As Hanukkah enters its 5th night, I remind the entire world that again what is being celebrated is a military victory. The Maccabbees came, saw, and kicked rumpus. They did not negotiate, or dialogue, or sing kumbaya. They did not have pointless meetings. They did not take photo ops. They got the job done militarily, and were rewarded with the right to stay alive.
One of the reasons the Jews were able to win battles in the dead of night is because there were no print media at the time revealing secret troop movements. There were no anti-war movies. The ACLU did not exist, so the Maccabees could kill with impunity.
If we are all dead, then all the civil liberties in the world will not matter. This brings me to the greatest generation, those who fought the good war, the heroes of World War II.
First of all, we just had another anniversary of Pearl Harbor Day. December 7th, 1941, was the day that Franklin Delano Roosevelt correctly said would “live in infamy.” The soldiers of World War II saved the world. They defeated two threats that would have destroyed civilization and ended life as we had known it. When we see one of these fine people, we should say, “thank you and welcome home.”
Yet while the soldiers of WW II are beloved, and FDR is revered by many, what is less known is the set of steps that the government undertook during this war. For those who want to read a fantastic book, I recommend Tony Blankley’s brilliant work, “The West’s Last Chance.”
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/
On pages 116 and 177, Mr. Blankley lists steps that were taken by the National Association of Broadcasters less than two weeks after Pearl Harbor.
“Do not broadcast personal observations on weather conditions. Watch sports broadcasts for this. A late night comment that ‘it’s a fine clear night” might be invaluable information to the enemy.”
“Do not broadcast any long list of casualties. This has been specifically forbidden.”
In February of 1942, the federal government offered more restrictions.
“Criticism of equipment, appearance, physical condition, or morale of the Armed Forces of the United States or any of its allies” is to be censored. Also outlawed is the “reporting of rumor or atrocity stories.”
Seventy newspapers were banned, and in a delicious irony, Father Charles Coughlins antisemitic newspaper “Social Justice” was banned. I say ironic because leftists Jews have claimed that the Torah (Old Testament) commands Jews to engage in social justice, which therefore commands them to be politically liberal and hate all things connected to republicans and conservatism. If only these bleeding hearts knew that Social Justice, aka their reason for existing, was an antisemitic paper. Then again, give how angst ridden and self hating many of these Jews are, I would not be surprised if they happily read this paper at the dinner table.
The bottom line is that in the same way that the Jewish community was tough, aka sensible, the federal government did what needed to be done to win wars and save all we hold dear. Leftists claim that George W. Bush is destroying their civil liberties, but what his administration has proposed is nowhere near as extreme as what FDR proposed and carried out. Yes, the very FDR that is lionized as a demigod by liberals everywhere actually cared about a muscular foreign policy.
That muscular foreign policy that was once bipartisan is now under assault from within. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether or not America should wage war under certain situations. What should never be in dispute is that deliberately trying to sabotage a war effort is wrong. It is beyond wrong. It is sedition.
It is wrong to give away secret troop movements. Anything that hampers America in terms of strategy should be the domain of our enemies. Arthur Sulzberger, the owner of the Jayson Blair Times, should have been arrested and thrown in jail the minute that story broke. The first amendment is not an absolute right. Mr. Sulzberger went to a crowded theatre located in the heart of where our enemies reside, and yelled to those enemies to fire at will on American soldiers.
It is wrong to insist on dialogue when agreements reached in previous dialogue sessions have been dishonored or broken. America could have crushed Muktada Al Sadr and put a pair bullets in his heart. Instead, on the verge of victory, we decided to negotiate with him. We were holding all the cards, and we bargained. He lived to wreak more havoc. We had a chance to destroy Fallujah, and instead we pulled back for talks. More Americans died. Only when we went into Fallujah again and destroyed everything, which by the way the main function of a successful military, did the problem get better.
Yet if the real battles are difficult, the public relations war has been a nightmare for anyone who loves the U.S. Military. During World War II, even when censorship was not in place, Hollywood voluntarily supported the troops through movies that supported the war effort. America and the Allies were the good guys, and the Axis were the bad guys. It was not shades of gray or other John Kerry type nuances. It was black and white, and the good guys won the war and saved civilization.
Nowadays, movies show America as the villain. Everybody else can be redeemed. Muslim terrorists are freedom fighters, while the real evil sociopaths beyond redemption are corporate executives, especially republican ones.
Where is the sense of honor? What about loyalty? What about love of a nation that enriches these people? Forget the legal freedoms that these parasites have. What about a moral sense of decency?
General David Petraeus says the surge is working, and that we are succeeding in Iraq. People who have never been to Iraq disagree with him. These people have the right to feel this way. Free speech exists. Yet so does the Flat Earth Society.
ROTC is banned from college campuses, but terrorists such as Armageddonijad are welcomed under some concept of diversity, which apparently is extended to everybody except for those who defend American freedom.
Defending the right to exist with military force allows this existence t actually take place. When Judah Maccabee and his Israeli Brethren destroyed their enemies militarily, it started a tradition deeper than Hanukkah. It started the Jewish people’s fight for survival, one they have still not relinquished.
In World War II, villages were burned to the ground, homes were razed, and the body count was deep. Pearl Harbor was not a time for dialogue. It was a time for waging war, and even with a liberal president, waging war is exactly what we did. America and the world was significantly better off because of this.
Now we have the 9/11 generation and the War in Iraq. Islamofacists want to kill us all. Those that want to go on Oprah or Phil Donahue (thankfully canceled) and talk out our differences do not understand that the gap is not bridgeable. They want to kill us, we wish they would not do so. That does not leave much room for common ground.
From the Maccabees to Pearl Harbor, good was united against evil. I pray to Almighty God that those that truly believe that civilization and barbarism are equivalent will stop trying to get in the way of those who truly do wish to see civilization win. Some say that evil wins when good people do nothing. Evil wins when those who have the opportunity to support good are unable to tell the difference…or worse…know the difference, and refuse to care.
The Islamofacists are genocidal lunatics. They need to be rooted out with overwhelming brute military force. As Mr. Blankley reminds us, this is the West’s last chance. If we fail to support the military solution, there may be nobody left alive on our side to engage in dialogue.
eric
Black Tygrrr wrote;
“Arthur Sulzberger, the owner of the Jayson Blair Times, should have been arrested and thrown in jail the minute that story broke. The first amendment is not an absolute right. Mr. Sulzberger went to a crowded theatre located in the heart of where our enemies reside, and yelled to those enemies to fire at will on American soldiers.”
My mother and I are on two exact ends of the political spectrum.
She is the reason for my existance and nutured me to who I am.
As much as I disagree with her and hate her views,
there are some things that I just will never say to her out of simple respect.
Its not that important if it is going to threaten the bond of the family and destroy the household.
The story of the Maccabees is generally considered to be historically doubtful. There is no supporting evidence, as with the story of the slavery of the Jews in Exodus (the Egyptians did not keep slave classes, so if the Jews were there, they were probably a minority working-class), of the persecution of the Jews by Philipator. The story is probably vastly exagerated.
Oh, and if the ACLU had existed back then, the Jews could have counted on them to support their civil rights, rights that were first granted by the very Hellenists the Maccabees allegedly fought.
And to fight small bands of terrorists scattered all over the world with “overwhelming brute military force” is just inane. Utterly senseless, inhumane, pointless, counter-productive, unnecessary, vengeful violence.
JMJ
They’re still terrorist. And if we could drop a MOAB on each one individually it would make all the sense in the world.
Maybe the Jews should of treated them like unruly children.
Maccabees is a deuterocanonical book which was written by a Jewish author after the restoration of an independent Jewish kingdom, probably about 100 BCE. It is included in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons. It is listed in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. Protestants and Jews regard it as generally”” reliable historically “”, but not a part of Scripture. Some Protestants consequently regard Maccabees as part of the Apocrypha.
The “history presented is very good, ” comparing favorably to pagan historians such as Livy or Tacitus. The author exhibits a personal interest in the events, but “presents them accurately. ” Josephus most likely used some form of this text (very likely the Hebrew original) in writing his account of the Maccabean revolt.
Its only considererd historically doubtful by athiest. Why should anyone listen to or brlieve McJones in this matter since he has no respect for any religion other than to worship his own warped views and Al Gore.
The Jews would of needed the ACLU as much as we need to see another ice berg come crashing down.
McJones seems to miss the whole point of self reliance.
Josephus is utterly unreliable. It is NOT “only considererd historically doubtful by athiest(s).” That is a bold-faced lie. Historians, as opposed to scprituarlist and literalist theologians, generally agree that the story of the Maccabees is pretty standard boiler-plate mythology – some elements of truth, but exaggerated over time by the storytellers.
The ACLU has assisted Jewish people many, many times. The ACLU exists to help protect the Civil Liberties of ALL Americans. Baiting the ACLU is adolescent-level scape-goating. Just plain stupid.
JMJ
Thats not what most documents like the one I provided said.
Once again, lets cut to the chase young man. You have nothing but empty rhetoric and opinion to back up what you say.
Unfotunatly the ACLU is a communist based theology that would like us all to wear gray smocks and have generic hair cuts.
We went throyugh the ACLU thing already and you turned up nothing to refute its communist founding and pronciples.
And its most unfortunate that they only protect the rights of those who deserve them least just out of some backasswards principles , like the NAMBLA thing
Yea they back out , but the point is that they were evil enough to try and go forward with protecting sick pricks who like little boys.
Why any sane or decent person would want anything to do with such a disgusting organization is beyond me.
In 1982, the ACLU, in an amicus role, lost in a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court to legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.”
The case is…: New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747
It can be found here.
The ACLU’s position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists
But hey ! They’re out there ! Its O.K. to have it, just dont buy it or sell it ?
FREE KIDDY PORN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THATS THE AMERICAN WAY ! RIGHT JERSEY!
JMJ sad;
“The story of the Maccabees is generally considered to be historically doubtful.
By whom? You ?
JMJ said;
“(the Egyptians did not keep slave classes, so if the Jews were there, they were probably a minority working-class),”
I guess the story of Moses never crossed McJerseys mind.
Thus a more authentic reading would place relatively wealthy and powerful First World people like ourselves in the role of Egyptian slave owners. In the story, God is not fair or rational to the Egyptian People. He does not offer to sit down and discuss monetary compensation with the Egyptian slave owners for the loss of their property. He refuses to acknowledge that there might have been some slight truth in the Egyptian accusations that the Hebrew people were lazy, unproductive, sexually overactive and thus a drain on the economy.
Micky, try reading the abundance of literature on the subject of the Maccabees. There is plenty out there. And there’s plenty of reasonable historical questions raised by each of the three texts to various extents.
The ACLU works for the civil rights of ALL Americans. Even you. It’s easy to bait with them, but Lord help us if they ever go away.
The historicity of Exodus is very weak. It’s a nice story, but probably greatly exaggerated and reconceptualized. And it lacks comptemporary context. The Egyptians, who wrote about everything, mysteriously left them out, aside from some depictions that may represent a working or even professional class, not a slave class. And there’s nothing about any great rebellions, plagues, or social upheavals in that period.
Look, nothing I’m saying anything here is new or radical. Anyone but the most lazy intellectual can look up plenty of literature, spanning generations, of debate on these subjects. I actually fall into the mainstream of academia in most of my positions, as much as it pains me to say. It’s just that they do the work, so I listen.
JMJ
Unfortunatly I find it almost difficult to believe that you fall into the mainstream of acadamia. Even though most of our schools and colleges are breeding grounds and indoctrinating leftist training grounds for the like.
Its as simple as this. You make yourself look ridiculous when you argue against Erics points seeing as how I will bet my life he knows a hell of a lot more on the subject as you do.
Its almost like Freddie Kruger lecturing the pope on Catholicism.
And the lord has always done more for me than the ACLU could ever come close to doing.
You only state opinion, it is just not convincing, never will be.
I’m going to be fair and say “sure, I know for a fact the ACLU has served some good points” But its usefulness is outweighed by defending absolutly evil organizations.
Its a communist based ideoligy formed by a commie.
Even a broken clock can be right twice a day, doesnt mean you keep it.
Don’t say “unfortunately,” when you say, “Unfortunatly I find it almost difficult to believe that you fall into the mainstream of acadamia.” It isn’t true. I fall outside mainstream on probably most issues. But when it comes to the study of history and the Bible, I go with the most studious experts on the subject. You can look them up if you ever feel up to it.
And I’m not a “communist” and people who have actually lived with communism would probably not take kindly to you comparing me with communists. I’m just not a radical capitalist either.
JMJ
Hey ! I never said you were a communist now did I ? And I dont care what communist people think of me. Of course theres the big difference between you and I. You and your bunch are always too worried about what everyone else will think about everyone else. You’ll never fix that problem even if the ACLU took over the whole world and they legislated every moral and ethic they think we should live by.
People will always think and feel what they want.
First you said;
“. I actually fall into the mainstream of academia in most of my positions”
And then you said this;
” I fall outside mainstream on probably most issues.
WTF ?
Experts shmextperts. I can find an expert to tell me the sky is falling.
Common sense is a rare commodity these days dude.
I myself dont buy half the crap in the bible. I’m a little more realistic and practical on the subject and have narrowed my spirituality down to the teachings and word of Christ.
But the bible can be interpreted in a zillion ways by anyone who wants to make it say one thing or the other.
But there is such a thing as basic history.
And the basics all point to Erics post being pretty accurate.
And whatever you think or say is of little relevance really.
I’ve seen documents that say Jesus was a Mongolian. They dont get much traction.
Just as in your case.
Most documents er on Erics side. So I will go with the majority of documents and teachings of those who are far more expertised on the subject than you or I.
OH ! but wait !
That wont work ! You think the majority are nothing but idiots, except when they agree with you. Then they’re the greatest.
[…] From the Maccabees to Pearl Harbor to Iraq […]
[…] From the Maccabees to Pearl Harbor to Iraq […]
Micky, more pedantics??? Does that ever get old for you?
“First you said;
“. I actually fall into the mainstream of academia in most of my positions”
And then you said this;
” I fall outside mainstream on probably most issues.”
FIrst: On the subject of the historicity of the Bible / On most issues in general. A little too much for you to grasp, eh?
JMJ
Gee, is repetition all you know how to perform instead of saying ” I cant win”
I mentioned basic history.
I mentioned how it supports Erics post as being fairly accurate.
I looked ay at lot of documents and mentioned they er on Erics side.
And really “Historicity?” O.K. Mr. “need to look smart”
” History” would of sufficed
My sources(if you actually read them) are derived from experts such as yours , and even went into the credibility of the authors in such books in question and mention that the info is considered “historcally reliable” and The “history presented is very good, ” comparing favorably to pagan historians such as Livy or Tacitus. The author exhibits a personal interest in the events, but “presents them accurately. ”
So dont try to act like some freekijg scholar with answers or as if I never did my work. Its the same childish game you play . Probably just to irritate me.
The answer will be sitting on your nose and you look around like Stevie Wonder and go ” what? where?
We are talking about a belief based on history which can be twisted by any historian or professor you find.
But it is the true believers you must listen to, like Eric. Who as I see would have absolutely no reason to decieve his readers or misrepresent himself.
You see, I know as well as you that the Bible was written in mans hand. Consequently this leaves it wide open to millions of interpretations. So really, you are insulting my intelligence to even assume I would debate such a ambiguos subject.
I use to do it with my wife , whom is a devote Christian bible thumper and knows all the scripture inside and out and would rip you a new one on the subject.
Anyway, the point is that the debates never end in anything but frustration and anger.
Hell ! the cops even came over once and asked what the yelling was all about. I said ; Oh, were just talking about religion.
The trouble with the Maccabee stories, as well as many other OT-era stories, as many scholars recognize, comes when there is little or no cooberating evidence. For scholars who are not in fact theologians, the Bible and other Holy texts are just not god enough. If, say, the OT describes something about the Babylonians but the Babylonians have no cooberating story, then one has to wonder if that story is true – or at least wonder how true (thus I used the word “historicity,” which implies variant degrees of historical likelyhood, as opposed to “history,” which implies a blanket historical truth or falsity). The First Maccabee stroy seems the most historical, while the Second and Third seem less and less, and so on, and there is no cooberation from outside the texts that I know of. Also, what was the real story of the Maccabees? Were they really fighting Hellenistic anti-semitism and abuse? There’s no cooberation – and the Greeks were usually a pretty tolerant bunch. I am not talking about interpretations here. I’m talking about stories that probably aren’t all that true – like the Jesus story. Even our Founding story is full of mythologies, and it’s only 240-some-odd years old! But, of course, there are good reasons for these myths. They serve a cultural purpose. So does the story of the Maccabees, which is what Eric was talking about – though I disagree with his take on the moral of the story.
I seriously doubt your wife would rip me a new one, Micky. I’ve debated with scholars and other respected folks from a whole variety of perspectives on the subject and am thoroughly familiar with the debates. You’d be very surprised what I know about some things. Religion is one of those things.
JMJ
“not god enough”! LOL!
I meant – not good enough. ;)
JMJ
You made my point for me when you said this:
“which is what Eric was talking about – though I disagree with his take on the moral of the story. ”
How can you apply a moral to a story you believe is flawed ?Like I said earlier:
“We are talking about a belief based on history which can be twisted by any historian or professor you find.
But it is the true believers you must listen to, like Eric. Who as I see would have absolutely no reason to decieve his readers or misrepresent himself.”
But of course you are already famous fro not reading or concieving what others say.
You just like to use words that no one use and gog on and on as if the point was never addressed.
I’m just not telling you what you want to hear, thats all.
My wife reads her bible at least 10 hours a week and is a formidable opponent on the subject.
If you had any class you would of said something like: Your wife sounds like she would be interesting to have a conversation with on the subject.
Or; Its always interesting to hear a different perspective as opposed to it always being interpreted by scholars.
But instead you come out of your concieted arrogant corner with ” I seriously doubt”
SERIOUS ! You dont even know the woman ! How could you seriously know or doubt squat?
This attitude can only lead a person of marginal intelligence to realize that all your attitudes and ideas and beliefs and concepts along with positions are cast and set and there is not point in ever trying to show you where you are wrong.
But hey ! I have faith !
I even have faith that you are not a totally lost cause yet.
Otherwise I wouldnt give you the time of day. Which I said I wouldnt do a few months back. But my faith dictates that as much as I despise you, I should still try.
I.ve picked up worse out of the gutter who didnt believe in anything but themselves. They now have jobs and families and homes, and happiness.
Its kinda like this.
Eric said he saw a car drive by that he really likes.
Jersey is saying that the car has no wheels. :-)
“How can you apply a moral to a story you believe is flawed?”
By not being pedantic and accepting the value of the moral of the story as oppose to it’e literal truth. Mother Goose and the Brothers Grimm give us wonderful tales of fantasy from which we get ethical meanings. We do not accept the stories as true – but rather the moral of the stories.
I said that I seriously doubt “she would rip me a new one” because you said she would. You were the one that was assuming, not me. I know from experience that I rarely am ripped a new by anyone. That’s not being conceited – just realistic. Besides, by the very virtue of her religion, she would be at a rational disadvantage. Religion is not a rational epistemology.
With all due respect, faith is for fools.
JMJ
Excellent commentary Eric.
JMJ said:
“With all due respect, faith is for fools.
I guess your mom should of thrown you out at the get go ?
JMJ said:
” I know from experience that I rarely am ripped a new by anyone. ”
Yea right. I have ended so many debates with no answers or conclusions from you I lost count about 6 months ago.
Can you prove the info on the Maccabees is flawed ? NO ! Because as you say you cant prove a negative.
You can only have faith and believe.
I have faith because the Christians and Jews I see are way happier than those like you. You are a miserable bunch, really.
When I see people like that I ask myself what it is and where did they get it.
My faith has gotten me through more than any secularist or athiest ideal could.
But first , you have to realize that you are not the center of the universe before you can even start to believe in anything.
Its all about you Jersey ! Have fun.!
We all here by accident. Two atoms crashed into one another and it just happened, no reason , rhyme or purpose.
We are here only to eat, procreate, crap and die, right ?
This was another brilliant statement:
” You were the one that was assuming, not me. ”
I know you better than you know my wife.
Figure that one out ?
JMJ believes:
“Religion is not a rational epistemology.
But Gerbil Warming is ?
Al Gore likes to present himself as a tribune of science, warning the world of imminent danger. But he is more like an Old Testament prophet, calling on us to bewail our wrongful conduct and to go and sin no more.
He starts off with the science. The world’s climate, he says, is getting warmer. This accurate report is, however, not set in historic context. World climate has grown warmer and cooler at various times in history. Climate change is not some unique historic event. It is the way the world works.
I said, “With all due respect, faith is for fools.”
To which you said, “I guess your mom should of thrown you out at the get go?”
now, aside from the sleazy low-brow mom joke, what the heck do you mean by this?
I said, ”I know from experience that I rarely am ripped a new by anyone.”
“Yea right. I have ended so many debates with no answers or conclusions from you I lost count about 6 months ago.”
Micky, you are fun to debate, but you’re not the greatest challenge I’ve ever faced by any stretch. You are too caught up in tangents, semantics, pedantics, and baiting and swicthing. You have never bested me in any debate on the merits.
“Can you prove the info on the Maccabees is flawed? NO ! Because as you say you cant prove a negative.”
Yes, I said that there is no cooberating evidence. That is a truism.
“I have faith because the Christians and Jews I see are way happier than those like you. You are a miserable bunch, really.”
I’m a perfectly happy person. That is a stupid comment. I am far happier than you, as I do not complain about my fellow man nearly as much as you do.
“We are here only to eat, procreate, crap and die, right?”
We are not here to do anything, Micky. We simply are.
I said, ”You were the one that was assuming, not me.”
You said, “I know you better than you know my wife.”
You brought her up. You said she’d rip me a new one. I said I seriously doubt it. Try to debate honestly, Micky. The only reason you close many of our debates is because I tire of you when you get sleazy on me.
I said, “Religion is not a rational epistemology.”
You said, “But Gerbil Warming is?”
One has no scientific basis, the other does. Do you know what “rational” is?
JMJ
This was another brilliant statement:
” You were the one that was assuming, not me. ”
I know you better than you know my wife.
Figure that one out ?
In case you’re stumped on this one, its equivalent to when you said you knew that you had scored more tail than I had.
Theres no possible way you could know one or the other.
So yes, you do have a vanity complex to say the least.
I know my wife and I know you to a certain extent so I can safeley say she would rip you a new one.
But you dont know a thing about her and yet you are so sure that she would present little challenge for you.
Would you go into the ring had you never seen your opponent ?
And you say faith is for fools ?
Whos the fool now ?
Micky, try to stick with the subject.
JMJ
JMJ asked:
“now, aside from the sleazy low-brow mom joke, what the heck do you mean by this?”
She some faith that the world was O.K. to bring a child into, and faith in herself !
So, is faith only for fools ?
——————————————————————————————————————-
JMJ said;
Micky, you are fun to debate, but you’re not the greatest challenge I’ve ever faced by any stretch. You are too caught up in tangents, semantics, pedantics, and baiting and switching. You have never bested me in any debate on the merits.”
Do some research Mr. Delusional. Go back on Eric’s post and show me where you ever, ever ,ever proved me wrong or shut me up on any subject.
You will notice that I have bombarded you on all accounts with links, facts, and documents to always prove your accusations and statements wrong. And to bolster my position. You seem to be incapable of this task on every count.
You on the other hand never have anything but opinion and the guaranteed assurance that your word is gospel.
——————————————————————————————————————–
JMJ said:
“Yes, I said that there is no coo berating evidence. That is a truism.”
Actually what you said was this;
“The story of the Maccabees is generally considered to be historically doubtful. There is no supporting evidence,
Can you coo berate that it is historically doubtfull ? Or not ?
Just because something cannot be verified does not mean it did not happen the way some people believe it did. ( common logic)
——————————————————————————————————————–
JMJ said:
“I’m a perfectly happy person. That is a stupid comment. I am far happier than you, as I do not complain about my fellow man nearly as much as you do.”
At the bottom of this post I will list all your complaints
——————————————————————————————————————–
JMJ said:
“We are not here to do anything, Micky. We simply are.” ( scared to ask how or why?)
Can you coo berate that ?
——————————————————————————————————————–
JMJ said:
“You brought her up. You said she’d rip me a new one. I said I seriously doubt it. Try to debate honestly, Micky. The only reason you close many of our debates is because I tire of you when you get sleazy on me.”
So what if I brought her up ?
You immediately assumed that she would present no challenge to you.
Sleazy ? SLEAZY ?
Have you read your own posts at your own blog ? You are a walking talking sleazemaster of the lowest caliber. I thought I had a potty mouth !
You only act this way on Eric’s blog because you know he would not tolerate your true self.
I’m probably not any better. But at least I don’t pretend to be Mother Theresa !
And I give equal attitude to those I debate as well as politicians.
I notice you only get nasty with those republicans on the hill who cant answer you back.
———————————————————————————————————————
JMJ said;
“One has no scientific basis, the other does. Do you know what “rational” is?
Yea, find some credible science and I’ll show you rationale.
You argued GB as truth with nothing to prove the science convincing.
Don’t talk to me about rational.
———————————————————————————————————————
Here’s all the stuff that makes you happy.
The U.S. Constitution – specifically the individualistic Bill of Rights – is your enemy
You.ve complained many a time about this document
——————————————————————————————————————–
You despise the United States because it is the premier guarantor and promoter of individualism in the world. YOU FEAR YOUR OWN COUNTRY and cry about it constantly.
——————————————————————————————————————–
You believe abortion is necessary to guarantee genital freedom and eliminate moral consequence.
You complain because women ardent allowed to screw freely and just toss the fetus’s in a trash can.
——————————————————————————————————————–
The liberal must create an atmosphere of crisis and fear to justify collectivist oppression. MUNCHOUSEN SYNDROME ON A MASSIVE SCALE)
You do this by bitching about everything.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Any religious person who believes or promotes moral consequence is the enemy of the you and must be oppressed. ( YOU FEAR A GOD YOU SAY DOES NOT EXIST)
——————————————————————————————————————-
Despite your party’s decades of spectacular failure, the liberal clings to the collectivist dream because it is far more than a theory of government. It is a religion.
That cant make you happy !
——————————————————————————————————————-
Your party seeks to dominate any institution which can weaken or destroy individual parental rights – public schools, child abuse agencies, pediatric associations, etc..
How can you be happy until feminists implement their agenda on our kids ?
——————————————————————————————————————–
You applaud the imprisoning of home schooling parents who dare to raise their children outside the control of collectivist public schools. (FEAR OF LOOSING A MEMBER OF THE BORG) And you have mentioned how great our schools are. How can you be so happy with all those individually taught kids out there ?
——————————————————————————————————————–
You hate the ownership of guns, it is the single greatest symbol of individual power, and therefore despised. (SCARED SOMONE IS GOING TO YOU, AND YOU SHOULD BE)
——————————————————————————————————————–
You love love Bill Clinton because of who he is, not in spite of who he is.
And you complain when I mention his screw ups
——————————————————————————————————————-
You promote international governments (UN, EU, etc.) which seek to destroy individualism protected by sovereign states.
How can you be happy living in such a crappy country, you have talked about moving , right ?
——————————————————————————————————————–
You always speak often of tolerance, but only tolerate liberals.
Can a hypocrite be happy ?
The liberal seeks to criminalize any speech which promotes morality or individualism as “hate speech”.
How can you be happy with all the non PC terms still flying around that you cry about ?
——————————————————————————————————————–
In your liberal mind, my freedom is your oppression.
How happy does that make you?
——————————————————————————————————————–
You hate conservatives, you said repeatedly on your blog.
How can you be happy with so much hate inside ? Hate breeds complaints as a natural.
——————————————————————————————————————–
You want to replace a moral world view with an emotional world view.
You constantly argue the emotion against the rationale and moral, also known as complaining.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Liberals typically choose a career which produces nothing of value – lawyer, bureaucrat, “activist”, etc. – and uses government to extract the wealth of others.
( you complain about rich people)
——————————————————————————————————————
Liberal programs enrich liberals and do little to help the poor.
You’re always crying about the poor(COMPLAINED)
——————————————————————————————————————-
You complain about masculinity as a symbol of individual power.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Your feminists groups are about lesbianism and socialism, not equal rights for women.
You bitched an awful lot about this one. (COMPLAINED)
——————————————————————————————————————–
You hate technology and change – because neither can be centrally controlled.
That cant make you happy
Unless it supports some of the GW junk science.
——————————————————————————————————————–
You are not obsessed with sex, but with promiscuity. Promiscuity is the dominate theme of the your media’s culture.
Happy ?
——————————————————————————————————————-
You despise a manifestation of individual prosperity, private property ownership, and the family.
How can you be happy when not enough folks want to pool their tips ?
——————————————————————————————————————–
Liberals despise marriage and family because they are institutions which frown on promiscuity.
I wont even go there.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Liberals are never satisfied with the power they have gained over the lives of individuals – they must control every thought and detail of human activity.
You guys wont be happy till you rule the world .
———————————————————————————————————————
You cry like a baby if a transvestite or convicted felon is even slightly offended, but openly bash Christians.
How can you be happy when the majority of your country is Christian ? Must be a ucky feeling to be surrounded by so many bad people.
——————————————————————————————————————–
You believe that wealth is static – anyone who makes money must be stealing it from someone else.
How can you be happy with so much theft going on?
——————————————————————————————————————–
You claim to be against violence, but make excuses for liberals like Castro who torture political dissidents.
How can you be happy being a hypocrit ?
——————————————————————————————————————–
You insist on rights for criminals and predators and applaud the ACLU for defending the rights of child molesters. But do nothing for the kids’
How can you be happy knowing these kids lives are ruined ? And these creeps get unjust sentences ?
——————————————————————————————————————-
All you and your parties solutions are based on collectivism.
How can you be happy when so many people function as individuals ?
——————————————————————————————————————
You regret that kids are taught religion, your party believes its child abuse.
How can you be happy when so many kids are being abused ?
JMJ said
Micky, try to stick with the subject.”
The subject at hand is that your views on the Maccabees are just that.
And they are not popular or confirmable
After reading Micky and JMJ go at each other, I am struck by this realization: I never read a comment from Jersey McJones that actually made a specific citation of any material which would refute the Maccabees’ revolt in concrete terms beyond stating things like “the Hellenists were inclusive” .
While it may largely be true that Hellenists were pretty laissez-faire. Antiochus IV Epiphanes, was bent on strengthening and expanding his territory. As was his wont, he proclaimed himself to be a god, and tried to force a common worship of zeus upon his dominion. We can take the Bible on face value when it depicts the Jews as historically monotheistic. This created a conflict with the /Romans/ which would be documented by Roman historian Tacitus (Vol. II, Bk. V), when he wrote:
“The Jews acknowledge one God only, and conceive of him by the mind alone, condemning, as impious, all who, with perishable materials, wrought into the human shape, form representations of the Deity…they allow no resemblance of Him in their city, much less in their temples. In this way they do not flatter their kings, nor show their respect for their Caesars.”
So, we have a different record of the Jews’ (at the time) unique monotheism causing strife and unrest within a polytheistic society. Add to this the assertion of Oxford historian Philip Smith in A History of the World from the Earliest Records to the Present Time (1864, Ch. XXVIII “The Subjugation of Greece”) who noted :
“…we must notice that the great revolt of the Jews under Hattathias, the father of the Maccabees, against the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes, broke out in the same year (B.C. 161) and that the Romans, pursuing their policy of curbing the Eastern powers, made an alliance with the Jews…” (Smith cites the record of Roman historian Polybius.)
Prominent Near East scholar F. E. Peters also supports this in his The Harvest Of Hellenism.
I believe this is what Micky has been wanting from you all along: What specifically do you base your beliefs about the Maccabees?