person, and you won't convince anyone you aren't lying.
Posted by: pudge on September 18, 2007 12:45 AMYour post was at 7:41 p.m. last evening. The issue on this thread which has not been addressed by you or any other Venus supporter is race baiting. I honestly don't know why the woman is running, is it to accomplish something or is it purely personal gain?
Jackson of Sharpton/Jackson has become an incredibly wealthy man. His sons were awarded an incredibly lucrative beer distributorship in Chicago. His daughter-in-law was just elected to the Chicago city council. Sharpton's finances are murkier.
What I am asking is does Venus fit into what I call the despotic mold that is adopted by some political elites of color. Examples include Sharpe James who ran Newark into to the ground. On the international side, there is Mugabe of Zimbabwe, his people are now eating their pets and I would now add Chavez who is taking over all private schools.
On the pretext of being for the folks, these despots get elected and proceed to install laws and procedures that help them first, stay in power and that benefit them and their cronies. A group like HATE FREE or MOVEON has a clearly Soros influenced agenda. The despotic model of rule has been so successful in Gary, Newark, Philly and other big city sewers. I'm not there yet in calling the mayor of LA in this mold. Even though many leaders are leaders of color, the average poor person of color has not faired well or improved. At it's core, despotic rule for the despot is all about me.
So, Timothy or any other Venus supporter, what is girlfriend about?
Posted by: WVH on September 18, 2007 07:39 AMan admission ..
Shark pays me by the pixel for all the screen space Pudge fills wiht his nonsense. Leaving all else aside and ignoring this ARS afficted fellow, a word to others here.
Pudge is correct abut one thing. Jews do not impose our laws on others and that include most Jews accepting Christian misues ot the yod-heh vav heh "name." However, this does present an opportunity to you to do a good deed but simply avoiding something that has no significance in your religion but is disrespectful of ours.
I say this as a Jew, as an atheist, and, frankly, as an antagonist of Christianity. I do and will criticize and, ot be honest LIKE iot when Chreistians also criticize our REAL behavior. For exampple, on my blog I encourage readers to llook at http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/. This is a Jewish site that is highly critical of Isarel, but gebnerally in an honest way. BUT I would never recommend a site that denigrates the wonderful things your religion has done or show disrespect for your beleifs.
Let me give you a small example. I have always found it funny that Christians get so tied up in the name of Jesus. Actually, the most likley names for him would have been in Aramaic and I am told that would have been Yashu. However, there is also a diminutive derived from this ... "yashka." I used to use that term until others pointed the disrespect out to me. I just stopped.
This is one of those small things where we all have chance ot make life better by respecting each other, or not.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 18, 2007 08:40 AMon your post
I agree though this is hardly unique to prominent people of color. Even Ike somehow left the WH a millionaire!
The AA community has really had a bad time in developing credible leaders. There are other issues with Jackson ..esp the story of his faking having been at Dre, King's side when the saint died.
OTOH there are some truly promising leaders emerging from the Kackson era .. just as we got wonderful leaders from the early Irish pols (cetrainly as corrupt as the AA).
Some who impress me:
Obama
Rice
Steele
Gray
Ford
Sims.
The unfortunate thing for the reprican party is that it may have karked a one time opportunity to attract the new gen of AA because of the current extremism or the radicals. I suspect that many AA feel closer to white baptists of moral issues than they do to folks like me. That said, the incredible insult of appointing C. Thomas to the SC will be hard to ever live down.
I did kind of root for Mike Steele, He sufferd from being Reprican at the wrong time. I can se ehim, however, becoming a part of a Reform Repub movement.
BTW .. did yu realize this is the season where my people are supposed to be intorspective and consider our behavior over last year? This is another Jewish law that I accept. It is wonderful to spend time once a year trying to look at my own morality.
So, if I may ... let me widh you a happy new year and, as you are a bleiver, I hope that your deity will "inscribe you in the book of life."
I'll even extend that hope tp pudge, hoping he does not repsond by making more money from Sharky by filling the screen with pixels! (grin).
Be good.
If you are interestd you might go to my blog ans see the link for "testimony" during this season of awe.
I think, before the pudge spend more of Shark's money, I am going to suggest that we let this thread die. Hope to hear more from you.\
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 18, 2007 09:11 AMShark pays me by the pixel for all the screen space Pudge fills wiht his nonsense. Leaving all else aside and ignoring this ARS afficted fellow, a word to others here.
So does that mean you admit that all those things you said, were wrong? That you didn't mean them? Or you meant them, but you wouldn't have bothered saying what you meant unless you were paid to?
Pudge is correct abut one thing. Jews do not impose our laws on others and that include most Jews accepting Christian misues ot the yod-heh vav heh "name." However, this does present an opportunity to you to do a good deed but simply avoiding something that has no significance in your religion but is disrespectful of ours.
I was right about everything I said, which is why you were not only incapable of rebutting any of it, but you lied and changed your argument in midstream. And it is not disrespectful of your religion to use "Jehovah." It is only wrong for a Jew to say that. And since you are an atheist anyway, it cannot possibly, rationally, be offensive to you anyway, since it is only offensive in Judaism because it is the name of God, which you don't believe in.
So cut the lies.
I have always found it funny that Christians get so tied up in the name of Jesus.
They don't. SOME do, of course, but you can find some people that will take offense to anything. I know various forms of his name, including Yeshua, Joshua. In the original text of the New Testament, in Greek -- which I can read -- it's Iesous Christos. The actual word "Jesus" exists nowhere in the Bible. It's not disrespectful unless someone chooses to take offense to it, and then it's only disrespectful to the individual, not to the religion.
1. First, to all who all celebrating Holy Days, a very fond Happy New Year to all. Since, I follow a Jewish carpenter who was not an atheist or agnostic, a very Happy New Year to me as well.
Jesus was a practicing Jew and I honor him for that committment.
2. I find it curious that no one from the Venus camp has posted a reply. Although, I love talking about all kinds of things as I am naturally a curious person, the lack of response has piqued my interest. So, for the pajama hedeen out there the following questions:
1. Why did Venus move here?
2. Are there any supporters who might benefit from
dealings with the city?
3. Does she have any potential conflicts of interest which might blow up?
Frankly, I think you have been running interference for something that really could sink this lady's campaign.
Oh, I am glad you are honest enough to admit you are antagonistic toward Christians. I knew that, just wanted to hear you say it. You are more honest than 99% of the secular progressives who feel the same way. Still like you though for your nonconfirmance and quirkiness.
I think the pajama hedeen need to get to work.
Posted by: WVH on September 18, 2007 01:40 PMI really would like to meet yu or engage in longer threads at SJ.
In re Jesus, though little s known for sure about him, one fatc that you may wish t oursue is that he was a lay pharisee. The great teacher of the Pahrisees was Hillel. There are profound similarlities n these tow men and it might be interesting for you to know more about him,
In re Venus, I will probably actually vote for Harrel. That said, I detest the sort of mus slinging that goes on here. I ahve met thie lady and she an't no racist. Nor is Harrel and nor is he a Republican.
We would all be a lot better of if bl;ogs like SP would get off of the radical republican sleigh ride and contribute some hard assed discussion.
Since I think, at base, we have very similar ideas about who Jesus was .. as oppsoosame of all of the Pharissees who foaught for resistance to the Romans, may I wish you a good holy week, a good resolution of your own errors for the last years, adn a great coming year.
A friend.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 19, 2007 08:37 AM