Which One? THAT One!

Dear Roland,

Rather than continue this religious debate here I've written to you privately (as per the address given on your website)...

Best Wishes, Wendy

Dear Weny,

Thanks again for your response.

Re. "I thought I had made it clear earlier on that the chief priests
(pharisees) wanted Jesus to be crucified out of their own fear/envy of
someone who's voice was becoming stronger each day with many turning
away from the dogma of the pharisees and turning instead to the
teaching of Jesus. They (the pharisees) tried unsuccessfully to trap
him into denouncing Caesar in order to charge him with treason, but
could not. Eventually they settled on a charge of herecy for making
himself out to be 'The Son of God'.

In the first instance, please know and understand that I already know and understand all that you said above from out of my own reading of the same Source Material (the Gospels and the 'impression' that is given). Nevertheless, even your own assessment posits a unspoken Question, not an Answer, -to wit: DID the Parisees priests settle upon a charge of heresy for making himself out to be 'The Son of God'? In which case, 'heresy', was not a "charge" punishable by death in Their own Laws, -not to mention the fact that he, himself, never claimed to be 'The Son of God', rather, 'the messiah'.  For your edification, it was [Jesus] "Barabbas" who was called and referred to as 'The Son of God' (as explained earlier), -not "Christ" as you suppose and/or have been cunningly and very subtly (mis) lead into 'believing'.

Furthermore, contrary to your assertion, "Pontius Pilate practically begged him to speak in his own defence but he remained silent." Correction: It was [Jesus] Barabbas who, like a potted plant of poison, said nothing to anybody about anything (likewise, nobody said anything to Him).

You ask, "Why did Christ choose to die on the cross?" and add, "Yes, he did choose this!". Wendy, I respectfully give to you the Secret to know and understand the 'Gospels' and the reason for our 'disagreement'.

The 'Gospels' are not a 'history' of the Jews in the scientific sense of that word. They were written for the sole purpose of instilling Faith only. Moreover, they were written by the behest of Saul of Tarsus aka the Apostle and eventual Saint Paul and his cohorts, Mark and Luke (none of whom were 'disciples' or 'eye-witnesses' to the 'crucified descendant of David' nor of the issues they so colorfully described, no earlier than Ten (10) yrs After the crucifixion of the 'descendant of David and Jewish 'messiah'. Any attempts to apply concrete 'evidence' or 'documentation' within the 'Gospel narrative' rises and falls upon the Fact that such is pure 'speculation' at best. As an example, which 'disciple' was present during the Trial of the 'descendant of David' and 'messiah'? (None, to my knowledge). And so, I 'speculate' according to 'history', -not according to 'theology'. You, on the other hand, 'speculate' according to 'theology', -not 'history.

The word (appellation) "Christ", it should be noted, first appeared in writing... as a so-called 'translation' of the perfectly known and clearly understood Hebrew word: 'messiah' into the Greek word: "Kristos" ("Christ")... however, there is no etymological basis or foundation in the Greek language or custom for such a 'word'. I therefore respectfully ask: Why did Paul find it necessary to translate 'messiah' into a word that theretofore did not exist?

You ask me to: "Think about this, meditate on this, research this!", Well, isn't it obvious to you that I have... and, that I have found it wanting?

My life-long study into these matters is not borne out of idle musings, neither is it a desire to cause intellectual and/or spiritual harm to anyone, rather, for Me, to make sense out of nonsense, hyperbole and devious machinations of a clever few (Saul aka Paul et al).

Although it might seem 'helpful', to acquiencent 'Christians', to 'believe' (without really 'knowing') that, "Christ is the Lord and Savior to and for mankind" and, that, the 'Gospel' is "The Holy Word of God", to Me, it seems a practical matter that whatever is 'written' about "Christ" is merely 'written', -"Christ" Is Not the 'Gospels'; "The Holy Word of God" Is Not the 'Gospels', -rather, The Holy Word of God Is the Cause of All (living) Creation... including this day (and Not merely a collection of 'canonized' and/or  'inspired' words in a Book. God (His Holy Word) cannot conceivably be contained in a Book, -no matter how 'lofty' and/or 'noble'.

'Truth is above all, but true living is higher still', so says the ancient axiom. To put that into perspective... If I were in need of medical attention, I would not seek Hippocrates; if I were in need of legal advise, I would not seek Moses, our Law-giver, nor Solomon for his wisdom; if I were in need of spiritual guidance (and I am), it behooves me, therfore to seek a living Prophet or Master or Guru or Saint (call Him whatever you will... for All is the same) and sit at His Holy Feet to imbibe the bitter-sweet elixur of His Holy Word that you may hear it reverberate within you (while you can) and not seek a dead thing.

Think about this, meditate on this, research this!, why don't you.

Peace, Shalom and Naamaste'. 

'Teach love, use words only when necessary'

Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast

www.jesusbarabbas.info ( http://www.jesusbarabbas.info )

Dear Roland, 

//With regards to the former i.e. "Anathema: The Secret Story of Jesus" (which I have not solicited anyone to read nor invited anyone to make comments herein) nevertheless, is simply made available as the Source from out of which I based my conclusions in my Post with regards to Your Post about "Radical Jesus?".//

As some content (from your work) was made available as the source from which you based certain conclusions re 'Radical Jesus' and, considering the fact that you included a link to this work, www.jesusbarabbas.info ( http://www.jesusbarabbas.info/ ) I thought it logical to assume a strong connection between the aforementioned work and the topic 'Radical Jesus'.

I thought I had made it clear earlier on that the chief priests (pharisees) wanted Jesus to be crucified out of their own fear/envy of someone who's voice was becoming stronger each day with many turning away from the dogma of the pharisees and turning instead to the teaching of Jesus. They (the pharisees) tried unsuccessfully to trap him into denouncing Caesar in order to charge him with treason, but could not. Eventually they settled on a charge of herecy for making himself out to be 'The Son of God'.

//So, thanks again for your unsolicited comments, I can only hope that you come up with a better explaination as to why "Jesus" was crucified than me.//

As explained above, it's no big mystery what led to his crucifixion. The great mystery, of course, and a cornerstone of Christianity, is the why! Why did Christ choose to die on the cross? Yes, he did choose this! Pontius Pilate practically begged him to speak in his own defence but he remained silent.

Think about this, meditate on this, research this!

Best Wishes, Wendy

wenvas,

Thank you for your unsolicited comment regarding my work. I note with amusement your claim that it is "based loosely on some Jewish history/Biblical passages... similar in vein to the notorious DaVinci Code." as well as your not commenting upon my Post re "Radical Jesus?".

I am afraid that you misunderstand and thus mis-state my position re. the above matters as well as the Topic upon which I Posted (the latter being, "Radical Jesus?", -in which case, you have not made any comment on.

With regards to the former i.e. "Anathema: The Secret Story of Jesus" (which I have not solicited anyone to read nor invited anyone to make comments herein) nevertheless, is simply made available as the Source from out of which I based my conclusions in my Post with regards to Your Post about "Radical Jesus?".

I am not here to argue about 'Anathema: The Secret Story of Jesus', much less to explain that my work is in no way "...based loosely on some Jewish history/Biblical passages...similar in
vein to the notorious DaVinci Code (which, by the way, I have never read the 'DaVinci Code' simply because I already know what and where it is based upon. I do not know of any 'author' who or that makes the claim that "Jesus [Barabbas] was the 'Son of God'". It is, at this point in time, a matter of and for 'researchers'. I merely gave to you my researched conclusions as it relates to: 'Radical Jesus?' in the hopes that your "good conscience" be not troubled as well as you not mislead others with more misleadings of your own.

So, thanks again for your unsolicited comments, I can only hope that you come up with a better explaination as to why "Jesus" was crucified than me. 

Neither of these fictitious works
are deserving of any comment...", so why Did you comment on something that, in your eyes, doesn't deserve comment???

'Teach love, use words only when necessary'

Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast

www.jesusbarabbas.info ( http://www.jesusbarabbas.info )

I assume you're the author of this fictitious work, based loosely on some Jewish history/Biblical passages...similar in vein to the notorious DaVinci Code. Neither of these fictitious works are deserving of any comment...  

 "If Jesus was not a threat to the Romans, then why did they execute him?
As for what Jesus said about Caesar and God, tell me, what does not
belong to God?"

Although not exactly the above quote that caught my attention (but another that I am unable to find right now) nevertherless, a question that haunted me for very many years during my search for "Barabbas".

It started when i was only eleven or twelve yrs old... I was curious about "Barabbas", -especially since he was depicted in the Holy Gospels (only) as "a notorious robber, murderer and insurrectionist"... my childish question was simply: How come nobody else has ever heard of him, -why is it that there is nothing (else) written about him by anybody, 'notorious'? This was exaserbated after I read 'Antiquities of the Jews' and 'Wars of the Jews' by Josephus. This childhood question became a thorn in my side and it remained with me until I 'discovered' that "Barabbas" was not his name at all, -in fact, it was "Jesus" (written in the original Greek Gospel according to Matthew (27:17) but omitted from the Latin translation of the same text and, most of the sub-sequential translations thereafter. He was called or referred to as "Barabbas". Barabbas is an Aramaic appellation, the meaning of which is, "Bar" = Son + "Abba" = Father (or God). Whoa!

Now, I really became more than merely 'curious'... however, after all that has been said and done, I was back to where I started. There was no way that I could reconcile the 'fact' that there were Two "Jesus'" that Pontius Pilate had to deal with... something was surely amiss, but What?

This brings me to the above question... but first, I had to 'research' the "messiah"...

As applicable to the "crucified" 'descendant of David'... Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, was drawn by lot to become the first 'anointed' king of the Jews. Saul was rebuked by the Lord for failing to abide by His edict (or command), -thus, shamed and dishonored, fell upon his own sword... bringing everlasting shame and dishonor to his family and tribe. David, of the tribe of Judah, replaced king Saul. David was succeeded by his son Solomon. Solomon was succeeded by his son Rehoboam. Ten tribes revolted against Rehoboam and the heretofore Theocratic governance and established a parallel 'secular' government. This 'schism' among the Jews continued down through the centuries... into the days of Herod.

Enter a 'descendant of David' and Jewish 'messiah', riding into Jerusalem on an ass, ushering an armed insurrection to overthrow Herod's 'secular' governance and replace it with the ancient 'theocracy' of his forefather (David).

This man, named Judas the Galilean, was a living nemesis, -not only to Herod's authority, -but, more importantly, to Saul of Tarsus, of the tribe of Benjamine, name sake to the original king of the Jews. No man in all of Judea hated and resented the 'descendant(s) of David more than Saul aka the Apostle and eventual Saint Paul. It was not until ten (10) yrs After the 'descendant of David' (Judas the Galilean or his son) was crucified that the beginnings of the Holy Gospels were written... at the behest of Saul or Paul and his cohorts, Mark and Luke (neither of whom were 'disciples' or eye witnesses to the actual people and events they portrayed).

Think you that an innocent "Jesus" was "crucified" because 'he' threatened the Romans? Think again.

It was the Jews who sought to maintain a 'secular' government and chose to keep it that way.

Jesus Barabbas (the actual 'Son of God') was set free.

'Teach love, use words only when necessary'

Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast

www.jesusbarabbas.info ( http://www.jesusbarabbas.info )

If Jesus was not a threat to the Romans, then why did they execute him? As for what Jesus said about Caesar and God, tell me, what does not belong to God?

The teachings of Jesus are a threat to any power that seeks to dominate others.

Sara

My Political Thoughts--Listening to the Wind ( http://listeningtothewind.blogspot.com/ )

//If Jesus was not a threat to the Romans, then why did they execute him?//

The Romans had no wish to execute Jesus. It was the priests (pharisees) who arrested him and brought him before Pontius Pilate who BTW found no fault with Jesus. He even offered to release one prisoner to them thinking they would choose Jesus rather than the notorious criminal Barabbas but the priests demanded he release Barabbas.

Pontius Pilate then (symbolically) washed his hands saying; "I am innocent of the blood of this just man"

It was the priests that felt threatened by Jesus...not the Romans!

PS: I apologise to all for having strayed so off topic, but I could not, in good conscience, let such misconceptions go unchallenged.

(CBS) The following is Sen. John McCain's letter to to Sen. Barack Obama regarding ongoing Congressional efforts towards bipartisan lobbying reform:
February 6, 2006

The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.

As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.

You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate’s return in January.

Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public’s low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.

Sincerely,

John McCain
United States Senate

Absolutely.  If that had happened, Carly Fiorina and Nancy Pfotenhauer would have been all over TV immediately screaming about how horribly sexist and offensive and disrespectful it was.

The Evil Slut Clique
Evilslutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

//For the people of the day, Christ's sermon was radical.  He was challenging the power structure of the day and suggesting that the poor, downtrodden, the least of us, would inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  He was lauding the peacemakers, those that would create peace where conflict existed.//

This is simply not true!

No way whatsoever was Christ challenging the power structure of the day! What he challenged was the religious doctrine of the scribes and the pharisees. At the time of Christ the Romans were the ruling power and he had no interest whatsoever in opposing them. If you recall, when asked by one of the pharisees (in an attempt to trap him into criticizing the ruling power) who should we give our allegiance to (or words to that affect) he asked for a coin. When handed one he asked; "Who's image is on this coin", When told it was Caesars he said; "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is God's". He had no interest whatsoever of challenging the ruling power...as you suggest.

As for your interpretation of the 8th beatitude; Blessed be the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. This refers to the virtue of a peaceful heart filled with, not only the love of God, but love of all mankind...a heart devoid of hate, pride, envy or greed. These beatitudes are intended to guide our soul back to God by way of virtue.

Anyone who wishes to turn these into some kind of political statement to suit their own purpose is far removed from the spiritual wisdom they contain. This doesn't surprise me when it comes to Jeremiah Wright (Obama's spiritual mentor for the past 20 yrs...now in the closet) who is blind to the spiritual message of the beatitudes by a heart full of hatred.

They say, if you want to know the character of a man, take a look at his friends.

I think McCain was either trying to be witty, as someone suggested earlier, or else his brain glitched on him. 

What bothered me wasn't what he said, it was the way he said it. I felt his tone of voice to the audience was very condescending. Like the way some adults talk to children.

Sara

My Political Thoughts--Listening to the Wind ( http://listeningtothewind.blogspot.com/ )

Obama isn't mocking Scripture. He might be mocking those who try and turn our country into a theocracy, but the way it reads to me is that he's saying it is unwise to base our legislation on religious texts. After all, whose religious text would be used? Do you really want a political system that is dictated by the majority religion? What happens when your religion isn't or is no longer the majority? This is why religious groups like the Baptists pushed for the separation of Church and State. Christians might be the majority in the U.S., but there are any number of minority expressions of the Christian faith who don't want somebody else's version pushed on them. 

Sara

My Political Thoughts--Listening to the Wind ( http://listeningtothewind.blogspot.com/ )

Obama's (so-called) Christian faith is doubtful at best. No genuine Christian would ever publicly mock The Sermon on the Mount; saying (in his own words) that it is so radical that it's doubtful that our own defence dept. could survive its application. This does not come out of the mouth of a Christian!

He wasn't mocking the Sermon on the Mount. The statement reflects his deeply held beliefs about the teachings of Jesus. And does not stand alone. Similar words have come out of the mouth of thousands of Christians. I am one of those Christians.

I highly recommend that you check out http://www.sojo.net/ ( http://www.sojo.net/ )

 Sara

My Political Thoughts--Listening to the Wind ( http://listeningtothewind.blogspot.com/ )

To understand Obama's comments in the proper perspective I will quote his words (in italics) from the beginning of the video. First he stated;

Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation. Which passage of scripture should quide our public policy?

Excuse me? Is he suggesting that public policy should be guided by scripture? Does the 'Seperation of Church and State' no longer apply? And. if not, is he suggesting that some other doctrine is more suitable...Islamic law perhaps??

Should we go with Leviticus which suggests... Or Deuteronomy which suggests...Or what about the Sermon on the Mount...

Such mocking of biblical scripture is totally unacceptable to genuine Christians who revere the Bible.

Leviticus and Deuteronomy as we (should) know - and so should Obama - deal with the laws of Moses pertaining to sacrifices performed to absolve (certain) sins committed by the people. The laws laid out in these books were also there to guide the people of Moses in such matters as the type of foods fit for consumption and other important health matters applicable to that day/time. For Christians, of course, live sacrifices for the remission of sins, no longer had/have any relevance since the crucifixion of Christ who offered his own life, the supreme sacrifice, for the remission of sins.

Neither race or religion should be a consideration in this election, but Obama has made it so by playing the race card whenever there is any mention of his history, his character; and by speaking out (publicly) against certain passages of the Bible...

But, you know, anyone who dares question this is set upon by his followers (and) his campaign and accused themselves of being racists and/or radical Christians. There is something so terribly, terribly, terribly wrong with this!

Obama, to my mind, is no more a Christian than his pastor of twenty years, Jeremiah Wright, who preaches hatred against America (and middle class Americans) with such vehemence he almost goes into ecstacy.

As for his screaming God Damn America from the pulpit in regards to the bombing of Hiroshama (which forced the Japanese emporer to surrender) he should study the history of the time before he spews such hatred. If it were not for America's intervention Australia would undoubtedly have been overwhelmed by the advancing Japanese army...which BTW had already bombed Darwin several times. Many Australian lives were lost during that war...the atrocities of the Japanese prison camps were too horrible to contemplate. Australia (and other nations in the pacific region) have good reason to shout out; God Bless America without who's intervention they would not be enjoying the freedoms they do today.   

the governmetns...he was a radical and was probably considered very dangerous and extreme by many who did not share his ideas OR who were those he opposed. 

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )

For the people of the day, Christ's sermon was radical.  He was challenging the power structure of the day and suggesting that the poor, downtrodden, the least of us, would inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  He was lauding the peacemakers, those that would create peace where conflict existed. 

http://www.storyrhyme.com/jcsblog

But there are a lot of people who profess faith in Christ who refer to the Sermon on the Mount as a radical text:

Worth and Worth, Chapter 3 ( http://books.google.com/books?id=hc8wwA0dqBsC&... )

Cladys Hunt: A Radical Way of Being God's people ( http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/9123837/... )

Jeff Berger, on radical honesty ( http://jeffberger.blogspot.com/2008/08/sermon-on-m... )

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

to find support for one's existing beliefs. Especially with the Internet being such a big place. More information on Fred Siegel (senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Civic Innovation) linked to in the comment above: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/siegel.htm

Not sure how this particular person's statements of opinions counts as "the facts," but hopefully most people here--regardless of their political beliefs--are able to think for themselves. 

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast ( http://blog.lib.umn.edu/perry032/impossible/ )

I find it extremely difficult to understand how so many (seemingly) intelligent people can be so easily taken in by Obama's smooth tongue. In spite of ample evidence of the character of this man he manages, time and again, to elude public scrutiny (MSM) by declaring any and all evidence against him as lies perpetrated by racists. Good lord he even accused the Clintons of being racists! The scariest thing of all is how easily his followers (MSM included) fall for this rhetoric.

The following link is a must read for anyone even slightly interested in the truth:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23643866-5013948,00.html

Obama's (so-called) Christian faith is doubtful at best. No genuine Christian would ever publicly mock The Sermon on the Mount; saying (in his own words) that it is so radical that it's doubtful that our own defence dept. could survive its application. This does not come out of the mouth of a Christian! Is he so lacking in understanding that he cannot comprehend the difference between spiritual teaching and worldly affairs? Someone should explain to him what Christ meant when he said; "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's"

This man is not a Christian! He's a smooth-talking fraud, and God help the world if people don't wake up to the truth before it's too late.

PS: I have no wish to get into a slanging match here so no need to respond with an attack. My only motive is to encourage people to investigate the facts and not be led along blindly by Obama's smooth tongue and/or MSM who gave their support to Obama early in the primaries... Just investigate for yourselves and form your own opinion based on the facts.

Your thoughts on this are very insightful and plausible.  Thank you for sharing them with us.

My take on the comment is that it was rude, coming from someone who's not necessarily socially adept.  Kind of like something a crotchety person would say.  Barack Obama keeps his cool and that serves him very well. 

First I understand how the comment could come across as disrespectful, that was the first thing I thought when I saw it, considering McCain's history of dealing with Obama but on looking at it again, I thought perhaps he was trying to be witty?

McCain's talking about an energy bill loaded with goodies for the oil companies and supported by Bush and Cheney ... sounds very much like something McCain would have voted for doesn't it? He goes on to say "guess who voted for it? You might never know" to highlight his point. And the off course "That one".

To me, looking at the video again, it sounded like he was trying to be witty/funny. He tried humour earlier and it fell flat ... not good as he needed to connect with the audience so he tried wit. I don't think he meant any harm.

I think it has so much weight because of his previous behaviour. Kind of like the liar who tells the truth after a bunch of lies and no one believes him.

Temi

Classy, as always

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/08/michelle.ob...

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

Thanks for setting the record straight for me Toto.

Seems there is a lot of smearing going on here. 

You may believe whatever you wish and so may I. That's the beauty of this country; however, having a difference of opinion with you does not make me, this site, or anyone else who disagrees with you hypocrites.

BlogHer, btw, is nonpartisan.  Its members, however, may believe or follow whatever and whomever. 

I believe John McCain called his wife a cunt based on the story, especially the use of the word trollop, which is so McCain generation, and I believe it because of his other well-documented temper tantrums. You don't. So be it.

Name calling is the enemy of credibility.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ).

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )

ohh You can call it my hypocrisy not Blogher's.  I really don't mind.  I take the smear, put it on my toast and eat it for breakfast YUMMM!

~Susan

http://lilmomthatcould.com/

So here's the 'logic' from Nordette, and company on this thread ...

Post substantiated comments about Obama and Ayers relationship = Smear

Post unsubstantiated comment saying McCain called his wife a c*nt = Not a Smear

At a Townhall meeting filled with older people some HuffPo bottom feeder asked McCain, "is it true that you called your wife a cunt?" 

McCain's response (clearly taken aback with such a rude question), "You know it's a great thing about townhall meetings, um, er, there's people here that don't respect that kind of language, so I'll move on to the next question."

McCain handled that moron with class.  So because he refused to engage in a question that was meant to bait him, the far left 'logic' is that it means that the story is true.       

Pure smear. Period.  The hypocrisy on this site is startling.   

Remember the testy exchange of letters ( http://obama.senate.gov/letter/060206-sen_obama_an... )over McCain's effort to get Obama to participate in getting bipartisan support for an ethics reform bill that McCain was involved in negotiating? Obama attended a meeting at McCain's invitation, then told McCain that he was going to throw his support behind a proposal being put together by the Senate Democratic leadership. McCain accused Obama of being "disingenuous" and putting his political ambitions above the public interest. Obama called McCain's response "regrettable" but added, "but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you nor my willingness to find a bipartisan solution to this problem."

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

It's a free country, so you can "engage" with whomever you want to.  Please copy any DIRECT quotes from my past post that shows that I said anything nasty about Obama.  OIC, you can't, because there is nothing in my past post bashing Obama or anybody else.  I never said that Obama was "bad" because he sat in the same room with Ayers.  What I said was that I, (and many others), have serious concerns over his past relationship with a known terrorist, Bill Ayers. I believe that there was more to the relationship then Obama admits to.   

I also said that Obama or his supporters have every right to have concerns over McCain's past with the Keating 5 scandal.  As you can see, in my past post about Ayers and Obama, I posted evidence to support my opinion and my sources are credible sources like CNN.

Americans have every right to be alarmed or concerned over a presidential candidates past associates.  What I find interesting is that you and other people on this site view any concern about BO as "bashing Obama".  

In the short time that I've been on this site, it's become very clear that there are many women here that want to silence or discredit any political view that is different from their own.  I guess it's easier to throw ad hominin attacks rather than try to prove me wrong with a thoughtful defense and credible information.     

You mean it's a vast left-wing conspiracy? McCain was asked this question about calling Cindy a cunt in another Town Hall meeting and instead of answering the question, he told the speaker people in the audience didn't like that kind of language, which you would have seen at the link I've already supplied if you'd visited it and scrolled past the first video ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2008/06/john-mccains-v... ).

I thank you for objecting, however. It's given me the opportunity to expand on what I see as a real concern, John McCain's temper, which relates to his stability and fitness to lead.

Before I posted the cunt story at my blog (and I did so because the comic video at the the top of the post is exceptional), I checked it out and was reassured that McCain has had the opportunity to address this but has chosen instead to deflect and poke the messenger. Very telling about how he operates. He defelcts.

Could he be avoiding answering the question because he knows the reporters who witnessed it will come forward if he denies having said it? I think his deflection is akin to taking the fifth. Generally people do that when they do not have plausible deniability and know self-incrimination is likely.

Furthermore, McCain's temper is so well-documented ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080907/pl_mccl... ), I'll guess that he doesn't want to get into the discussion about what he did or didn't say as far as insults go because he knows people have heard him say worse. BTW, here's another story about his temper in the Wall Street Journal, hardly known for its liberal leanings (link ( http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/07/the-retur... )). People are concerned.

Anonymous sources are not unusual in journalism. Have you ever heard of Deep Throat ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat )? As a reporter who's covered politics before, I'll tell you that reporters don't always report what they hear for reasons such as fear of losing job, not wishing to embarass a candidate about personal behavior, or maybe the reporter thinks it's not news or important to the story being reported. Maybe they didn't want to get kicked off the McCain beat. Maybe they thought the story wasn't worth all the flack they'd take for writing it. McCain does, after all, have a temper, and reporters are human too.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ).

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )

Interesting. You are welcome to view my comment as defensive if you like but I see it as a passion for truth.  I'm just trying to set the record straight.  If you would rather focus on the messenger rather than the message than it just proves my point.  It doesn't surprise me that you would continue to ignore the truth about this story and believe this lie to help futher your agenda. 

By all means, please read my past post: 

You will see that I admit that I see no problem with Obama bringing up the Keating 5 scandal ... Obama has every right to bring up McCain's past relationship's just like McCain has a right to do so. 
You will read that I'm pro-life but I believe that taking care of the living children is equally as important as taking care of the unborn.  You will also see that I put this belief into action by doing mission work to help take care of the poor.
You will read that I'm bothered by the blatant sexism that Hillary experienced and now Palin is going through it.
You will read that I believe in trying to use un-biased and credible sources to support your opinions.  Not sources like Daily Kos, Huffington Post, or Wikapedia.
You will read that I have no problem with people that have a difference in opinion when it comes to issues, but I do have a problem with these kind of smears. 
You will read a lot of other stuff and you may disagree with my political views BUT what you will NOT find in any of my post ...

You will not find ONE nasty personal attack about Obama.
You will read that I disagree with him on policy and on his past associates but my disagreement is NOT based on smears that are spread on the Internet.

I thought of That One when I read this in my feed reader this morning.

http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2008/10/you-...

Virginia DeBolt
BlogHer Technology Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/virginia-debolt )
Web Teacher ( http://www.webteacher.ws/ )
First 50 Words ( http://first50.wordpress.com/ )

Toto you are so defensive when it comes to your party "Lies and not true"- I think I am going to take a look back at the other threads you have written. 

~Susan

http://lilmomthatcould.com/

I think that McCain seeks to dehumanize the competition by refusing to call them by name. For heaven's sake, he can't even look Obama in the eye. It's crossed my mind that maybe this is a military move when dealing with the enemy. 

In any case, Obama is not the enemy. He's another American with different ideas on how to run the country. And if anyone should be pissed about how he's being spoken about by the competition this week, it's not McCain.

Mom-101 ( http://mom-101.blogspot.com )
( http://coolmompicks.com )

Let's look at the FACTS -

1. This is an Internet rumor of an alleged 1992 episode in which John McCain used the word in an exchange with his wife. The rumor appears to have started with a passage from a book, The Real McCain, by Cliff Schecter who sets out to portray an angry man who is unfit to serve as President of the United States. Schecter is a blogger at the far left wing site, the Huffington Post. The passage quotes anonymous sources in a hearsay portrayal of something that happened 16 years ago.
Here's the passage from Schecter's book -

At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c---." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day.

2. There is NO mention of this occurrence in any national news outlets, even though, according to Schecter the three anonymous sources were reporters.
3. The quote itself seems so preposterous; it is reminiscent of the Edward Klein creation regarding Hillary Clinton, in which he reported that Bill Clinton said he'd "raped" his wife.
4. The Liberal MSM have made it a point to disavow smears against Barack Obama yet people like you and the liberal press clearly have a double standard when it comes to smearing a conservative.
Let me repeat ...

This is a rumor started by a far left wing blogger,
There are NO actual quotes or video to support this claim,
The only so called support we have for this story is this "three anonymous sources". 

Liberals claim that only Republicans spead this kind of garbage.  Democrats lose ALL credibility when you continue to spead lies like this that have NO real facts to back it up but only sick rumors.

Is this what the Liberals now call Journalism?

Where referring to this one in this manner is anything but negative.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

If Sen. Obama or Biden EVER made any of the disrespectful, snide, aggressive, or condescending remarks such as those that the McCain/Palin team seem completely unbashed to spew (though Obama/Biden never would, as they have too much class, poise and thank GOD, restraint!) you can bet your dwindling dollars 'friends', that it would be made out to be a huge issue. Also, I think McCain needs to choose who he wants to be...is he really going to go the distance as a name calling, finger pointing bully (which obviously isn't working out for him...) or will he assume the role of the 'quiet' guy with oodles of experience, who has all the great answers? He showed both personas last night, and to me, came out looking like a train wreck.....Maverick my ass! Heaven help us if it's McCain who is standing next to the imaginary red panic button in the White House, in the midst of a national crises, when he's having a bad day.

You bring up a good point, Z, but the "that one" comment was mild, maybe a brain glitch.  McCain's said harsher things to at least one family member we know of, and he has a reputation for not being able to control his temper, not exactly a good leadership quality.  But as to how he talks to his family, since McCain has called his wife a c*nt in front of reporters ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2008/06/john-mccains-v... ), imagine what he must say in private. So, we shouldn't be surprised that he's openly disrespectful to an opponent.  

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ).  The Rolling Stone pummels McCain ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2008/10/rolling-stone-... ), tackles his mythology.

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )

Or worse...people McCain "perceives" to be enemies.

kind of cool that someone found my comment. I was just a bit unhappy with that comment. Reminded me of all the times when I work on workers issues and hear people say "that one" over there. As if somehow, I'm different just because I've taken a stand for workers' rights.

It's pretty simple.  If Biden would have referred to Palin this way during the VP debate, he would have been skewered!!  To refer to Obama as "THAT ONE" is very disrespectful. 

Honestly I do not know what to make of it or whether any of us should care. But the phrasing reminded me a little of the scene in the first SotL movie where the Jame character says "It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again..." (But--Could be that I was just trying to make a generally lukewarm town hall more dramatic LOL!)

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast ( http://blog.lib.umn.edu/perry032/impossible/ )

It would be an issue if Obama said to McCain "That old man voted..."  You know the right would be all over Obama like stink....  

We need a President with an even temper.  It was disrespectful, and if McCain was smart he would apoligize. 

~Susan

http://lilmomthatcould.com/

In and of itself someone saying "that one" isn't that big of a deal.  It could be a language thing.

However, since McCain's camp has been actively trying to demonize Obama's character as of late (i.e palling around with terrorists, etc.), his statement takes on more weight.

Also, the fact that McCain wouldn't look at Obama in the first debate AND refused to shake his hand at the end of this second one makes me believe that it is an issue.  He has repeatedly shown a lack of respect and common courtesy towards his rival  How you treat and talk to people (including opponents) shows a lot about your character.  

It makes me wonder...if McCain treats a fellow senator & American like this, how would he interact with America's true enemies?

Kimberly/Mom in the City ( http://www.mominthecity.com/ )

Makes me wonder how he talks to his family. 

Visit my blogs at ThreeSeven ( http://www.threeseven.ca ) (all that's irrelevant and amusing) and
ecochick ( http://www.ecochick.ca ) (all that's green, cool and Canadian).

A non-issue.

With that comment I realized that Sen. McCain does not only look at Obama as competition I think he really does not like him. That comment along with the way he behaved at the last debate tells me he really does not respect him or like him.

Michelle

I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/

Haha!  Your friend's not only fast but cool.  Talk about a reclaim! 

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ).

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )

That didn't take long, did it?

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )