Ted Cruz Remark

[cindys]

At the risk of discussing American politics...I will get straight to the point: IMO, Ted Cruz's remark at last night's Republican debate about "New York values" smacked of antisemitism. I am wondering if anybody else saw the debate and/or a recap and took his remarks the same way. In an effort to ensure that anyone reading this post can participate (including any of the non-Americans on SCJM)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/14/6th-republican-debate-transcript-annotated-who-said-what-and-what-it-meant/

--begin cite---

BARTIROMO: Senator Cruz, you suggested Mr. Trump, quote, "embodies New York values." Could you explain what you mean by that?

CRUZ: You know, I think most people know exactly what New York values are.

(LAUGHTER)

BARTIROMO: I am from New York. I don't.

CRUZ: ... there are many, many wonderful, wonderful working men and women in the state of New York. But everyone understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal or pro-abortion or pro- gay-marriage, focus around money and the media.

[...]

---end cite---

(The above was followed by a Trump monologue that the citizens of New York deserved to be held in high esteem for the way they handled the aftermath of 9/11.)

To get to the point: Although I know that Cruz was allegedly generically referring to people with liberal social values (he is a social conservative), whenever I hear a politician (or anyone) use words like "money, the media," or Wall Street (the latter expression was not used by Cruz in this exchange), I consider these expressions to be code words for "Jews." Do other people agree with me or do you think I'm overreacting about this?

And BTW, I think Cruz's remarks about New Yorkers were a huge political blunder anyway. If you want to be the POTUS, you don't go insulting a state that holds such a huge population and such a significant number of electoral votes. To me, it was the Mitt Romney 47% remark all over again.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Shelly]

First, I didn't listen to the debate because I could never vote for
Trump, Cruz or the rest of that bunch. Well, I could for Kasich, and if
I had to, Paul.

That said, I don't know if you are over-reacting, but I was taken aback
by the "focus around money" part.

I sure hope you are right about the 47% comment.

--
Shelly

[topazgalaxy]

For myself, I thought Cruz making a general comment about New York City or N Y State was foolish, however, he may believe that he has a 1 in a million chance of winning NY state anyway.
I think the whole political process is more divisive than ever lately.
There is a 'us vs them' attitude in the country for several years now. IIRC Ben Carson pointed this out...I saw a video which was not the whole debate but selectively chose some of the candidate statements. Ben Carson pointed this out in his own way I believe.
When someone who is not a Jew says "they (the Other) focuses on money and the media" I can see how some would think this is a code word for Jews.
Maybe it is like Jessie Jackson calling N Y City Hymietown but much more subtle.
Frankly, I have mixed feelings and my tendency is to give Cruz the benefit of the doubt but I have mixed feelings about his statement. Maybe it was unconscious rather than malicious. Anyway his statement allows for plausible deniability unlike the Jessie Jackson statement..maybe that is the true skill of a politician-- plausible deniability.

Also, Trump seems to be winning in the polls when he insults one group or the other. I do not recommend that kind of divisiveness or brashness or nastiness, but maybe some of the other candidates think, for whatever reason, it is working so they are going down to his level.
This whole political race is nasty.

[Fred Goldstein]

On 1/15/2016 8:35 AM, cindys wrote:

> ...

>
> To get to the point: Although I know that Cruz was allegedly generically referring to people with liberal social values (he is a social conservative), whenever I hear a politician (or anyone) use words like "money, the media," or Wall Street (the latter expression was not used by Cruz in this exchange), I consider these expressions to be code words for "Jews." Do other people agree with me or do you think I'm overreacting about this?

You're right. It's a dog-whistle to his base. Cruz is not only an
"evangenlical", he's a Dominionist. That's an extremist branch of
Christianity, roughly equivalent to the Taliban's view of Islam, which
believes that the state should enforce a particular view of
Christianity, complete with capital punishment for transgressions so
named in their King James "Old Testament" (I would not ascibe it to the
actual Tanach), even though the Jewish interpretation made capital
punishment rather the exception. And of course no tolerance for
religious dissent. This plays well to a significant number of Iowa voters.

> And BTW, I think Cruz's remarks about New Yorkers were a huge political blunder anyway. If you want to be the POTUS, you don't go insulting a state that holds such a huge population and such a significant number of electoral votes. To me, it was the Mitt Romney 47% remark all over again.

I don't agree with that political calculus. Were Cruz to get the
nomination, his odds of winning New York were about those of my hitting
the Powerball, having bought zero tickets. His strategy would be to
sweep the south, the mountain west, the plains, and enough of the
midwest to get 271 electoral votes. He wouldn't waste a dime on New York
or California. That's a consequence of the electoral college system.
Were it a direct election requiring 50% after a(n) (instant) runoff, the
politics would be very different.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:35:28 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:

>At the risk of discussing American politics...I will get straight to the point: IMO, Ted Cruz's remark at last night's Republican debate about "New York values" smacked of antisemitism. I am wondering if anybody else saw the debate and/or a recap and took his remarks the same way. In an effort to ensure that anyone reading this post can participate (including any of the non-Americans on SCJM)
>
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/14/6th-republican-debate-transcript-annotated-who-said-what-and-what-it-meant/
>
>--begin cite---
>
>BARTIROMO: Senator Cruz, you suggested Mr. Trump, quote, "embodies New York values." Could you explain what you mean by that?
>
>CRUZ: You know, I think most people know exactly what New York values are.
>
>(LAUGHTER)
>
>BARTIROMO: I am from New York. I don't.
>
>CRUZ: ... there are many, many wonderful, wonderful working men and women in the state of New York. But everyone understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal or pro-abortion or pro- gay-marriage, focus around money and the media.
>
>[...]
>
>---end cite---
>
>(The above was followed by a Trump monologue that the citizens of New York deserved to be held in high esteem for the way they handled the aftermath of 9/11.)
>
>To get to the point: Although I know that Cruz was allegedly generically referring to people with liberal social values (he is a social conservative), whenever I hear a politician (or anyone) use words like "money, the media," or Wall Street (the latter expression was not used by Cruz in this exchange), I consider these expressions to be code words for "Jews." Do other people agree with me or do you think I'm overreacting about this?

I think you're over-reacting a bit, yes. E.g., "international bankers"
is an expression much more firmly associated with Jews in the
conspiratorial mind than either "money" or "media," so I recently
criticized the use of the former by Beach Runner, but did he mean it
that way? I doubt it. Is everyone complaining about Hollywood mores
blaming the Jews? Etc.

But you're not the only one taking it this way:

"Cruz was betting that... he could... echo Woody Allen’s famous New
York-centric line from Annie Hall and have it resonate with the voters
he’s trying to reach: “The rest of the country looks upon New York
like we’re left-wing Communist Jewish homosexual pornographers. I
think of us that way sometimes, and I live here.” [...] Trump’s
version of “New York values” ... aren’t the ones Woody Allen was
teasing. Nor are they the values of 9/11. They are the values of the
New York of caricature — the Walter Winchell – Ralph Kramden – Archie
Bunker – Andrew Dice Clay – Spike Lee New York, the city of pushy,
obnoxious, informal and unpretentious loudmouths who get in your face
and “tell it like it is.”
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/start-spreadin-news/

>And BTW, I think Cruz's remarks about New Yorkers were a huge political blunder anyway. If you want to be the POTUS, you don't go insulting a state that holds such a huge population and such a significant number of electoral votes. To me, it was the Mitt Romney 47% remark all over again.

Well, the last time New York state had voted for a Republican
candidate was in 1980 and 1984, but Reagan was a special case, as was
McGovern in 1972. Republicans have to count on winning without that
state. The 47% remark was federal :-)
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

[DoD]

"topazgalaxy" <topaz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d24853b9-4ffe-4098...@googlegroups.com...

> There is a 'us vs them' attitude in the country for several years now.

Yep.... For quite some time....

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"I just played Kansas City," she reportedly said. "The only time you want to
visit there is if you're going to make an emergency landing in a plane
crash.

"They are really dumb there. Americans are smart on both coasts, but then as
you move to the center of the country, the people get dumber and dumber and
dumber. And the apex of stupidity is Kansas City."

Joan Rivers
-------------------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe it is like Jessie Jackson calling N Y City Hymietown but much more
> subtle.

LOL... You are really entertaining that idea? New York is know for being
the financial district of the world basically... It is also
host to Fox news headquarters among others..... Good morning America ....
Jimmy Fallon.... etc etc.... come on... And none of that
has anything to do with Jews...

When I went there, as much as that Darren character called NYC (sweet Jew
city) or however he termed it.... I didn't get the impression of
it being "Jewish", whatever that means.... The whole week I was there, I saw
three people wearing kippas on the subway and on one
street corner, I saw a couple of men dressed in black hat garb and finally
at times square, I saw a couple of kids wearing black hat garb
handing out flyers on mosiach..... I actually had more interaction with
Jews (Israeli) at the Oak Park mall here in KC (they, running
Dead Sea Seacret spa products), than I had in a week in New York City.. In
fact, NYC, was dirty and most of the people seemed like they
spoke Spanish and looked Guatemalan .... It actually reminded me of Central
America (Panama City) than anything else...

> Frankly, I have mixed feelings and my tendency is to give Cruz the benefit
> of the doubt but I have mixed feelings about his statement.

I don't know... Cruz seems to be very positive on Israel.... I would bet my
next two paychecks he didn't have Jews in mind when making those statements
and frankly it seems a little bit like that overly vain girl in the dance
that thinks the guy is looking at her, but he is really looking at the clock
behind her.... She thinks she is the center of attention, whereas he could
care less about her.

[mm]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:35:28 +0000 (UTC), cindys

<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>At the risk of discussing American politics...I will get straight to the point: IMO, Ted Cruz's remark at last night's Republican debate about "New York values" smacked of antisemitism. I am wondering if anybody else saw the debate and/or a recap and took his remarks the same way. In an effort to ensure that anyone reading this post can participate (including any of the non-Americans on SCJM)
>
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/14/6th-republican-debate-transcript-annotated-who-said-what-and-what-it-meant/
>
>--begin cite---
>
>BARTIROMO: Senator Cruz, you suggested Mr. Trump, quote, "embodies New York values." Could you explain what you mean by that?
>
>CRUZ: You know, I think most people know exactly what New York values are.
>
>(LAUGHTER)
>
>BARTIROMO: I am from New York. I don't.
>
>CRUZ: ... there are many, many wonderful, wonderful working men and women in the state of New York. But everyone understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal or pro-abortion or pro- gay-marriage, focus around money and the media.
>
>[...]
>
>---end cite---
>
>(The above was followed by a Trump monologue that the citizens of New York deserved to be held in high esteem for the way they handled the aftermath of 9/11.)
>
>To get to the point: Although I know that Cruz was allegedly generically referring to people with liberal social values (he is a social conservative), whenever I hear a politician (or anyone) use words like "money, the media," or Wall Street (the latter expression was not used by Cruz in this exchange), I consider these expressions to be code words for "Jews." Do other people agree with me or do you think I'm overreacting about this?

That was my reaction too. Before I saw this post, I'd already posted
saying the same thing. And a caller to Diane Rehm's show at 10 AM
said the same thing. (Today the weekly domestic news roundup was
hosted by Derick McGinty with Susan Glasser, Naftali ben David, and
one other guest. )

Well, I'm not actually saying it's his code for Jews. But it's the
way his mind works.

Of course don't forget, or if you didn't know, his first (and only)
senate campaign was funded with money borrowed from his wife's
employer, Goldman Sachs. If he'd only mentioned money, I'd think
maybe this loan was the dominant influence, but he said media too.

Wikip "In January 2016, the New York Times reported that Cruz and his
wife had taken out low-interest loans from Goldman Sachs (where she
worked) and Citibank, and failed to report the nearly $1 million in
loans on Federal Election Commission disclosure statements as required
by law.**[96] Cruz had previously stated that he and his wife
liquidated substantial personal assets, "all we had saved", to finance
the Senate primary campaign.[96] The bank loans were largely repaid by
later campaign fundraising. A spokesperson for Cruz said his failure
to disclose the loans was "inadvertent" and said he would be filing
supplementary paperwork.[96]"

96 shows how he misrepresented to the people how he raised the
campaign money, worse IMO than failing to fill out the form correctly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/politics/ted-cruz-wall-street-loan-senate-bid-2012.html
The story shows a lot of misrepresentation by him and his wife.

He borrowed against his Goldman account. I did this with my brother.
It's maybe the best way to get low interest, because if you don't pay,
they already have some control over the assets they will sieze. For
one thing, you can't sell the assets you've borrowed against until you
pay them back. But you don't have to sell and pay capital gains tax.


**Though he did report them somewhere else, and his lawyer says wrt
FEC there are different requirements for incumbents and others. Huh?
I doubt the differences apply here.

The whippersnapper has only been in office for 3 years. When he's
older, he might be smarter.

>And BTW, I think Cruz's remarks about New Yorkers were a huge political blunder anyway. If you want to be the POTUS, you don't go insulting a state that holds such a huge population and such a significant number of electoral votes. To me, it was the Mitt Romney 47% remark all over again.

Except almost everyone on social security, veterans's retirment, and
permanent disabilty were included in the 47% and were justly insulted.
Many people also think of money and media when they think of NY or
Jews.

In the same way many people think of servility and low skills when
they think of black people. It's deep down inside. Maybe an
immigrant woudn't have absorbed it. (Plus the many people who just
plain dislike or hate black people, who are vocal and apparent in
other forums. I have a reason for going off-topic.)

>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.

[DoD]

"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:b068b0fd-6e5f-4c07...@googlegroups.com...

LOL....I guess if you are looking for a reason to be hating on a politician,
looking for code words to accuse of anti-semtism is one way to go
about it... Ummmm, I guess whoever coined the term "Empire State" was
really thinking about Jews when they first used that term..

FWIW, my own opinion is he used it generically like I would the left coast,
or as people in New York would say I live in fly over country... I had
the opportunity to go to New York not long ago and met some of the
people.... It was apparent **right away** that people from there look down
on
us midwesterners like we are cow-dung... and I suppose the same is true in
reverse..... After relaying my experiences to some people I know around
here that I went there.... the people I talked to that had also visited
there, gave the same negative opinions of New York... I guess it is a
mutual dislike... I have no use for it myself... I also hate California,
pity, as the weather is actually nice there...

> And BTW, I think Cruz's remarks about New Yorkers were a huge political
> blunder anyway. If you want to be the POTUS, you don't go insulting a
> state that holds such a huge population and such a significant number of
> electoral votes. To me, it was the Mitt Romney 47% remark all over again.

Cruz would never win New York....so I don't think he really cares...

[JJ]

Cindy had it right when she started this thread.

When I heard Cruz say it, I was reminded of the very first episode of
THE WEST WING, where some evangelical woman says of Toby and one other
person that they are "from New York". Toby immediately gets it and says
to the other person, in public, "She means we are Jews".

And tonight Bill Maher got it. He wondered about New York and power and
money and joked around about "maybe it's the Muslims? No, the Indians...
no, what other groups in NY would be associated with money and media" ???

The panel got it. So did I.

Jay

[cindys]

LOL. Ha! Ha! Ha! I already had a reason to be hating this particular politician, and my reason was that people who have seen him on the campaign trail (and these were ostensibly his supporters) have stated that in his single-minded determination to win, he has demonstrated ruthlessness and lacks even the smallest amount of empathy for other people. People who have seen him on the campaign trail have actually used the word "evil" to describe him. Except for Trump, I haven't seen that adjective applied to any of the other Republican candidates. And I also want to see a moderate and not a crazy evangelical in the White House. So, I really wasn't looking for an excuse to "hate" him. I already had plenty of legitimate reasons.

And FTR, I am not the only person to see his remarks as a slap at Jews. Since my post, at least two mainstream columnists have made the same observations. The only thing that was missing from his money and media comment was a reference to who controls Hollywood.

> looking for code words to accuse of anti-semtism is one way to go
> about it... Ummmm, I guess whoever coined the term "Empire State" was
> really thinking about Jews when they first used that term..

Don't be ridiculous. And I resent your mockery. Just remember this exchange the next time you want to complain that I am attacking you on this forum.

>
> FWIW, my own opinion is he used it generically like I would the left coast,
> or as people in New York would say I live in fly over country...

Then you could have started your post right there and expressed your opinion without being rude and sarcastic.

> I had
> the opportunity to go to New York not long ago and met some of the
> people.... It was apparent **right away** that people from there look down
> on
> us midwesterners like we are cow-dung...

And that may very well be true. Apparently, a lot of the people who live in New York City hold similar negative views of those of use who live in Western New York. My sister's ex-fiance's family once called her a "hick."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Beach Runner]

I think Cindy is right, Cruz wants Christian prayer in the schools.

He stuck his hand out and got a lot of money from New York, and it turns
out there is a huge super Pac headed from someone in New York. The head of the
superpac said "No Comment".

Of course when he was talking about a sterotype and in was definately
both anti liberal and anti semetic, playing on the anti semetic
feelings in the country.

Interestingly, a recent study showed that even after all the terrorist
crimes, the most hate crimes by percentage and number that are religious
based are anti-semetic.

In fact, 18% of all hate crime in the US is anti Jewish.
The most hate crime is against blacks, ethnicity, and gay men.
Then comes hate crimes against Jews.

The data was published today.

Since most terrorists are KKK and white supremists, maybe we should
round up all the white christians just to be "safe":-)

[mm]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 23:35:00 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>Cindy said:
>>To get to the point: Although I know that Cruz was allegedly generically referring to people with liberal social values (he is a social conservative), whenever I hear a politician (or anyone) use words like "money, the media," or Wall Street (the latter expression was not used by Cruz in this exchange), I consider these expressions to be code words for "Jews." Do other people agree with me or do you think I'm overreacting about this?
>
>That was my reaction too. Before I saw this post, I'd already posted
>saying the same thing. And a caller to Diane Rehm's show at 10 AM
>said the same thing. (Today the weekly domestic news roundup was
>hosted by Derick McGinty with Susan Glasser, Naftali ben David, and
>one other guest. )
>
>Well, I'm not actually saying it's his code for Jews. But it's the
>way his mind works.
>
>Of course don't forget, or if you didn't know, his first (and only)
>senate campaign was funded with money borrowed from his wife's
>employer, Goldman Sachs.

I repeated this the way I heard it, and in doing so I fell into the
trap or using the language of political opponents and the TV press,
who are everyone's opponent. (I'm not referring to leaving out
weakeners that should maybe have been there, like "partially" or
"largely" funded.)

This is the way they should have phrased it in the first place:
"His senate campaign was funded with money his wife borrowed against
her stock (or stock and bond, or asset) portfolio, which she maintains
at Goldman Sachs, from whom she borrowed the money. They are also her
employer." They're probably entitled or even obliged to mention who
she works for, but this way it doesn't sound like Goldman was giving
her a sweetheart loan, since they probably weren't. Anyone with
assets in the custody (right word) of a broker can borrow money the
way she did, and they have no evidence she paid less interest than
anyone else would. If they had evidence, they should have offered it.
But the TV press is in the business of concocting controversy, so they
tried to make it sound like she got a loan from her employer, Goldman,
and in return Cruz will be beholden to them when he's president.

The TV press is disgusting. But they'll still have their annual
awards dinners and over the years, each of them will get one award or
another, and they'll fancy themselves in the mold of Horace Greeley or
Edward R. Murrow. I think they even named one award after Murrow.


OTOH, and FTR there was nothing wrong with Megan Kelly's opening
question of Trump and his whining that it wasn't a fair question is
just an example of his usual technique. Whatever the sin, when he
commits it he claims he didn't but when others do it far less often,
he complains about it.

>f he'd only mentioned money, I'd think
>maybe this loan was the dominant influence, but he said media too.
>
>Wikip "In January 2016, the New York Times reported that Cruz and his
>wife had taken out low-interest loans from Goldman Sachs (where she
>worked) and Citibank, and failed to report the nearly $1 million in
>loans on Federal Election Commission disclosure statements as required
>by law.**[96] Cruz had previously stated that he and his wife
>liquidated substantial personal assets, "all we had saved", to finance
>the Senate primary campaign.[96] The bank loans were largely repaid by
>later campaign fundraising. A spokesperson for Cruz said his failure
>to disclose the loans was "inadvertent" and said he would be filing
>supplementary paperwork.[96]"
>

>Footnote 96: shows how he misrepresented to the people how he raised the

[DoD]

"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message

news:8e0428b8-48aa-4866...@googlegroups.com...

>> LOL....I guess if you are looking for a reason to be hating on a
>> politician,
>
> LOL. Ha! Ha! Ha! I already had a reason to be hating this particular
> politician, and my reason was that people who have seen him on the
> campaign trail (and these were ostensibly his supporters) have stated that
> in his single-minded determination to win, he has demonstrated
> ruthlessness and lacks even the smallest amount of empathy for other
> people. People who have seen him on the campaign trail have actually used
> the word "evil" to describe him. Except for Trump, I haven't seen that
> adjective applied to any of the other Republican candidates. And I also
> want to see a moderate and not a crazy evangelical in the White House. So,
> I really wasn't looking for an excuse to "hate" him. I already had plenty
> of legitimate reasons.

----------------------------
I don't like him either.... I agreed with Shel that the only Republican I
can stomach to vote for is Kasich. But is it really necessary to look for
antisemitism to add to it? If Hillary said she had
New York values, would you have thought she meant had Jewish values? I am
guessing not
----------------------------

> And FTR, I am not the only person to see his remarks as a slap at Jews.
> Since my post, at least two mainstream columnists have made >the same
> observations. The only thing that was missing from his money and media
> comment was a reference to who controls >Hollywood.

The only person I heard make that connection outside of you is Geraldo
Rivera, but he admitted, that he didn't like the
guy to begin with.... Again if you didn't like the guy to begin with it is
pretty easy to assume the worse of his comment.

>> looking for code words to accuse of anti-semtism is one way to go
>> about it... Ummmm, I guess whoever coined the term "Empire State" was
>> really thinking about Jews when they first used that term..
>
> Don't be ridiculous. And I resent your mockery. Just remember this
> exchange the next time you want to complain that I am attacking you on
> this forum.

I wasn't really mocking... Just trying to make a point.... NY is full of
media and money... I don't make the connection to Jews
for that.... I make the connection that NY is one of the oldest cities and
that is just the way it is...

>> FWIW, my own opinion is he used it generically like I would the left
>> coast,
>> or as people in New York would say I live in fly over country...
>
> Then you could have started your post right there and expressed your
> opinion without being rude and sarcastic.

I was being sarcastic.... Probably because to me it seems far fetched that
someone that is so pro Israel would
make an anti semitic statement.... especially because NY is full of money
and media and that is a fact
..... Why would he do such a thing and why would you automatically equate
that money and media to Jews? I certainly
didn't get that impression when I visited there...

>> I had
>> the opportunity to go to New York not long ago and met some of the
>> people.... It was apparent **right away** that people from there look
>> down
>> on
>> us midwesterners like we are cow-dung...
>
> And that may very well be true. Apparently, a lot of the people who live
> in New York City hold similar negative views of those of use who live in
> Western New York. My sister's ex-fiance's family once called her a "hick."

It does seem that NYC people have an above thou attitude..... It is what it
is... and when someone else has negative attitude toward
NYCers, doesn't mean they harbor antisemitism..... Hillary supposedly called
Dick Morris a dirty Jew or something like that....Seems
more antisemitic than someone talking about NYC values.. It goes right back
to my original point... If you are prone to have a favorable view of
someone, you can dismiss or excuse what they do, but if you don't like
someone from the get go, it is easier to believe the worst about that
person..
That is all I was getting at.

[Shelly]

On 1/16/2016 1:17 PM, DoD wrote:
> FWIW, my own opinion is he used it generically like I would the left
> coast, or as people in New York would say I live in fly over country...
> I had
> the opportunity to go to New York not long ago and met some of the
> people.... It was apparent **right away** that people from there look
> down on
> us midwesterners like we are cow-dung... and I suppose the same is true
> in reverse..... After relaying my experiences to some people I know around
> here that I went there.... the people I talked to that had also visited
> there, gave the same negative opinions of New York... I guess it is a
> mutual dislike... I have no use for it myself... I also hate
> California, pity, as the weather is actually nice there...

Your opinion of New York and New Yorkers is not restricted to the
midwest. Besides the many other reasons, it was one of the reasons that
we wanted to escape from Southeast Florida. (Miami-Ft. Lauderdale area)

Where I live (The Villages) we have a great mix of people from New
England, New York City area, and the midwest (Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri,....). We get along fine, but it
does take some time for many of the NY transplants to adjust (and some
never do).

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 1/16/2016 1:17 PM, DoD wrote:
>

> LOL....I guess if you are looking for a reason to be hating on a
> politician, looking for code words to accuse of anti-semtism is one way
> to go about it...

I reacted in much the same way as Cindy -- and I already hated Cruz (and
Huckashmuck, and all the rest of the far-out religious right wing
nutcases.). You know, even being of the strong capitalist mentality that
I am, if given a choice of only between one of them or Fidel Castro, I
would lean strongly towards voting for Castro. That is how much I loathe
that group. The US is *NOT* a Christian country. It is a country where
the majority is Christian. *BIG DIFFERENCE!*

You know, David, that just because you might be a little paranoid does
not mean you are not under attack.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 1/17/2016 10:22 AM, DoD wrote:
>
>
> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:8e0428b8-48aa-4866...@googlegroups.com...
>
>>> LOL....I guess if you are looking for a reason to be hating on a
>>> politician,
>>
>> LOL. Ha! Ha! Ha! I already had a reason to be hating this particular
>> politician, and my reason was that people who have seen him on the
>> campaign trail (and these were ostensibly his supporters) have stated
>> that in his single-minded determination to win, he has demonstrated
>> ruthlessness and lacks even the smallest amount of empathy for other
>> people. People who have seen him on the campaign trail have actually
>> used the word "evil" to describe him. Except for Trump, I haven't seen
>> that adjective applied to any of the other Republican candidates. And
>> I also want to see a moderate and not a crazy evangelical in the White
>> House. So, I really wasn't looking for an excuse to "hate" him. I
>> already had plenty of legitimate reasons.
> ----------------------------
> I don't like him either.... I agreed with Shel that the only Republican
> I can stomach to vote for is Kasich. But is it really necessary to look
> for antisemitism to add to it? If Hillary said she had
> New York values, would you have thought she meant had Jewish values? I
> am guessing not

It wasn't the "New York values" that set her (and me and many others)
off. It was the "money" comment because is what the anti-Semites do
when they target the Jews. And, yes, if she had said the exact same
thing it would have been the same.

> ----------------------------
>
>> And FTR, I am not the only person to see his remarks as a slap at
>> Jews. Since my post, at least two mainstream columnists have made >the
>> same observations. The only thing that was missing from his money and
>> media comment was a reference to who controls >Hollywood.
>
> The only person I heard make that connection outside of you is Geraldo
> Rivera, but he admitted, that he didn't like the
> guy to begin with.... Again if you didn't like the guy to begin with it
> is pretty easy to assume the worse of his comment.

Other posts here have pointed to others as well.

>
>>> looking for code words to accuse of anti-semtism is one way to go
>>> about it... Ummmm, I guess whoever coined the term "Empire State" was
>>> really thinking about Jews when they first used that term..
>>
>> Don't be ridiculous. And I resent your mockery. Just remember this
>> exchange the next time you want to complain that I am attacking you on
>> this forum.
>
> I wasn't really mocking... Just trying to make a point.... NY is full of
> media and money... I don't make the connection to Jews

As good as you -- and you ARE a good man -- you are NOT Jewish. We are
telling you the JEWISH reaction to those comments. Accept that. A
classic example is how one black man may call another the "n" word and
no offense is taken. But let a white man say it and it is a whole
different story.

> for that.... I make the connection that NY is one of the oldest cities
> and that is just the way it is...
>
>>> FWIW, my own opinion is he used it generically like I would the left
>>> coast,
>>> or as people in New York would say I live in fly over country...
>>
>> Then you could have started your post right there and expressed your
>> opinion without being rude and sarcastic.
>
> I was being sarcastic.... Probably because to me it seems far fetched
> that someone that is so pro Israel would

One is divorced from the other. Israel is the US's closest ally behind
Britain and Canada. It is our only real ally in the mideast. He realizes
that because despite all else he is not stupid. Jews in the US, on the
other hand, well perhaps "some of his best friends are Jewish".

> make an anti semitic statement.... especially because NY is full of
> money and media and that is a fact
> ..... Why would he do such a thing and why would you automatically
> equate that money and media to Jews? I certainly
> didn't get that impression when I visited there...

When did you visit "Hymietown"?

>>> I had
>>> the opportunity to go to New York not long ago and met some of the
>>> people.... It was apparent **right away** that people from there look
>>> down
>>> on
>>> us midwesterners like we are cow-dung...
>>
>> And that may very well be true. Apparently, a lot of the people who
>> live in New York City hold similar negative views of those of use who
>> live in Western New York. My sister's ex-fiance's family once called
>> her a "hick."
>
> It does seem that NYC people have an above thou attitude..... It is what
> it is... and when someone else has negative attitude toward
> NYCers, doesn't mean they harbor antisemitism.....

Correct. I share those views to a large extent. However, it is one thing
for a Jew to say something about NY and the Jews there and quite another
to make the same statement. Again, as nice a person as you are, you are
not Jewish and so don't understand the slanderous remarks as well as we
do who have had to hear them our whole lives.

> Hillary supposedly
> called Dick Morris a dirty Jew or something like that....Seems
> more antisemitic than someone talking about NYC values.. It goes right
> back to my original point... If you are prone to have a favorable view
> of someone, you can dismiss or excuse what they do, but if you don't
> like someone from the get go, it is easier to believe the worst about
> that person..
> That is all I was getting at.

I don't know anything about that "supposed" statement. Also I, for one,
don't back Hillary except against any Republican running not named
Kasich (or Paul). Even though that is what you are getting at, it
doesn't change the reaction from Jews to his statement.

--
Shelly

[dave...@gmail.com]

hello cindy stein, how are you/ i haven't seen or heard from you in quite awhile. i missed your posts on judaism. if you know who am i jut say yes
and that way I will know you know who I am. Take care, and hopefully I will hear from you later. Here is my email address if you want to write me personally dave6047 at atmc.net.

[dave...@gmail.com]

i don't like cruz either. he panders to the religious right and i have heard he i ruthless as well. i agree with cindy s. on this. i however don't think he was referring to jews when he made that statement i think he was referring to liberals. he jut doesn't seem to be all that great of a guy.

regards,
stt

[Beach Runner]

As far as the Media, you can add the the Jerusalem Post.
And even the very right conservative National Review, started by William Buckley
called Cruz's comments anti Semitic

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429860/ted-cruz-new-york-values-anti-semitic-jezebel
And the Jewish press
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/ted-cruzs-new-york-values-moment-could-cost-him/2016/01/15/

Now, I don't believe that Cruz is anti Israel and may not even be anti semitic,
but he was using anti semitism as a weapon. I wonder what 20th century
politician he might have learned that from?

[mm]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 18:49:41 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 9:25:02 AM UTC-8, dave...@gmail.com wrote:

........

>>
>> i don't like cruz either. he panders to the religious right and i have heard he i ruthless as well. i agree with cindy s. on this. i however don't think he was referring to jews when he made that statement i think he was referring to liberals.

Even though there are plenty of conservatives in the media, liberals
are associated in many minds with the media, but money is a lot more
associated with conservatives. They've got money and they want to
keep it.

>>he jut doesn't seem to be all that great of a guy.
>>
>> regards,
>> stt
>
>As far as the Media, you can add the the Jerusalem Post.
>And even the very right conservative National Review, started by William Buckley
>called Cruz's comments anti Semitic
>
>http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429860/ted-cruz-new-york-values-anti-semitic-jezebel

Did you read the article too quickly? It does NOT call the comments
anything. It just comments on another article in the feminist blog
Jezebel, apparently by someone named Rothkopf. Timpf doesn't give
her first name.

The NR article ends "Hm. Is she maybe — just maybe – reading just a
little too much into this? She doesn’t think so. In fact, she went so
far as to call his comments “FCC-condoned slurs.” Yes, she actually
said “slurs.” Of course she did! Because after all, just when I start
to think that people couldn’t possibly get any more ridiculous,
somebody always proves me wrong.l"

>And the Jewish press
>http://www.jewishpress.com/news/ted-cruzs-new-york-values-moment-could-cost-him/2016/01/15/

Well, sort of: "I believe in fairness, and so I cited the full
transcript above, rather than shape it to serve my point with cuts and
omissions. And for the record I don’t believe Senator Ted Cruz is an
anti-Semite. He’s a loyal friend of Israel and has enough Jewish
following to suggest he isn’t. But when he used the New York values
quote he did it in the very same vein as that character on the West
Wing, as a short form for people like me." That's very close.

But whether these two did or not, plenty of others though as Cindy
did.

"And the part that disturbed me the most was not so much what Cruz
said, but the laughter and the applause of the audience. As in, “But I
promise you, in the state of South Carolina, they do. (Applause)”

What can I tell you, as a New York Jew, when people down in South
Carolina laugh at and applaud an insult at my expense — I get
nervous." So whether Cruz is antisemitic or not, he's promoting it,
because he's up there like a leader and some really support him and
he's said such a thing. Whether Dod gets it or not, plenty of the
people in SCarolina do.




"And his [Trump's] explanation [for expressing liberal views in an
interview with Tim Russert "not too many years ago] — he said, “look,
I’m from New York, that’s what we believe in New York. Those aren’t
Iowa values, but this is what we believe in New York.”"

Cruz's problem is that he hasnt' noticed Trump thinks he's the center
of the universe, so of course Trump thinks anything he thinks is "what
we believe in New York".

>Now, I don't believe that Cruz is anti Israel and may not even be anti semitic,
>but he was using anti semitism as a weapon. I wonder what 20th century
>politician he might have learned that from?

Nixon?

Off topic items:
From this article, from a transcript of what Crus said: "my friend
Donald has taken to it as (ph) advance playing Bruce Springsteen’s
“Born in the USA,”" What does "(ph)" mean?
>
As an aside, the woman asking the question was "Host Maria Bartiromo".
I don't know what that means but the Italians have so many good
surnames, like the Sephardim. And btw, Italians in NYC and NYS tend
to be Republicans. I've posted here before about how, in the
goverrnor's race between Lou Lehrman and Mario Cuomo, the Jews voted
for the Italian because he was liberal and the Italians voted for the
Jew because he was conservative. Cuomo squeaked to a victory.

Cruz ended saying "And — and I guess I can — can frame it another way.
Not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan. I’m just saying."
And Trump rebutted about William F. Buckley "and others", and Cruz let
that die, which was a shame. Because Cruz was trying to make fun of,
rather than whine about, Trump's stupid insulting statement that "not
a lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba" which might be true, but has
nothing to with Cruz, whose father became evan. when Cruz was little,
and Cruz got it from him. So Trump is insinuating that Cruz is
insincere, just because he was born in Cuba, no it was Canada.
Basically another one of Trump's lies, though this is from the 25% of
his lies where he doesn't say anything literally false. I would not
allow my children to play with his children.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 05:02:38 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:

>On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 1:11:23 PM UTC-5, DoD wrote:

[snip]

>> LOL....I guess if you are looking for a reason to be hating on a politician,
>
>LOL. Ha! Ha! Ha! I already had a reason to be hating this particular politician,

You do realize that since that is so, you are predisposed to interpret
everything he says unfavorably.

I invite all those who dislike all likely candidates from the
mainstream parties to join me in voting for Gary Johnson. And as
usual, I will try to avoid discussing poltics here. There are problems
which are both more relevant to us and on which we have more
influence. A handful of voters on SCJM counts for about as much as a
Powerball ticket :-)

[snip]

[cindys]

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 12:20:38 PM UTC-5, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 05:02:38 +0000 (UTC), cindys
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>
> >On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 1:11:23 PM UTC-5, DoD wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> LOL....I guess if you are looking for a reason to be hating on a politician,
> >
> >LOL. Ha! Ha! Ha! I already had a reason to be hating this particular politician,
>
> You do realize that since that is so, you are predisposed to interpret
> everything he says unfavorably.

-----
I realize no such thing. I actually agree with this man on a number of his positions, beginning with his positions about Obama's overuse of executive orders,that it was wrong to lift the sanctions on Iran, and gun control (my husband are I thinking about joining the NRA just as a matter of principle). As I stated in another post, his remarks about New York values took me completely by surprise, and I stand by my position that they were a code word for liberal Jews.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Shelly]

On 1/19/2016 12:26 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 05:02:38 +0000 (UTC), cindys
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>
>> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 1:11:23 PM UTC-5, DoD wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> LOL....I guess if you are looking for a reason to be hating on a politician,
>>
>> LOL. Ha! Ha! Ha! I already had a reason to be hating this particular politician,
>
> You do realize that since that is so, you are predisposed to interpret
> everything he says unfavorably.
>
> I invite all those who dislike all likely candidates from the
> mainstream parties to join me in voting for Gary Johnson. And as
> usual, I will try to avoid discussing poltics here. There are problems
> which are both more relevant to us and on which we have more
> influence. A handful of voters on SCJM counts for about as much as a
> Powerball ticket :-)
>
> [snip]
>

Who is Gary Johnson?

--
Shelly

[DoD]

"Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message
news:n7g6p2$kqc$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 1/16/2016 1:17 PM, DoD wrote:
>>
>> LOL....I guess if you are looking for a reason to be hating on a
>> politician, looking for code words to accuse of anti-semtism is one way
>> to go about it...
>
> I reacted in much the same way as Cindy -- and I already hated Cruz

It would be much more convincing if you said you DIDN'T already hate
Cruz....

Once you hate someone, it is easier to believe bad things about that person
or in this instance, believe his words mean something more than what they
probably did.

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 2:04:08 PM UTC-5, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:>

> Who is Gary Johnson?

Gary Earl Johnson is an American businessman and politician. He served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, as a member of the Republican Party, and was the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 election.[1] He is a candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination in the 2016 election.

See article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson

GEK
always happy to help

[DoD]

"Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message

news:n7g4on$cpb$1...@dont-email.me...

The Villages is definitely a special place... It surprises me not in the
least that people from all over
get along fine there.. It is definitely a one of a kind gem.

[DoD]

"Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message

news:n7gh5t$tj0$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 1/17/2016 10:22 AM, DoD wrote:

> It wasn't the "New York values" that set her (and me and many others) off.
> It was the "money" comment because is what the anti-Semites do when they
> target the Jews. And, yes, if she had said the exact same thing it would
> have been the same.

Isn't that presupposing that Cruz is an antisemite?

>>> And FTR, I am not the only person to see his remarks as a slap at
>>> Jews. Since my post, at least two mainstream columnists have made >the
>>> same observations. The only thing that was missing from his money and
>>> media comment was a reference to who controls >Hollywood.
>>
>> The only person I heard make that connection outside of you is Geraldo
>> Rivera, but he admitted, that he didn't like the
>> guy to begin with.... Again if you didn't like the guy to begin with it
>> is pretty easy to assume the worse of his comment.
>
> Other posts here have pointed to others as well.

Most likely by people that don't like him. Others including Jews like Mark
Levin have
told *Trump* to knock it off, so it doesn't appear like he is too upset
about it.

>>>> looking for code words to accuse of anti-semtism is one way to go
>>>> about it... Ummmm, I guess whoever coined the term "Empire State" was
>>>> really thinking about Jews when they first used that term..
>>>
>>> Don't be ridiculous. And I resent your mockery. Just remember this
>>> exchange the next time you want to complain that I am attacking you on
>>> this forum.
>>
>> I wasn't really mocking... Just trying to make a point.... NY is full of
>> media and money... I don't make the connection to Jews
>
> As good as you -- and you ARE a good man -- you are NOT Jewish. We are
> telling you the JEWISH reaction to those comments.

Fair point...

>Accept that. A classic example is how one black man may call another the
>"n" word and no offense is taken. But let a white man say it and it is a
>whole different story.

I just want to add something here.... Cruz didn't say the K word or nothing
close to it... People can go overboard with putting bad intentions on people
with
dog whistles or code words.... Check out this nut....

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-melissa-harris-perry-dont-say-hard-worker-because-its-offensive-to-slaves/

Look at the guys reaction... He was in disbelief..... I mean, hard worker?
See anyone can make up anything to be offended by
and it cheapens when something actually deserves the real criticism... It
would seem to me that we are judging someone who
really has no history of antisemitism to being an antisemite, based of us
not liking his politics..

>> I was being sarcastic.... Probably because to me it seems far fetched
>> that someone that is so pro Israel would
>
> One is divorced from the other. Israel is the US's closest ally behind
> Britain and Canada. It is our only real ally in the mideast. He realizes
> that because despite all else he is not stupid.

That doesn't stop Obama from being not so nice towards Israel?

>Jews in the US, on the other hand, well perhaps "some of his best friends
>are Jewish".

Again, you are presupposing he has ill feelings towards Jews...

> make an anti semitic statement.... especially because NY is full of
>> money and media and that is a fact
>> ..... Why would he do such a thing and why would you automatically
>> equate that money and media to Jews? I certainly
>> didn't get that impression when I visited there...
>
> When did you visit "Hymietown"?

If you mean New York, I went there in September.... I told about that here
and told you
back in the summer...

> Correct. I share those views to a large extent. However, it is one thing
> for a Jew to say something about NY and the Jews there and quite another
> to make the same statement. Again, as nice a person as you are, you are
> not Jewish and so don't understand the slanderous remarks as well as we do
> who have had to hear them our whole lives.

But there are people that are Jewish that didn't take his remarks that
way.... My guess
it is because they are more in tune with his politics and and not looking
for a way to
pile on.... I would bet 100 dollars we would not be having this conversation
if Hillary
said the same thing..

[Beach Runner]

I have an apology to make to the group. Generally I believe what is published
in the New York Times as paper of record. While I still dispise Ted Cruz,
the story is not completely accurate.

I quote an email from my son...

While I am no fan of Ted Cruz, only third worst in my book to Trump and Carson, the fact checking of Brooks statements leave his article questionable, which is surprising considering it was published in the NY Times. Greg Abbot, then Texas attorney general now governor was the one responsible, with Cruz's limited involvement. In fact supreme court justice Sandra Day O'Connor was more directly involved after putting out a public opinion statement that further delayed his case. I certainly agree its a case of injustice, but under the current legal system, it was Haley's defending attorney's responsibility to represent the case correctly. There's a very good episode of John Oliver where he addresses this problem.

[cindys]

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:24:01 PM UTC-5, DoD wrote:
> "Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message
> news:n7gh5t$tj0$1...@dont-email.me...
> > On 1/17/2016 10:22 AM, DoD wrote:
>
> > It wasn't the "New York values" that set her (and me and many others) off.
> > It was the "money" comment because is what the anti-Semites do when they
> > target the Jews. And, yes, if she had said the exact same thing it would
> > have been the same.
>
> Isn't that presupposing that Cruz is an antisemite?

snip
--------
I don't think it presupposes anything. Look David, there are certain buzzwords that send up red flags for Jews. Some of these words are "bankers, media, and Hollywood" when taken together. In general, I think most evangelicals dislike Jews because they're all ticked off that Jews refuse to accept Jesus. That said, I wasn't sitting around wondering to myself if Ted Cruz was any more or less antisemitic than the rest of them. But I was genuinely taken aback by his New York values remark, and I do think the remark was intended to be a buzzword for the benefit of some of his "constituents."

Once upon a time, I was at a party, and I started talking to some guy, a total stranger. I had no preconceived opinions about this guy at all. Then, he started talking about the Bilderberg Group and Rothschild and world domination conspiracy theories, and to me, those are other buzzwords for the antisemitic "Jewish plot to control the world."

And at the risk of being even more tangential....

I know another woman who is the mother of one of my younger son's friends. I invited her over for dinner a couple of times. She was very pro-Israel. Then, before you know it, she started spouting world domination conspiracy theories and then one day she was complaining because her messianic "Jewish" friends were being rejected by traditional Jews, and then bada-bi-bada-bom, out comes the line that as far as she is concerned, no Jew can be complete until he/she has found salvation through Jesus.

And as long as we're on the subject of "Well, so-and-so can't be an antisemite because he is so supportive of Israel...": In general, I have a huge problem with evangelicals for a variety of reasons. Yes, they are pro-Israel, but they are not pro-Jewish (as we've discussed many times on this forum). In general, I don't really care if someone is privately antisemitic, as long as he doesn't act on it. Richard Nixon was apparently very antisemitic, but he put his personal feelings aside and was really good for Israel.

I believe that a President Cruz would be good for Israel, but being good for Israel does not preclude him from being antisemitic (and it doesn't enamor me to his other positions). Do I think Cruz likes Jews? No, I don't. That said, I don't think a lot of the other candidates necessarily like Jews either. And I generally don't have a problem with that, as long as they're pro-Israel, even if only for pragmatic reasons, but to me, the "New York values" remark was really offensive, and I still maintain it was a buzzword for liberal Jews.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 18:16:13 +0000 (UTC), cindys

<cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:

>On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 12:20:38 PM UTC-5, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 05:02:38 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>>
>> >On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 1:11:23 PM UTC-5, DoD wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> LOL....I guess if you are looking for a reason to be hating on a politician,
>> >
>> >LOL. Ha! Ha! Ha! I already had a reason to be hating this particular politician,
>>
>> You do realize that since that is so, you are predisposed to interpret
>> everything he says unfavorably.
>-----
>I realize no such thing.

Really? That's surprising. Aren't you human?

>I actually agree with this man on a number of his positions, beginning with his positions about Obama's overuse of executive orders,that it was wrong to lift the sanctions on Iran, and gun control (my husband are I thinking about joining the NRA just as a matter of principle).

And thereby cement the downstaters' view of yourselves as hicks? :-)

>As I stated in another post, his remarks about New York values took me completely by surprise, and I stand by my position that they were a code word for liberal Jews.

Sure, but before and despite all that, you said you've already had a
reason to hate him. With us humans, emotions color our perceptions;
only psychopaths are immune. Note that I did not say that emotions
rule; only color. All of us who try to view the world rationally have
to consciously fight our biases every day. That's just life.

BTW, as far as I can see, Cruz has refused to clarify what he meant.
This tells me that he's doing a Trump thing (getting himself talked
about no matter the modality) and an Obama thing (letting people
interpret/fill in the blanks) at once.

[Shelly]

Well, considering where I live, and who the Republicans will likely
nomimate, I simply can't afford to waste my vote.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

You would lose that bet.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 1/19/2016 6:42 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:

> Sure, but before and despite all that, you said you've already had a
> reason to hate him. With us humans, emotions color our perceptions;
> only psychopaths are immune. Note that I did not say that emotions
> rule; only color. All of us who try to view the world rationally have
> to consciously fight our biases every day. That's just life.

But, Yisroel, David with his LOL is saying that we see it that way
BECAUSE we already hate him, not that we are more likely to see it that
way because we hate him. There is a big difference between those two and
also is why he would lose his bet that we wouldn't see it that way if
Hillary had said it.

He is talking cause and effect, not shading of perceptions.

--
Shelly

[mm]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:30:20 +0000 (UTC), "DoD"
<danski...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message
>news:n7gh5t$tj0$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 1/17/2016 10:22 AM, DoD wrote:
>
>> It wasn't the "New York values" that set her (and me and many others) off.
>> It was the "money" comment because is what the anti-Semites do when they
>> target the Jews. And, yes, if she had said the exact same thing it would
>> have been the same.
>
>Isn't that presupposing that Cruz is an antisemite?

You should read my first post in the thread "Ted Cruz and his views".
It's probably much closer to the real situation.

[mm]

I've looked again at your other posts in this thread, and I don't know
what you're talking about. Responsible for what?

[Yisroel Markov]

I'm not talking to David in this thread.

[Beach Runner]

To answer your question, it was this posting. And, I found it wssn't 100% accurate, but still revealing about Cruz that he acted in such a way.
The primary responsibility should have been the failure of the defense attorney
in the case, but it sure shows a lot about Cruz. But out of honesty I had to add that the information was slanted.

He probably will win the Iowa primary, and that's a very sad thing about the
Republican Party in Iowa.

In 1997, Michael Wayne Haley was arrested after stealing a calculator from Walmart. This was a crime that merited a maximum two-year prison term. But prosecutors incorrectly applied a habitual offender law. Neither the judge nor the defense lawyer caught the error and Haley was sentenced to 16 years.

Eventually, the mistake came to light and Haley tried to fix it. Ted Cruz was solicitor general of Texas at the time. Instead of just letting Haley go for time served, Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court to keep Haley in prison for the full 16 years.

The case reveals something interesting about Cruz's character. Ted Cruz is now running strongly among evangelical voters, especially in Iowa. But in his career and public presentation Cruz is a stranger to most of what would generally be considered the Christian virtues: humility, mercy, compassion and grace. Cruz's behavior in the Haley case is almost the dictionary definition of pharisaism: an overzealous application of the letter of the law in a way that violates the spirit of the law, as well as fairness and mercy.


Kudos to David Brooks for bringing it to light:

In the end, Haley was released after serving six years. During the Supreme Court hearing, Justice Anthony Kennedy--left incredulous by Cruz's position--asked him: "Is there some rule that you can't confess error in your state?"

Brooks's article is titled "The Brutalism of Ted Cruz." An apt description indeed. Would hearing this story undercut Cruz's support among Republican primary voters? I really don't know. I do know that a person who would fight such a case all the way to the Supreme Court is lacking something very basic--something important not only for Christians, but for any of us, and certainly for anyone seeking to become the most powerful individual in the world. That thing is judgment.

[Yisroel Markov]

The liberal, you mean? Or the Christian zealot? :-)

>I simply can't afford to waste my vote.

So it will be another "Vote for the crook. It's important" event.
(Unless Sanders beats Clinton, of course. Then it will be... what?)

[Yisroel Markov]

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 01:14:32 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowh...@gmail.com> said:

>On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 5:26:30 PM UTC-8, googy wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:31:37 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
>> <lowh...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> >I quote an email from my son...
>> >
>> >While I am no fan of Ted Cruz, only third worst in my book to Trump and Carson, the fact checking of Brooks statements leave his article questionable, which is surprising considering it was published in the NY Times. Greg Abbot, then Texas attorney general now governor was the one responsible, with Cruz's limited involvement. In fact supreme court justice Sandra Day O'Connor was more directly involved after putting out a public opinion statement that further delayed his case. I certainly agree its a case of injustice, but under the current legal system, it was Haley's defending attorney's responsibility to represent the case correctly. There's a very good episode of John Oliver where he addresses this problem.
>> >
>> I've looked again at your other posts in this thread, and I don't know
>> what you're talking about. Responsible for what?
>
>To answer your question, it was this posting. And, I found it wssn't 100% accurate, but still revealing about Cruz that he acted in such a way.
>The primary responsibility should have been the failure of the defense attorney
>in the case, but it sure shows a lot about Cruz. But out of honesty I had to add that the information was slanted.
>
>He probably will win the Iowa primary, and that's a very sad thing about the
>Republican Party in Iowa.
>
> In 1997, Michael Wayne Haley was arrested after stealing a calculator from Walmart. This was a crime that merited a maximum two-year prison term. But prosecutors incorrectly applied a habitual offender law. Neither the judge nor the defense lawyer caught the error and Haley was sentenced to 16 years.
>
> Eventually, the mistake came to light and Haley tried to fix it. Ted Cruz was solicitor general of Texas at the time. Instead of just letting Haley go for time served, Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court to keep Haley in prison for the full 16 years.
>
> The case reveals something interesting about Cruz's character. Ted Cruz is now running strongly among evangelical voters, especially in Iowa. But in his career and public presentation Cruz is a stranger to most of what would generally be considered the Christian virtues: humility, mercy, compassion and grace. Cruz's behavior in the Haley case is almost the dictionary definition of pharisaism: an overzealous application of the letter of the law in a way that violates the spirit of the law, as well as fairness and mercy.
>
>
>Kudos to David Brooks for bringing it to light:
>
>In the end, Haley was released after serving six years. During the Supreme Court hearing, Justice Anthony Kennedy--left incredulous by Cruz's position--asked him: "Is there some rule that you can't confess error in your state?"
>
>Brooks's article is titled "The Brutalism of Ted Cruz." An apt description indeed. Would hearing this story undercut Cruz's support among Republican primary voters? I really don't know. I do know that a person who would fight such a case all the way to the Supreme Court is lacking something very basic--something important not only for Christians, but for any of us, and certainly for anyone seeking to become the most powerful individual in the world. That thing is judgment.

Looking at the facts, I have to agree with your son: "...the fact

checking of Brooks statements leave his article questionable, which is

surprising considering it was published in the NY Times." Of course,
those of us who are paying attention are not surprised at all. Then
again, this was an opinion piece.

But the reason I agree is different. First, the case was appealed by
the defendant; therefore, the state (represented by Cruz) did not
really have an option not to "fight such a case all the way to the
Supreme Court" - defaulting is not a good practice. Second, the
defendant was sentenced under a 3-strike law and was trying to get off
on a technicality. (See
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/541/386.html for details.)
Whatever the responsibility of the defense attorney, Cruz did nothing
but defend his state's application of its democratically adopted law
(on appeal, which is precisely about fixing lower court's mistakes),
and the Supreme Court agreed with him 6-3. IMHO that particular law is
counterproductive, but that's not Cruz's problem. He did his job;
Brooks did his by penning a smear.

If you think that Cruz should've pulled a Holder and refused to defend
his state's law, which he had sworn to uphold (like Holder did with
the Defense of Marriage Act), that's a legitimate opinion, but I don't
see how not doing so implicates Cruz's Christian virtues or makes him
brutal.

[Shelly]

On 1/20/2016 8:15 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:26:53 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>> On 1/19/2016 3:19 PM, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 2:04:08 PM UTC-5, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:>
>>>
>>>> Who is Gary Johnson?
>>>
>>> Gary Earl Johnson is an American businessman and politician. He served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, as a member of the Republican Party, and was the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 election.[1] He is a candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination in the 2016 election.
>>>
>>> See article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson
>>>
>>> GEK
>>> always happy to help
>>
>> Well, considering where I live, and who the Republicans will likely
>> nomimate,
>
> The liberal, you mean? Or the Christian zealot? :-)
>
>> I simply can't afford to waste my vote.
>
> So it will be another "Vote for the crook. It's important" event.
> (Unless Sanders beats Clinton, of course. Then it will be... what?)

Yes. I would much rather the crook as the far lesser of the two evils.
Most politicians are, after all IMO, little more than well dressed snake
oil salesmen. Yes, I would choose them of over witch hunters. I can
afford money siphoned off much better than religion being forced down my
throat and a destruction of the Bill of Rights. You answer of a
"symbolic statement" wasted vote is, to me, little more that being an
ostrich. You can afford to do that because you live in Massachusetts
which will go Democrat no matter what you do. I can't.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 1/20/2016 8:13 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 01:21:39 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>> On 1/19/2016 6:42 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, but before and despite all that, you said you've already had a
>>> reason to hate him. With us humans, emotions color our perceptions;
>>> only psychopaths are immune. Note that I did not say that emotions
>>> rule; only color. All of us who try to view the world rationally have
>>> to consciously fight our biases every day. That's just life.
>>
>> But, Yisroel, David with his LOL is saying that we see it that way
>> BECAUSE we already hate him, not that we are more likely to see it that
>> way because we hate him. There is a big difference between those two and
>> also is why he would lose his bet that we wouldn't see it that way if
>> Hillary had said it.
>>
>> He is talking cause and effect, not shading of perceptions.
>
> I'm not talking to David in this thread.

....but that is what started this who thing.

--
Shelly

[DoD]

"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message

news:c814136d-b501-4ddf...@googlegroups.com...

> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:24:01 PM UTC-5, DoD wrote:
>> "Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message
>> news:n7gh5t$tj0$1...@dont-email.me...
>> > On 1/17/2016 10:22 AM, DoD wrote:
>>
>> > It wasn't the "New York values" that set her (and me and many others)
>> > off.
>> > It was the "money" comment because is what the anti-Semites do when
>> > they
>> > target the Jews. And, yes, if she had said the exact same thing it
>> > would
>> > have been the same.
>>
>> Isn't that presupposing that Cruz is an antisemite?
> snip
> --------
> I don't think it presupposes anything. Look David, there are certain
> buzzwords that send up red flags for Jews. Some of these words are
> "bankers, media, and Hollywood" when taken together. In general, I think
> most evangelicals dislike Jews because they're all ticked off that Jews
> refuse to accept Jesus. That said, I wasn't sitting around wondering to
> myself if Ted Cruz was any more or less antisemitic than the rest of them.
> But I was genuinely taken aback by his New York values remark, and I do
> think the remark was intended to be a buzzword for the benefit of some of
> his "constituents."

-----------------------------------------------------------
If he used to words as buzzwords to his constituents (presumably you mean
anti-Jewish constituents) then
that would be anti-semitic full stop.... So that does presuppose he is
anti-semitic.... Otherwise he was just saying those
things to get under the skin of liberals and it was only coincidence that
money and media are NY values which just happen to be Jewish stereotypes.
------------------------------------------------------------

> Once upon a time, I was at a party, and I started talking to some guy, a
> total stranger. I had no preconceived opinions about this guy at all.
> Then, he started talking about the Bilderberg Group and Rothschild and
> world domination conspiracy theories, and to me, those are other buzzwords
> for the antisemitic "Jewish plot to control the world."

------------------------------------------------
Did you tell her she was full of bull dung?
-------------------------------------------------

> And at the risk of being even more tangential....
>
> I know another woman who is the mother of one of my younger son's friends.
> I invited her over for dinner a couple of times. She was very pro-Israel.
> Then, before you know it, she started spouting world domination conspiracy
> theories and then one day she was complaining because her messianic
> "Jewish" friends were being rejected by traditional Jews, and then
> bada-bi-bada-bom, out comes the line that as far as she is concerned, no
> Jew can be complete until he/she has found salvation through Jesus.

-------------------------------------------------
What did you say to this woman?
--------------------------------------------------

> And as long as we're on the subject of "Well, so-and-so can't be an
> antisemite because he is so supportive of Israel...": In general, I have a
> huge problem with evangelicals for a variety of reasons. Yes, they are
> pro-Israel, but they are not pro-Jewish (as we've discussed many times on
> this forum). In general, I don't really care if someone is privately
> antisemitic, as long as he doesn't act on it. Richard Nixon was apparently
> very antisemitic, but he put his personal feelings aside and was really
> good for Israel.
>
> I believe that a President Cruz would be good for Israel, but being good
> for Israel does not preclude him from being antisemitic (and it doesn't
> enamor me to his other positions). Do I think Cruz likes Jews? No, I
> don't.

-----------------------------------------------------
My guess is that he doesn't like liberals..... Now you can do the math on
how many Jews he would get along with.... IOWs I don't
think the Jewishness of say Charles Krauthammer or Jonah Goldberg would be
an issue for someone like him... But someone like
Paul Krugman to Thomas Friedman, that maybe another story...
---------------------------------------------------------

That said, I don't think a lot of the other candidates necessarily like Jews
either. And I generally don't have a problem with that, as long as they're
pro-Israel, even if only for pragmatic reasons, but to me, the "New York
values" remark was really offensive, and I still maintain it was a buzzword
for liberal Jews.

--------------------------

I still think it was a buzzword for liberals in general.

[DoD]

"Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message

news:n7mjsj$m23$2...@dont-email.me...

> On 1/19/2016 3:30 PM, DoD wrote:

> You would lose that bet.

I might to you, but I doubt it to many others on this forum...

[Yisroel Markov]

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:38:44 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
<shel...@thevillages.net> said:

[snip]

>Yes. I would much rather the crook as the far lesser of the two evils.
>Most politicians are, after all IMO, little more than well dressed snake
>oil salesmen. Yes, I would choose them of over witch hunters. I can
>afford money siphoned off much better than religion being forced down my
>throat and a destruction of the Bill of Rights.

Why are you still afraid of that when the country as a whole is
getting no more intolerant or religious, and the actual experience of
many Republican administrations argues against it?

To judge by rhetoric, it was Bush who was supposed to turn the country
into a hymn-singing Christian nation. Didn't happen. They can't do it,
Shelly, much as some would like to. You're being scared by Democratic
propaganda.

>You answer of a
>"symbolic statement" wasted vote is, to me, little more that being an
>ostrich. You can afford to do that because you live in Massachusetts
>which will go Democrat no matter what you do. I can't.

Obviously, I don't consider a symbolic vote to be a wasted one. It
shows the big parties that they have something to address, and with
the thin margins of many recent wins, it's not trivial.

[Shelly]

Well, I'm confident you would lose that bet at least to Cindy. I don't
know about Goldstein or BeachRunner as they are both as far to the left
as others here (nameless) are to the right, but I think you would also
lose to Harry, Giorges, Yisroel, topaz, fattush to name just a few of
the top of my head.

(Included for context since you snipped it: "the bet" was that we would
not find that remark anti-Semitic if Hillary had said it.)

--
Shelly

[Herman Rubin]

On 2016-01-21, DoD <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:


> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:c814136d-b501-4ddf...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:24:01 PM UTC-5, DoD wrote:
>>> "Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message
>>> news:n7gh5t$tj0$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> > On 1/17/2016 10:22 AM, DoD wrote:

>>> > It wasn't the "New York values" that set her (and me and many others)
>>> > off.
>>> > It was the "money" comment because is what the anti-Semites do when
>>> > they
>>> > target the Jews. And, yes, if she had said the exact same thing it
>>> > would
>>> > have been the same.

I definitely do not like Cruz, but I do not think he is anti-Semitic.

.......................

>> I believe that a President Cruz would be good for Israel, but being good
>> for Israel does not preclude him from being antisemitic (and it doesn't
>> enamor me to his other positions). Do I think Cruz likes Jews? No, I
>> don't.
> -----------------------------------------------------
> My guess is that he doesn't like liberals..... Now you can do the math on
> how many Jews he would get along with.... IOWs I don't
> think the Jewishness of say Charles Krauthammer or Jonah Goldberg would be
> an issue for someone like him... But someone like
> Paul Krugman to Thomas Friedman, that maybe another story...
> ---------------------------------------------------------

Cruz definitely does not like the leftist totalitarians who call
themselves "liberals". The word "liberal", before they took it over,
meant those believing in freedom. Before 1948, this would apply to
the Republican Party. This does not mean that they were liberal
in all things, and they are not now; IMO a liberal would be pro-choice
to the extent possible. I believe the courts will do a better job in
keeping Christians from imposing Christianity than in keeping leftists
from imposing their social values.

> That said, I don't think a lot of the other candidates necessarily like Jews
> either. And I generally don't have a problem with that, as long as they're
> pro-Israel, even if only for pragmatic reasons, but to me, the "New York
> values" remark was really offensive, and I still maintain it was a buzzword
> for liberal Jews.
> --------------------------

> I still think it was a buzzword for liberals in general.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

[cindys]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 2:05:47 PM UTC-5, Herman Rubin wrote:
> On 2016-01-21, DoD <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:c814136d-b501-4ddf...@googlegroups.com...
> >> On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 3:24:01 PM UTC-5, DoD wrote:
> >>> "Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:n7gh5t$tj0$1...@dont-email.me...
> >>> > On 1/17/2016 10:22 AM, DoD wrote:
>
> >>> > It wasn't the "New York values" that set her (and me and many others)
> >>> > off.
> >>> > It was the "money" comment because is what the anti-Semites do when
> >>> > they
> >>> > target the Jews. And, yes, if she had said the exact same thing it
> >>> > would
> >>> > have been the same.
>
> I definitely do not like Cruz, but I do not think he is anti-Semitic.

-----
It's been my personal experience/opinion that evangelicals (in general)resent that Jews refuse to accept Jesus. I have experienced this phenomenon in my personal life and repeatedly during my many years of posting on usenet (especially on alt.messy). And the reason behind their resentment is the age-old premise that if a person can "get to heaven by works alone," then who needs Jesus? (which from their perspective, if true, invalidates the entire foundation of Christianity).

The Catholics and a lot of other Protestant groups got past that resentment a long time ago, and I really don't think many Catholics (eg) care if Jews accept Jesus or not, but the evangelicals are a totally different breed. IMO, they are all antisemitic in this respect. Just like that woman I described in another post. All I had to do was scratch the surface.

And FTR, it's the same reason the Koran is rife with antisemitism. Mohammed wanted to convert the Jews, and when we refused to convert....

I think the history of antisemitism is that various groups (historically) all had an idea that they were going to be the ones to convert the Jews to (fill in the blank) religion, and when that didn't happen, the response was to want to kill the Jews. I think Martin Luther is a classic example.

As the creator of a new form of protestant Christianity, Luther was certainly fine with the idea that Jews didn't want to become Catholics, but he mistakenly believed that the Jews would certainly accept "the truth" of his version of Christianity, and when we didn't... the writings of Luther are rife with antisemitism, and FTR, I also believe that Luther's writings played a major role in shaping the weltanschauung of the German people and contributed to setting the stage for the Holocaust. Just my opinion.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[mm]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:52:14 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>
>As the creator of a new form of protestant Christianity, Luther was certainly fine with the idea that Jews didn't want to become Catholics, but he mistakenly believed that the Jews would certainly accept "the truth" of his version of Christianity,

Right. If Catholicism is incorrect, then of course Jews don't want
it, but since Lutheranism** was correct, he thought, we Jews would
accept it.

**(or whatever he called it. He didn't name it after himself, did he?
I figured others did. )

>and when we didn't... the writings of Luther are rife with antisemitism,

One of his later writings was "On the Jews and their lies".

>and FTR, I also believe that Luther's writings played a major role in shaping the weltanschauung of the German people and contributed to setting the stage for the Holocaust. Just my opinion.

I think so too.

>Best regards,

[Fred Goldstein]

Hillary lives in New York and represented it in the Senate. So if she
referred to New York values, it would presumably be a positive statement.

Cruz, on the other hand, was clearly intending an anti-Jewish dogwhistle.

Cruz belongs to a faction (Dominionist) that does not accept the
existence of Jews as such. Like some other extremist branches of
christianity, they believe that they can only be saved when everyone
left alive is a true believer. Dominionism also preaches that the state
should exist as an enforcement arm, as the Taliban and Da'esh preach for
their own distortion of Sunni Islam.

[Beach Runner]

One thing that should be noted and praised.

Martin Luther created the climate that made the Holocaust possible.

However, the Lutheran's officially appologized to the Jewish people for the
Holocaust and took responsibility for creating the conditions for it to happen.

What other groups have claimed responsibility for their anti-semitism?

Bob

[Fred Goldstein]

On 1/21/2016 11:34 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
...

>> Brooks's article is titled "The Brutalism of Ted Cruz." An apt
>> description indeed. Would hearing this story undercut Cruz's
>> support among Republican primary voters? I really don't know. I do
>> know that a person who would fight such a case all the way to the
>> Supreme Court is lacking something very basic--something important
>> not only for Christians, but for any of us, and certainly for
>> anyone seeking to become the most powerful individual in the
>> world. That thing is judgment.
>
> Looking at the facts, I have to agree with your son: "...the fact
> checking of Brooks statements leave his article questionable, which
> is surprising considering it was published in the NY Times." Of
> course, those of us who are paying attention are not surprised at
> all. Then again, this was an opinion piece.
>
> But the reason I agree is different. First, the case was appealed by
> the defendant; therefore, the state (represented by Cruz) did not
> really have an option not to "fight such a case all the way to the
> Supreme Court" - defaulting is not a good practice.

I disagree there. The duty of a defense attorney is "zealous advocacy".
A prosecutor, however, is *not* sword to zealously advocate for
conviction, regardless of the facts; rather, a prosecutor is supposed to
exercise discretion in the interest of justice. In this case, a law was
applied incorrectly. That is precisely where zealous advocacy and
prosecutorial discretion are supposed to differ.

Second, the
> defendant was sentenced under a 3-strike law and was trying to get
> off on a technicality. (See
> http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/541/386.html for
> details.)

The word "technicality" is a favorite of those trying to pack the
prisons. In this case the law was misapplied. That is not a
technicality, it's a mistaken application of the law in the original case.

Cruz is also famous for his love of the death penalty; as a Supreme
Court clerk, he liked putting lurid descriptions of murders into
opinions. Loving the killing of miscreants does remind me of certain
historic branches of christianity, but those were more about gaining
power than about following the teachings attributed to Jesus.

[cindys]

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:29:19 PM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein wrote:
snip

>
> Cruz belongs to a faction (Dominionist) that does not accept the
> existence of Jews as such. Like some other extremist branches of
> christianity, they believe that they can only be saved when everyone
> left alive is a true believer.

snip
------
I don't find this surprising at all. I've never heard of "Dominionism" before, but I do believe that a fundamental (no pun intended) dogma of evangelical Christianity is that all Jews must accept Jesus in order to be "saved" and that any Jews who don't accept Jesus are going to hell. I also believe that many/most evangelicals feel anger toward Jews for refusing to convert.

I have experienced the following dynamic a few times in my life (once, many years ago on an airplane, some Christian guy from Iowa saw me eating a bagel and cream cheese and literally switched seats so he could evangelize to me): The evangelical meets the Jew (or other non-Christian). At first, everything is nicey-nicey because the Jew presumably hasn't heard the "good news" or doesn't understand it. Next, the missionizing begins. The Jew refuses to acquiesce and voila! the Christian feels angry and resentful toward the Jew. In another time, another place, this scenario is what leads to "Since the Jews won't convert, let's kill them." [For anyone who's wondering, airplane travel was looser back then, there were more empty seats, and I was young. If this happened now, I would complain to the flight attendant that the guy was following me].

At any rate, you should have seen my son's friend's mother's fangs come out when I told her it was indeed wrong for Jews to accept Jesus. Until then, she had been all smiley, smiley, nicey, nicey, and telling me every five minutes how much she loved Israel and that Obama was an antisemite. And bear in mind, this woman had not been evangelizing to me because I would have cut her off in 5 seconds. The reason her fangs came out was because when she told me her messianic "Jewish" friends were upset that the traditional Jews wouldn't accept them, I told her I agreed with the traditional Jews.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 5:47:33 PM UTC-5, DoD wrote:
> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message

snip

>
> > Once upon a time, I was at a party, and I started talking to some guy, a
> > total stranger. I had no preconceived opinions about this guy at all.
> > Then, he started talking about the Bilderberg Group and Rothschild and
> > world domination conspiracy theories, and to me, those are other buzzwords
> > for the antisemitic "Jewish plot to control the world."
> ------------------------------------------------

> Did you tell him he was full of bull dung?
> -------------------------------------------------

No. It was a mutual friend's holiday party, and for the sake of the host, I didn't want to start a fight or do anything to ruin the party. Also, this particular guy never actually used the word "Jews." In fact, he was mostly talking about Obama's alleged conspiracy with Iran to control the world. The conspiracy included Hillary Clinton and the leaders of a few other Western European nations. They all have an annual meeting (the Bilderberg group), where they collectively choose world leaders, including the next American president. In fact, I suspect they're "choosing" Hillary Clinton even as we speak ;-) This nonsense was almost identical to the nonsense my son's friend's mother was spouting. It's a standard conspiracy theory. What makes all of this antisemitic is that this Bilderberg group is supposedly run by Jews.

BTW, I've checked into it. There actually is an annual world summmit called the Bilderberg group where representatives from various countries get together to discuss mutual problems (like the environment), but it's not a secret society handpicking world leaders.

>
>
> > And at the risk of being even more tangential....
> >
> > I know another woman who is the mother of one of my younger son's friends.
> > I invited her over for dinner a couple of times. She was very pro-Israel.
> > Then, before you know it, she started spouting world domination conspiracy
> > theories and then one day she was complaining because her messianic
> > "Jewish" friends were being rejected by traditional Jews, and then
> > bada-bi-bada-bom, out comes the line that as far as she is concerned, no
> > Jew can be complete until he/she has found salvation through Jesus.
> -------------------------------------------------
> What did you say to this woman?
> --------------------------------------------------

As soon as the words were out of her mouth, she looked mortified. She realized she had made a big boo-boo. She may have apologized. I don't remember.

What I do remember is that I was really taken aback, and since our sons were good friends and she had eaten dinner at my house a couple of times, I really didn't want to fight with her. So, I told her that Jews didn't have a problem with non-Jewish Christians, but that traditional Judaism rejects the idea that a person can be a Jew and a Christian at the same time. Since this conversation took place at the woman's house, I had the option to leave, which I did. I smiled at her nicely, told her I had to be somewhere else in a few minutes, and haven't seen or spoken to her since. The situation would have been a lot more awkward if she had been at my house at the time. I certainly wouldn't have asked her to leave, and I'm not sure what she would have done.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[mm]

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:02:49 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:29:19 PM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>snip
>>
>> Cruz belongs to a faction (Dominionist) that does not accept the
>> existence of Jews as such. Like some other extremist branches of
>> christianity, they believe that they can only be saved when everyone
>> left alive is a true believer.
>
>snip
>------
>I don't find this surprising at all. I've never heard of "Dominionism" before, but I do believe that a fundamental (no pun intended) dogma of evangelical Christianity is that all Jews must accept Jesus in order to be "saved" and that any Jews who don't accept Jesus are going to hell.

I don't think this is limited to evangelical Xianity. I think, with
a couple exceptions I'll list, it's all of Xianity, even though some
mainstream Protestant churches don't talk about it much.

Exceptions probably include Xian Science and maybe Mormonism, because
they are way off the main Xian track and, if they spend time, they do
it trying to convince other Xians that they are too. (Not that
Mormons don't missionize. Every young man is supposed to devote two
years of his life to it and afaik almost all do. Most Americans can
recognize them from 100 yards. I've just never heard them threaten
Jews with hell. Hmm. I said "maybe" about Mormons, but now I think
they are not exceptions at all. They may not say it but I bet they
believe it. (One point omitted))

Seventh Day Adventists might meet part of that description but in my
uneducated opinion they are not really so far off the main Xian track.
Same for J's Witnesses. (I used to have some middle aged women come
to convert me on maybe Sunday afternoons. They were very pleasant and
I never challenged them on anything because they weren't annoying and
never got far enough to say anything annoying. Either I eventually
said I did want them to come back, or they just stopped. (I just now
got a phone call from Carmen at Cardholder's Services, so it seems
hard to believe the women from this church stopped coming for a full
20 years because of one request by me. ) I never pointed out the
mezuzah on my door frame because I thought that might make them target
Jews instead of avoid us.

Catholicism is another exception. It's 40 years, iirc, since the Pope
at the time said that iirc Jews have another path to "salvation". Of
course this contradicted 1600 years of church teaching and I suspect a
substantial percentage of Catholics never internalized it, and that
lots never even heard of it. If 25% of Catholics believe it I'd be
surprised and some of them probably notice the historical and
inter-denominational** inconsistency later. That's probably the
sort of thing that makes Mel Gibson and his father join the historical
wing (my term) of the Catholic Church. But I should mention that my
Jewish friend was an usher or maybe Best Man at his Italian friend's
Catholic wedding and the priest made antisemitic remarks during the
wedding ceremony. My friend's not going to complain or interrupt in
the middle of his good friend's wedding, plus he doesn't really give a
darn what the priest thinks., but he told me about it. .

I doubt very much if Russian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, or any kind
of Eastern Orthodox are exceptions. They may not be evanglizing in
the US, but I'll bet that's part of their dogma.

That leaves the mainstream Protestant churches, few of which openly
participate in evangelizing Jews but many of which do give 10's of
millions of dollars a year in the USA alone to evangelical missionary
organization with innocent-sounding, non-explanatory names to do their
dirty work for them by evangelizing Jews in particular.


What makes all this tolerable is that most Xians, 50, 60, 70% or more,
my guess, don't give a darn. Many are the equivalent of 3-day-a-year
Jews. They like Xmas. Who who doesn't have a good reason not to
wouldn't like Xmas. They might go to church on Easter, where
antisemitic remarks used to be the norm in Catholic churches but afaik
are not anymore, but you get to dress nice, at least the females. And
they get married and have funerals at church. And that's it . Maybe
baptism. They don't care anything about the underlying theology and
that includes whatever grudges the church has against Jews.


It's also worth noting that in general, the mainstream Protestant
groups which make the least public effort to evangelize Jews and whose
clerics treat Judaism with the most respect, are, in general, the
groups which are the most anti-Israel.

And the evangelical groups which seem to be the most pro-Israel are
the ones who most disparage Judaism and anyone who isn't a Xian. (and
of course they are pro-Israel for reasons of their own, part of their
story that ends badly for Jews. Thank goodness it's a fantasy.)

So afaic, it's 6 of one, half a dozen of another.

>I also believe that many/most evangelicals feel anger toward Jews for refusing to convert.

Probably. I haven't got much 1st or 2nd hand stuff on this. Our
continued presence and our successes are a reminder that not everyone
believes what they do. Sure, the Hindus** don't believe it either,
but the Moslems consider Jesus a prophet. And we've known them
longest and had the most opportunities to be convinced, and we're not.
Darn, I'm getting angry myself, just putting myself in their shoes!

**I don't know how Taoism, Confucianism, etc., non-theist religions,
treat Xianity, but they live so far away it doesn't matter much. Jews
are the target group. Some evangelical groups give more "points" to
anyone who converts a Jew, and like selling cleaning products for
Amway or cosmetics for Avon or Fuller Brush, points are very very
important. Don't stop me from getting my points.

>I have experienced the following dynamic a few times in my life (once, many years ago on an airplane, some Christian guy from Iowa saw me eating a bagel and cream cheese and literally switched seats so he could evangelize to me): The evangelical meets the Jew (or other non-Christian). At first, everything is nicey-nicey because the Jew presumably hasn't heard the "good news" or doesn't understand it. Next, the missionizing begins. The Jew refuses to acquiesce and voila! the Christian feels angry and resentful toward the Jew. In another time, another place, this scenario is what leads to "Since the Jews won't convert, let's kill them." [For anyone who's wondering, airplane travel was looser back then, there were more empty seats, and I was young. If this happened now, I would complain to the flight attendant that the guy was following me].

Your airplane scenario reminds me of a contrasting story, and after
all my doom and gloom, a contrasting story might be nice.

I was at the airport in Dallas waiting for my plane to leave, after
visiting my brother when he lived there. Started talking to the guy
next to me for a while, a guy in his 40's. He lived in Las Vegas and
had just come to Dallas for a day, to finalize his divorce. A rotten
way to spend the day but at least the day was almost over, and the bad
part especially.

We talked for 10 or 15 minutes and when his plane was boarding, he got
up and said Shalom and walked away. So of course I reviewed in my
head everything we'd talked about, everything I'd said, and as I
already knew, none of it had been about my being a Jew. So I went
after him and asked how he knew. Now I did have a full beard, and a
skilled observer will say that I look Jewish, but what this man said
was that I was "friendly and talkative".

>At any rate, you should have seen my son's friend's mother's fangs come out when I told her it was indeed wrong for Jews to accept Jesus. Until then, she had been all smiley, smiley, nicey, nicey, and telling me every five minutes how much she loved Israel and that Obama was an antisemite. And bear in mind, this woman had not been evangelizing to me because I would have cut her off in 5 seconds. The reason her fangs came out was because when she told me her messianic "Jewish" friends were upset that the traditional Jews wouldn't accept them, I told her I agreed with the traditional Jews.

If they want to be accepted, they should have acceptable beliefs.

My likely new dentist has his office in the same small office building
that some J4Jss group has its church. But I looked at their sign and
they're only there on Saturday, and he's frum and never there on
Shabbes, so they probably never see each other and neither will I. A
dank gut.

[cindys]

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 9:16:19 AM UTC-5, cindys wrote:
snip

>
> BTW, I've checked into it. There actually is an annual world summmit called the Bilderberg group where representatives from various countries get together to discuss mutual problems (like the environment), but it's not a secret society handpicking world leaders.

----
In the interest of accuracy, and according to Wikipedia, the Bilderberg group is more about industry, finance, academia, and the media [!?] than it is about the environment. For anyone who is interested, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group for more information.

Apparently, one of the big reasons Bilderberg features so prominently in everybody's conspiracy theories is that the media is NOT allowed, so nobody outside of the group can really know for sure what they are discussing.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 12:56:22 PM UTC, cindys wrote:
> On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 2:29:19 PM UTC-5, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>
> I don't find this surprising at all. I've never heard of "Dominionism" before, but I do believe
> that a fundamental (no pun intended) dogma of evangelical Christianity is that all Jews
> must accept Jesus in order to be "saved" and that any Jews who don't accept Jesus are
> going to hell. I also believe that many/most evangelicals feel anger toward Jews for refusing
> to convert.
>

I'm not familiar with the term "Dominionism" either, but it seems to be the position
the the Church (defined as the South Tennessee Little Brethren Fellowship) must have
political power in order to save the world. That's heretical in most strands of conventional
Christianity .The Church was a fairly powerful state at one time, but never based its
theological claims on military capacity.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 23:47:52 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowh...@gmail.com> said:

>On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 6:36:57 AM UTC-8, googy wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:52:14 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >As the creator of a new form of protestant Christianity, Luther was certainly fine with the idea that Jews didn't want to become Catholics, but he mistakenly believed that the Jews would certainly accept "the truth" of his version of Christianity,
>>
>> Right. If Catholicism is incorrect, then of course Jews don't want
>> it, but since Lutheranism** was correct, he thought, we Jews would
>> accept it.
>>
>> **(or whatever he called it. He didn't name it after himself, did he?
>> I figured others did. )
>>
>> >and when we didn't... the writings of Luther are rife with antisemitism,
>>
>> One of his later writings was "On the Jews and their lies".
>>
>> >and FTR, I also believe that Luther's writings played a major role in shaping the weltanschauung of the German people and contributed to setting the stage for the Holocaust. Just my opinion.
>>
>> I think so too.
>>
>> >Best regards,
>
>One thing that should be noted and praised.
>
>Martin Luther created the climate that made the Holocaust possible.

And about the Catholics you say nothing? :-)

>However, the Lutheran's officially appologized to the Jewish people for the
>Holocaust and took responsibility for creating the conditions for it to happen.
>
>What other groups have claimed responsibility for their anti-semitism?

One can make a case that the Catholics did:

"A persistent issue has been the question of Christian guilt for the
Nazi crimes, and going back in history for the roots of European
anti-Semitism. The guns of World War II had been silenced only a few
months when the EKID (the Protestant Church in Germany, which then as
now contains both Lutheran and Reformed provincial churches) assembled
in Stuttgart on October 19, 1945 and issued a solemn Declaration of
Guilt for the Nazi atrocities. [...] Best known among these leaders
was Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984), who was imprisoned for years in a
concentration camp. One might think that these individuals had no
guilt to confess, unlike many other Protestants who actively supported
the regime. (With this in mind, later statements substituted
“responsibility” for “guilt”: Guilt is always individual, but a
political community bears responsibility for crimes committed in its
name.) [...]

"As with so many issues, the Second Vatican Council was a watershed in
Catholic-Jewish relations. On October 19, 1965, the Council, under the
authority of Pope Paul VI, issued a “Declaration of the Church to
Non-Christian Religions”. [...] But in the decades since Vatican II
the Catholic-Jewish dialogue has dealt with another set of issues: The
relationship between God’s covenant with Israel and with the Christian
Church, that is between the Old Testament and the New (“testament”
being a synonym for “covenant”). The Christian roots of anti-Semitism.
The relation between Christian and Nazi anti-Semitism. The role of
Pope Pius XII during the Holocaust. The status of the Holy Land in
traditional Jewish and Christian understanding, and in Zionist
ideology."

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/01/21/under-the-long-shadow-of-the-holocaust/

[Beach Runner]

Yes, I agree that under the current Pope and such the Catholic Church
has made huge improvements in their treatment and relationship to the
Jews.

However, can you site where they actually apologized for their past?

Still, it was Martin Luther who amped up conditions for the Holocaust,
and I think it remarkable and noteworthy that the Lutherans officially
apologized for creating the conditions that made the Holocaust possible.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per cindys:

> some Christian guy from Iowa saw me eating a bagel and cream cheese and
>literally switched seats so he could evangelize to me): The evangelical meets
>the Jew (or other non-Christian). At first, everything is nicey-nicey because

>the Jew presumably hasn't heard the "good news"....

Amy Schumer does a routine around that:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/ms6jap/comedy-central-presents-amy-jewmer

Scroll forward to 1:05.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Beach Runner]

I loved it.

Who'd have thunk the in general, the most intellectual analysis of politicians
and world events would have their roots from Commedy Central or commedy?
Telling the truth with humor is very effective.

Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, perhaps too intellectual to last on network
TV. I like that he has guests with opposing views, and insists his audience
treats them with respect.

John Stewart, whom I'll really miss and was the spring board for a number of other shows. Tever Noah is doing well with the Daily Show.

Larry Wilmore, the Nightly Show, taking the Colbert Slot, is absolutely brilliant.

And outside Commedy Central, Bill Maher. I know some of you won't like him,
he's far from religious.

Bob
From Davis, California

[cindys]

----
Why would someone dislike Bill Maher or his comedy just because he isn't religious? I don't see the connection. Explain?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[JJ]

Bill Maher is one of the sharpest and best comedians around!

Jay

[Beach Runner]

Hello Cindy,

I don't like Bill Mahler because he is atheistic, but I respect that he is up front about his beliefs or lack there off.

He gets guests with very contrary views, and treats them with respect and insists his audiences also treat them with respect. Compare that to Trump who does not allow any disagreement at his rallys. Bernie Sanders also allowed Black Life Matters access to the stage.

Still, he establishment black candidates, those serving in politics and feeding on the tit of big money, the establishment, and backing a candidate that also takes money from them.

I think Bill Mahler is an exceptionally brilliant, open minded man that allows others to share their views. Often he talks about world events, and the truth is often hilarious.

Your question and request for clarification are certainly valid and I hoped I helped answer them.

Bob from Davis, CA

[cindys]

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 12:34:30 AM UTC-5, Beach Runner wrote:
snip

>
> Hello Cindy,
>
> I don't like Bill Mahler because he is atheistic, but I respect that he is up front about his beliefs or lack there off.

snip
----
Speaking for myself, I don't have any problems with atheists at all. I only have problems with fundamentalists (of any ilk) who are trying to shove their religion down my throat.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Herman Rubin]

I personally thnk that more than a gentle push (see the word "shove"
above) should be a criminal offense. And even a gentle push should
stop if the person receiving it objects.

[Beach Runner]

I thought I wrote this. I don't know how I typed not like Bill Maher because he was an athiest, I have not problem with that at all. I don't like people that force their religions down other people's throats, or worse.

Convincing someone with logic or reason is another matter.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:39:39 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
<hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> said:

>On 2016-02-16, cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 12:34:30 AM UTC-5, Beach Runner wrote:
>> snip
>
>>> Hello Cindy,
>
>>> I don't like Bill Mahler because he is atheistic, but I respect that he is up front about his beliefs or lack there off.
>
>> snip
>> ----
>> Speaking for myself, I don't have any problems with atheists at all. I only have problems with fundamentalists (of any ilk) who are trying to shove their religion down my throat.
>> Best regards,
>> ---Cindy S.
>
>I personally thnk that more than a gentle push (see the word "shove"
>above) should be a criminal offense.

I hear you, but one has to be careful of the First Amendment.

>And even a gentle push should
>stop if the person receiving it objects.

Don't we already have anti-harassment laws for that?

[cindys]

> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 7:30:14 AM UTC-8, cindys wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 12:34:30 AM UTC-5, Beach Runner wrote:

snip

> > ----
> > Speaking for myself, I don't have any problems with atheists at all. I only have problems with fundamentalists (of any ilk) who are trying to shove their religion down my throat.
> > Best regards,
> > ---Cindy S.
>
> I thought I wrote this. I don't know how I typed not like Bill Maher because he was an athiest, I have not problem with that at all. I don't like people that force their religions down other people's throats, or worse.

>
> Convincing someone with logic or reason is another matter.

--------------
Not to me. I personally resent any type of religious missionizing, forced or gentle, and that includes someone trying to convince me "with logic or reason." Religious beliefs are generally not "logical" or "reasonable" but a matter of faith.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[DoD]

"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message

news:dbf756af-094f-42ee...@googlegroups.com...

Interesting that I was reading (and being infuriated) this morning about
Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Larry Page getting together with the
riff raff of the GOP (eg, Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, Mitch McConnell) etc
etc.. about how to stop Donald Trump...

Someone out of the political blogs was saying that this was a modern
Bilderberg conference....