What Jonathan Weisman either can’t countenance due to his hardcore liberal bias or is too dishonest to openly admit is that Tucker’s questions about Ukraine are inextricably connected to Christian values from the Republican base’s perspective.
"Nobody who sincerely respects Christians would ever imply what Weisman just did, which suggests that he was so triggered by Tucker’s questions about Ukraine that he lost his cool by attacking all of his target’s fellow believers as a form of collective punishment."
Something's wrong here: imply what? You mean 'condone'? ('Could', rather than 'would', in that case.)
Imply refers to the preceding point that Weisman made regarding Christians allegedly dumping Jesus for Putin, which suggests that they betrayed their religion and is therefore very disrespectful.
Someone who isn't Christian could still criticize that event and Tucker's questioning without alleging that they committed a major sin by supposedly worshiping a false idol. I felt that Weisman crossed the line and wanted to reinforce that point in this particular passage.
OK, yeah I get it, sorry; I shouldn't have posted as I did: virtually on the doorstep to go out and frustrated by not understanding, having read the damn thing a dozen times — my bad.
By the way, while I'm here, something that's caught my attention which might be of interest to you: there's no mention anywhere (that I can see) outside the UK about the Defense Minister, Ben Wallace's, announcement to leave politics at the first suitably unremarkable opportunity, nor any real analysis of the fact here. It's a big deal, actually, which no-one seems to have noticed: he's one of the last of the old-school type in British politics — on the job for nearly 1/4 century and 4yrs. (!) in current role — and actually very good at his job. (Good news for Russian war effort to see the backside of him.) Why has he decided to leave now? Well, there's a good question: could he be expecting violent turbulence as repercussion of indiscretions in dealings with ex-Soviet Union, when poo-poo trickles down to air-conditioning condensers? Nobody's talking about it, which always makes me wonder. Just a thought, maybe a little alarm bell to double-check radar?
The Emperor ( Biden and his puppet masters ) are on parade, expecting the audience to bow and applaud. The NYT, WaPo, MsNBC and so forth are vying to out-praise the Emperor’s clothes.
Tucker Carlson is the obnoxious brat yelling out that the Emperor is wearing shabby rags.
“Zelensky’s Jewish faith”?! - Zelensky may have Jewish provenance but there is no evidence he has any Jewish faith. He himself did say his Jewish ancestry is his “seventeenth most important” fact about himself. He is married to a nominal Christian and apparently they are raising their children as Christians.
He's talked a lot about his Jewish identity, and while I personally don't think he regularly practices that religion, I think that it's still important to reference his claims in this context since Weisman suggested that Jews cannot be anti-Christian which simply isn't true.
Dear Andrew: I thought it was utterly hypocritical that the US State Department’s report on religious freedom went out of its way to cite the Russian Federation for claims of religious persecution, for which it showed no evidence, while saying nothing about the very blatant Kievan regime persecution of the historic Ukrainian Orthodox Church including its illegal occupation of the Lavra. This is a concrete case of Zelensky engaging in persecution of a particular Christian denomination. But I do not see this as a manifestation of a prejudice rooted in his Jewish background but rather in his unprincipled political opportunism in pandering to the anti-Russian xenophobia of the Banderists. But even his sudden claims of his consciousness of his Jewish heritage, which was never of consequence to him before he became President, is also another example of his shameless opportunism. For by these claims he helps to white-wash the essentially Nazi nature of the current regime. And it would not surprise me if, following the imminent fall of the current regime if he were to face criminal charges before its successor government for his many crimes against the peoples of Ukraine, if he were to exploit his Jewish ancestry by seeking political asylum in Israel under provisions of its Law of Return. Though I must note that under Israeli case law he should be ineligible to claim olim status due to his supposed conversion to Christianity. In other words Zelensky uses his Jewish identity more like an umbrella according to the changing weather of political circumstances.
"Nobody who sincerely respects Christians would ever imply what Weisman just did, which suggests that he was so triggered by Tucker’s questions about Ukraine that he lost his cool by attacking all of his target’s fellow believers as a form of collective punishment."
Something's wrong here: imply what? You mean 'condone'? ('Could', rather than 'would', in that case.)
Imply refers to the preceding point that Weisman made regarding Christians allegedly dumping Jesus for Putin, which suggests that they betrayed their religion and is therefore very disrespectful.
Someone who isn't Christian could still criticize that event and Tucker's questioning without alleging that they committed a major sin by supposedly worshiping a false idol. I felt that Weisman crossed the line and wanted to reinforce that point in this particular passage.
OK, yeah I get it, sorry; I shouldn't have posted as I did: virtually on the doorstep to go out and frustrated by not understanding, having read the damn thing a dozen times — my bad.
By the way, while I'm here, something that's caught my attention which might be of interest to you: there's no mention anywhere (that I can see) outside the UK about the Defense Minister, Ben Wallace's, announcement to leave politics at the first suitably unremarkable opportunity, nor any real analysis of the fact here. It's a big deal, actually, which no-one seems to have noticed: he's one of the last of the old-school type in British politics — on the job for nearly 1/4 century and 4yrs. (!) in current role — and actually very good at his job. (Good news for Russian war effort to see the backside of him.) Why has he decided to leave now? Well, there's a good question: could he be expecting violent turbulence as repercussion of indiscretions in dealings with ex-Soviet Union, when poo-poo trickles down to air-conditioning condensers? Nobody's talking about it, which always makes me wonder. Just a thought, maybe a little alarm bell to double-check radar?
I saw RT report about it here:
https://www.rt.com/news/579768-wallace-departure-uk-defense-nato/
I agree that it deserves more attention.
Yeah, I know you've got bigger fish to fry, but we still can't get RT here.
Try using a VPN like Browsec or Proton
Yeah, you're right: I should stop bitching about it and get around to doing something about it, instead.
The Emperor ( Biden and his puppet masters ) are on parade, expecting the audience to bow and applaud. The NYT, WaPo, MsNBC and so forth are vying to out-praise the Emperor’s clothes.
Tucker Carlson is the obnoxious brat yelling out that the Emperor is wearing shabby rags.
“Zelensky’s Jewish faith”?! - Zelensky may have Jewish provenance but there is no evidence he has any Jewish faith. He himself did say his Jewish ancestry is his “seventeenth most important” fact about himself. He is married to a nominal Christian and apparently they are raising their children as Christians.
He's talked a lot about his Jewish identity, and while I personally don't think he regularly practices that religion, I think that it's still important to reference his claims in this context since Weisman suggested that Jews cannot be anti-Christian which simply isn't true.
Dear Andrew: I thought it was utterly hypocritical that the US State Department’s report on religious freedom went out of its way to cite the Russian Federation for claims of religious persecution, for which it showed no evidence, while saying nothing about the very blatant Kievan regime persecution of the historic Ukrainian Orthodox Church including its illegal occupation of the Lavra. This is a concrete case of Zelensky engaging in persecution of a particular Christian denomination. But I do not see this as a manifestation of a prejudice rooted in his Jewish background but rather in his unprincipled political opportunism in pandering to the anti-Russian xenophobia of the Banderists. But even his sudden claims of his consciousness of his Jewish heritage, which was never of consequence to him before he became President, is also another example of his shameless opportunism. For by these claims he helps to white-wash the essentially Nazi nature of the current regime. And it would not surprise me if, following the imminent fall of the current regime if he were to face criminal charges before its successor government for his many crimes against the peoples of Ukraine, if he were to exploit his Jewish ancestry by seeking political asylum in Israel under provisions of its Law of Return. Though I must note that under Israeli case law he should be ineligible to claim olim status due to his supposed conversion to Christianity. In other words Zelensky uses his Jewish identity more like an umbrella according to the changing weather of political circumstances.