Exodus 32:27-29
Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
Exodus 20:13
Thou shalt not kill.
Discuss.
Am I bound by the rules I make for you?
I am the virus called Hanta, the Volcano called Vesuvius, and the tiger who eats your children.
I command you to be moral.
I am that I am.
Go back and read this scripture again. Now, with just a little editing:
Chilling, isn’t it?
Then, ask yourself why bible literalists aren’t rounded up and sequestered somewhere far far away so they aren’t allowed to be a danger to others or allowed anywhere near government.
Got it. Sequesters keep people out of trouble. Well put, Zotz.
Whenever ‘God’, or any other authority figure, proposes that killing some ‘enemy’ is the only/best solution to a problem, that should be approached with the most severe skepticism. Those calling for the killing are likely full of shit, and about to reap a great deal more power/money from the conflict.
Fuck ’em.
@3
You’ve achieved a breathtaking degree of consistency.
You could probably never post here again, and we’d all know exactly what you’d write.
Truly an achievement.
Hey, Lib Sci.
Here’s a politician who thinks the way you do:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....-1.1272951
How’s the family?
@6
Just like I said, you could disappear forever, and we’d still all be able to know precisely what you’d have to say.
Jackass. How long have you had to practice to be such a one-trick pony?
Lib Sci, in what scenarios is it okay to refer in derogatory terms to the skin color of one’s adversaries?
Your children might ask you that question, seeing as others teach them one way and you conduct yourself in quite another.
Is it fair to invoke skin color as a weapon, Lib Sci?
Or, Lib Sci, did you go too far and say something inconsistent with your core beliefs and with the values you are trying to instill in your children, you admit your initial defense of your words was misguided, you realize they were inappropriate and harmful to race relations in this country, and you are sorry you used them?
Because, if so, I have no reason to bring it up again.
Your call, Sir.
@8
You’re so cloyingly obtuse, so fucking sanctimonious, so unwaveringly wrong…and, of course, you won’t leave my children out of this, Dr. Robert. You continue to diminish yourself, if that’s possible.
So your constant accusations of racism don’t fade into ‘accepted wisdom’, for the record, I referred to Artur Davis’ appearance at a KKKlan rally, er, Republican event, as a ‘minstrel show’.
Artur Davis is a reprehensible turn-coat, and the only thing he brought to your party, the one dependent on and champion of old white racists and their dependence on traditional class and race power relationships, was the cover of his color. In a society where every demographic except old white evangelicals are deserting the KKK/Republican Party in droves, having a person of color switch to your side is a coup – he was a marketing ploy based on his skin-color, and he and the Republicans were happy to have him perform for the White Peoples’ Party on that stage.
Hence, minstrel show – a black guy performing for a bunch of powerful white people, selling his soul for some scraps from Haley Barbour’s table. His former colleagues, too, have some very harsh critiques of his behavior and motivations. Was I harsh? Why, yes, quite. Racist? Hardly, in fact, the opposite thereof.
Kind like what Malcolm X would have called him.
So, Dr. Robert, go fuck yourself.
(BTW – Does Radia HR know how much time you spend here posting during working hours?)
@10
There you have it, HA peeps. Racism, redefined by Liberal Scientist, right before your very eyes.
Your children will be the bigots you wish them to be, Lib Sci. Keep it up. It will be a kinder and gentler bigotry.
I’m just wondering if, say, Obama were to once again jet to Hollywood and make his presentation in front of a rich and overwhelmingly white audience of film execs, and someone from the GOP side were to refer to his performance as a minstrel show, whether Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow might have some way to describe such a reference.
What description might they use, Lib Sci?
Would they call it provocative? Sort of high-brow and edgy, and hip in a Seattle sense? Would they, Lib Sci?
Stop digging. You embarrass yourself.
I saw a program on The History Channel about the Ten Commandments, and this rabbi said that “Thou shalt not kill” was really “athou shalt not murder.” So, state ( or God) sponsored killing is OK, but offing a personal pest is out of bounds.
You know, this Bible stuff can spin out of control fairly quickly. Maybe it’s just as easy to follow the Golden Rule and not worry about dogma and the writers of the Bible.
Everyone’s a little bit racist (queue Avenue Q soundtrack)
Easy to stop this confusion. Who does the KKK support? The religious conservatives (used to be the Dems in the past,Republicans today). It’s not the political party as much as whoever is the religious conservatives of the day. They consider themselves Christians following Gods law. We may think they’re nuts,but they see themselves as the good moral people just because they call themselves Christians,no matter what their actions.
From 14,
Who are these KKK people? Turns out they’re mostly descendants of the Scotch Irish people who immigrated for the Ulster Province starting nearl 400 years ago. They settled mostly in the South and Miswest, and they have a fierce independence streak.
Many went on to be hillbillies (a Scottish term), poor white trash, and Oakies. They are mostly Prysberterian or Baptist Protestants, and they’ve collectively got a stick up their butts on sexuality and other controversial subjects.
Even though I am sure I have a Scotch Irish ancestor, I don’ think I care very much for them and their world view.
@ 15
The original purpose of the burning cross was a declaration of war directed at a rival clan in Scotland. It was strictly a Highlander thing. The old saints that still exist in some parts of Scotland as such, were banned by the Catholic Church. Veneration of these un-canonized saints was banned under threat of death, as the Church, after about 1200 had become an entirely corporate entity more focused on hoarding and suppressing most of it’s own history.
From 16,
The Scotch Irish were almost exclusively Lowland Scots who went to live in the Ulster Plantation. The Highlanders mostly stayed where they were, but eventually the Englsh forced them to move out. If you’re looking for a Highlander’s descendant, the best place to look is in Newfoundland or Nova Scotia.
@ 14
You’re conflating two separate behaviors, unfortunately. There are groups that exhibit racist/bigoted behavior. And then there are individual acts of racist and bigoted behavior.
Liberal Scientist has tried to dismiss the latter, his own, in the context of something he alleges of the former (GOP in this case), someone/something else whom/which he despises.
And you are enabling him, Just that simple.
I thought this was a relatively basic concept to promote but maybe not so much around here. The concept to which I refer is this:
It is wrong – always – to reference skin color in a derogatory manner in an effort to malign another individual.
Hey Bob.. I don’t see all that much pattern baldness in that picture.. Must be the photo angle.
Sure do see a lot of smugness in that ugly mug though.
YLB, in what scenarios would you consider it appropriate for someone, in a disagreement with you, to refer in deleterious terms to your skin color or ethnicity?
20 – Given your past behavior here that question is kind of ridiculous.
For some strange reason I find shit like that hilarious..
Must be the weather here in the PNW turning me into a Brit.
Tonight…
THE BIBLE SERIES PREMIERE SUNDAY AT 8
The pendejo speaks @21!
Lotsa drivel about racism in this thread. Here’s a real piece of news: The police chief of Montgomery, Alabama brought Rep. Lewis to tears by apologizing for the Montgomery PD’s willful failure to protect him and other Freedom Riders when they were attacked by a mob in 1961.
Meanwhile, Danny Westneat has totted up Timeh’s initiative scorecard: Of 13 initiatives Timeh’s cottage industry has floated since 1999, only 1 has survived intact, 1 was modified by the courts, 5 were rejected by voters, and 6 were thrown out by the courts. A MLB player with a batting average like that wouldn’t be sent down to the minors, he’d be sent packing. What a waste of time, effort, and money. Sure glad it isn’t my time, effort, and money.
@20 The only time I ever think about anyone’s skin color is when someone like Ted Nugent pounds his chest and bloviates about “patriotism,” which reminds me of the yellow stripe on his back.
Hypocrisy Of The Day
It’s hard to top the “God of Love” telling people to prove their “love” for Him by murdering their own families (although maybe, in those days, some families needed killing; I don’t know, I wasn’t there), but Speaker Boehner deserves a runner-up award for this:
“American family’s wages aren’t growing,” the House speaker said. “They’re being squeezed. And as a result, we’ve got to find a way through our tax code to promote more economic growth in our country. We can do this by closing loopholes, bringing the (tax) rates down for all Americans, making the tax code fairer. It will promote more economic growth.”
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com.....olved?lite
Roger Rabbit Commentary: This nonsense comes from a guy whose party has done everything within its power to strip workers of their wages and benefits, make more workers unemployed, and facilitate the systematic looting of the middle class; all while pushing tax cuts for the rich in the name of “creating jobs” that have never appeared.
Let’s recap how Republicans have “helped” the American family:
Busting unions;
Ramming through “right to work” laws;
“Reforming” the bankruptcy code to make it easy for companies to tear up union contracts and walk away from pension obligations;
Opposing inspection and regulation of dangerous workplaces (such as coal mines);
Opposing unemployment benefit extensions;
Trying to dismantle Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid;
Opposing reform of our out-of-control health care industry;
Opposing increases in minimum wage, and trying to abolish minimum wage laws altogether;
Supporting tax breaks that reward companies for shipping American jobs abroad … and so on.
The GOP aggressively pushes for almost every anti-worker policy there is, and never rest at dreaming up new ones. People like Boehner have no business whatsoever talking about American families’ wages. The best thing for him to do is shut up.
That was a nice gesture!
Oh really DUMB Wabbit? It’s not the Speaker who foisted a new $2500 average tax on the American families’ middle class wages. It’s not the Speaker who’s policies have driven the price of gas to near record levels for February on the American families’ middle class wages. It’s not the speaker who has caused retail sales to drop across the board because of the hit on on the American families’ middle class wages.
More horse manure from an old worn out DUMB Wabbit!
@28 Yes.
@29 “It’s not the Speaker who foisted a new $2500 average tax on the American families’ middle class wages.”
Assuming you’re talking about the 2% payroll tax, it’s not a new tax. The present Social Security tax rate was enacted in 1986 under Reagan. Congress, at Obama’s request, suspended it for a couple years to help American families get through the Great Recession. This temporary tax suspension — it was a stimulus measure that was never intended to be permanent — was paid for in the general operating budget by borrowing money. When the payroll tax was reinstated on January 1, neither party supported extending it further. Should I also point out that (1) $2500 is 2% of $125,000, which is more than 98.5% of American families make, so this tax doesn’t cost most families $2500, (2) Republicans opposed stimulus in general, therefore in principal were against giving American families this tax break, even though they may have voted for it, and (3) Republicans also claim to oppose the borrowing that paid for it?
And you call me “dumb” …
@29 “It’s not the Speaker who’s policies have driven the price of gas to near record levels for February on the American families’ middle class wages.”
I didn’t blame Boehner for high gas prices. I own oil company stocks, and I personally manipulated the global oil supply to boost oil company profits to make my oil stocks more valuable and get higher dividends. I’m a thief. What do you expect? I used to be a Republican, and I was raised with Republican values. I’m to blame for gas prices. Thanks for paying. I appreciate your business. Come back again.
By the way, you illiterate twit, that should be “whose” not “who’s”. How many times did you flunk fourth grade?
One group has managed to profit from the Great Recession. Guess which group?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100464754
Btw, putz, why do you write in Elmer Fudd phonetics? Is it your intent to mock your own race?
The initiative process is fine with me as a method of enhancing democracy. I-502 is an example of good being done via citizens using initiatives for repeal of stupid laws.
@32
Remember when Romney and the rest of the Republicans attacked Obama over his delay in approving the Keystone pipeline, that it (the pipeline) would make the US less dependent on oil from the Middle East? Well, not so much now, that oil is going to China, via Texas!
http://www.reuters.com/article.....ET20130208
From 37,
From what I can remember about it, the Alaska Pipeline was really built to sell Alaskan oil to Japan. I don’t know if that’s where the oil ended up, but I suspect a large portion of the oil produced was sold to Japan.
37, 38 – I suspect a lot of that oil will be used to fight the wars that will result when millions of coastal dwellers are displaced by rising sea levels and forced to move onto someone else’s land.
But getting back to religion, I was watching this story about the election of the next pope. Is there anything more irrelevant than who the pope is? Is there any faith any more irrelevant than the Catholic Church?
As further proof the Kenyan terrorist-hugger (i.e., the guy who wiped out Al Qaeda’s leadership) intends to lead America into communism, Obama has appointed the head of the Walmart Foundation as OMB chief.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com.....chief?lite
@40 I suspect there’s more going on than meets the public eye. It looks like Benedict was forced out. The cardinals probably will discuss more than theological policy in their conclave. This won’t be a routine appointment of a new pope. The guy they pick will be given the task of either continuing a coverup, or cleaning up what’s being covered up, preferably without the Catholic laity or general public finding out what it is. The Church smells like rotten fish.
Puddy
I suggest you do not watch the bible series. I have heard much of it is truthful and may irritate you.
@18
You cloying, sanctimonious, and ultimately dishonest, piece of shit, Dr. H.
You mentioned once that you subscribe to some sort of Rove newsletter, and if true, it shows – you, the racist schmuck who delights in the notion of white militias patrolling majority black cities like Benton Harbor, or Detroit, bringing ‘order’ after the citizens have been disarmed and disenfranchised, do nothing but harp on what you allege is my racism, and use it to do what you do best around here – attempt to score cheap shot points.
You do do yourself proud, in Roveworld.
I make no apology about my comments about Artur Davis.
Davis, regardless of his color, is an asshole. He made political miscalculations and committed political malpractice, and in doing so fucked up his big chance at the Governorship of Alabama in the process. After immolating his political future with the Democrats – once bright, and including a nominating speech for Obama in Denver in 2008 – he pulled a Rodney Tom and became a Republican, because he saw that as the only way to claw his way back to a cozy relationship with power.
Now, the White Peoples’ Party/Republicans in 2012 had a problem (well, many really, but we’ll discuss one) – did you see their convention? Their thinly-attended events? See Tea-Party polling data? Old. White. Angry. Afraid.
All their hand-wringing more recently about ‘messaging’ and ‘diversity’ underscores my point – they had/have no way to appeal to anyone besides their base of rabid, science-denying Evangelicals who love guns and are old, afraid and white.
Artur Davis offered them the ability to appear to appeal to a demographic they are beginning to realize might be helpful in getting elected, when gerrymandering and vote rigging and vote-denying doesn’t work – people of color (talk about conflicted! – you guys could use some serious therapy!). And so Artur Davis is paraded around Republican events – you know, those congregations of old frightened white people – even their convention.
Now, unlike Tim Scott or even crazyviolent guy Alan West, Artur Davis is not a ‘true believer’ conservative – he’s a recent turn-coat opportunist, a Democrat about 10 minutes prior, nothing more, and what he offers Republicans is limited to the color of his skin – he’s a black guy willing to shill for Republicans – something they desperately needed/need.
He’s a spokesmodel, meant to fool some rubes – you might say he was appearing in Republican-face.
So now, because of a discussion of race and power and cynicism and manipulation, and I called out the actions of a Black guy as craven and nasty, and used idiom of Jim Crow-era minstrel shows, Dr. H sees fit to call me a racist, AND to deflect any other discussion based on this (talk about cynical and manipulative).
Well, Bob, wrong again. And all your posturing about being offended, all your moralizing pantomiming is just that – more acrobatics, more theater from a guy I’ve yet to read an honest, thoughtful word from.
You’re all about dishonesty and deflection, Bob, manipulation and cheap-shots, and this is no different.
@ 44
Artur Davis offered them the ability to appear to appeal to a demographic…
Hey, Lib Sci:
What’s he
http://horsesass.org/?p=49352#comment-1216780
offering to ABC, then?
@ 44
I take it, then, Lib Sci, that you believe Colin Powell similarly is not a ‘true believer’ conservative, and willingly shilled for GWB43 at the United Nations, before he ‘opportunistically turn-coated’ to instead shill for Obama.
I’m just following your logic, Lib Sci. Christ, what your kids will think of you when they’re old enough to realize what a bigot their father is….
@45
As expected, you got nothin’
Go away, little bob…
@ 47
I got you pegged for the bigot you are, Lib Sci. And you’re making sure a wider and wider audience knows about it.
Won’t be long until your children figure it out. Perhaps they already have.
Do you yell words like ‘minstrel show’ at the TV, Lib Sci? If so, do you do it when your kids are around, or only when you think you’re alone?
As I said, you got nothin’ – nothing but your whiny wheedling snide little diversions.
You go on thinking you enjoy some sort of moral superiority – it’s sort of cute, in a nauseating way.
And your relentless reference to my children – really rather transparent of you, obnoxious, tiresome, expected…
You really are delusional, aren’t you? A ‘wider and wider audience’? Is that why you post here the way you do? You think your projecting from some sort of mega-soapbox? You really think you have some sort of rapturous audience for your drivel?
Heh. Got to dream, I suppose.
@ 49
You really are delusional, aren’t you? A ‘wider and wider audience’? Is that why you post here the way you do? You think your projecting from some sort of mega-soapbox? You really think you have some sort of rapturous audience for your drivel?
You misunderstand, Lib Sci. In November when no one was really paying attention to the HA blog comments because everyone was watching Nate and Darryl, your comment and my response pretty much flew under the radar and were little-noticed.
Now there’s a whole lot less going on in the threads, the thread comments themselves are a much bigger part of HA, and as a result of this weekend’s exchanges a far larger audience of HA readers now know you think referring in derogatory terms to a black man’s skin color is permissible, as long as it furthers your ideologic needs.
Using skin color against a person is wrong, except when you need it not to be. Got it, Lib Sci. We’ve all got your number, now.
No idea why you doubled down @ 44 on your racism and bigotry, Lib Sci. Wouldn’t have been my choice if I were you.
Hey, look at the bright side. You’re a liberal. When you run out of excuses you can always run to rehab and consider yourself forgiven.
Teach your children well, Lib Sci. They’re looking to you for guidance.
17: Actually, the proper term is “Scots-Irish”, although we mangle it here in the U.S., so the mistake is a common one. As the Scottish people and Ulster Scots-Irish are quick to point out, Scotch is a whiskey, but a person from Northern Britain is a Scot.
The Scots-Irish were descended from the lowland areas, as you say – specifically along the Scots-English border, where most clans made a living by raiding across the border to steal cattle, grain, etc., and also to extract a little revenge for the preceeding raid by the other side by burning their houses, killing all men of fighting age, etc.
The Sctos-Irish fierce fighting tradition made them attractive to the English who needed settlers for Ulster province that could defend the English interests there. They fought off the Irish Catholics and made Ulster safe for English Protestant rule, and were given important roles in the administration of the province – until the “Loyalty Acts” (under Queen Anne?) allowed only those who were members of the Church of England to hold any public office – down to the notary public level (the Scots-Irish were mostly Presbyterian).
Stripped of their positions and property in Ulster, many Scots-Irish immigrated to America for a fresh start. Once there, they found the fertile lowlands of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the Carolinas to already have been taken by British colonists (mostly English). The English looked down their nose at the “uncultured” Scots-Irish. But nobody minded if the kept heading west, where their reputation as fierce fighters could help serve as a barrier between the Native Indian tribes and the English colonies. In this role they performed well – finding and spilling over the Appalachians via the Cumberland Gap into Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, etc.
Sctos-Irish served as formidible fighters in the Revolution (Kings Mountain) and had a reputation as marksmen with their Kentucky long rifles (sometimes also called Pennsylvnia Rifles). During the war of 1812 and the war with Mexico they provided the bulk of the combat forces, giving Tennessee the nickname “The Volunteer State). They also provided the majority of the fighters at the Alamo. During the Civil War they made up the bulk of the Confederate Army, and north of the border provided troops for the Union Army (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, etc.) which were among the best Union units in the war (the “Iron Brigade”, for example).
The martial tradition among the Scots-Irish continues to this day, with the Scots-Irish holding a disproportionate share of volunteers for Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the current Afganistan/Iraq wars.
# 51 (continued): The strongest trait among the Scots-Irish is a strong attachment to family first (nuclear and extended), then local community, and then upward. This seems to go along with the ideals of the Scotish clans – they were loyal to their local chieftans first, but dis-trusted the higher Scotish nobility that fought over rule of the whole of Scotland, using bribery, compulsion, etc. to try to create an alliance with the various clans. The average Scotish warrior was merely a pawn in this game, and resented it.
So fast-forward to the American Civil War, and you had lots of Scots-Irish choosing their loyalties based upon their “clan”, and preferring looser government which might “leave them alone” to a stronger national goverment. This led some northern Scots-Irish to support the Union because that’s what their local leaders told them to support, and a much larger contingent of Scots-Irish within the Confederacy fighting for both a more decentralized federal government and based on the direction of their local “clan” leaders.
In some areas it got a lot more complicated, of course. Areas of northern Alabama included strongholds of Union loyalists, some of whom volunteered for the Union as soon as Union troops came within walking distance. Also, the foothills of the Appalachians in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Eastern Tennessee had lots of split loyalties as various clans chose sides – sometimes based on local grievances.
Some also chose sides based upon their distrust of their own state governments – in East Tennessee, for example, lots of small-plot farmers felt that they had nothing in common with the rich planters and slave-owners who ran the state government in Nashville.