Dan Soucek, who ran unsuccessfully for the NC House seat in 2008, is now running for Steve Goss's NC Senate seat.He wants us to know he went to WEST POINT!
And that he's connected to Franklin Graham and Samaritan's Purse.
But buried in his filing statement is this: "...he is the owner-operator of a local small business."
What business?
57 comments:
I've asked the same question of several conservative friends, each of whom voted for Soucek in 2008. Not a soul knew the answer.
His only reason to mention his ownership is to seem like an experienced and concerned businessman who will fight the career politicians on behalf of the little man. OK, so what's the business?
Lord, I'd love to learn that his "small business" is some kind of in-home demo party distributorship of energy drinks, costume jewelry or scrapbooking materials.
But buried in his filing statement is this: "...he is the owner-operator of a local small business."
What business?*JW
It's a Snowmobile Washing and Wax service that only operates for 2 months during the Winter Season. At the moment it is listed on the 3rd Obama Stimilius program by the Federal Park Service for a tune of 8 million dollars where he washs and wax's all 2 Snowmobiles that they have.......
He's got the jesus..that's all that matters. Experience, exshmerience...
Off topic, but what the hell. The judge in Haiti has agreed to release the Baptists. We have enough of them. Does anyone wish to join me in appealing the Judge's decision?
Ouch! =-X
Shyster, sounds like they made some mistakes, but I'm sure the mission groups have done a lot of good for the people in this desperate time.
Oddly enough, some of the most liberal people I know are Babtist. I guess they model their philosophy on the Sermon on the Mount, rather than the appalling old testament atrocities.
This particular group in Haiti doesn't sound like they are firing on all cylindars though.
It was reported that this mission group was told face to face by Haiti officials that what they were about to attempt was against the law. They did it anyway. Maybe their incarceration was a good learning experience. Many Baptists I know are "know-it-alls."
Bridle, whoever you areL Before you make such comments about what you call the old testament, but what I prefer to name as the Hebrew Bible, you should really know more about it. I'd be glad to teach you. Where in the world do you think Jesus got his ideas for the Sermon on the Mount?
Please enlighten me. Did he learn about turning the other cheek from God's instructions to the Midianites? Where the Israelis were told to kill all males and all male children but to leave alive the virgin girls in order to.... well, we can guess. Or from the story of Isaac where the supposedly good man heard voices that commanded him to kill his only begotten son of his and Sarah's old age. And he actually was willing to kill the boy? And this is supposed to show how good Isaac is. And it's supposed to show how loving God is, because after this horrible farce, he stops the slaughter just in time. Or how about the story of Job, in which Job's entire family and life are destroyed, just because God is in the mood for gambling. Or the story of Lot, where the prime example of holiness offers up his virgin daughters to be gang raped? Teach me please what we should learn from these charming stories. Besides the fact that any horror can be justified if we say that God commands it.
bridle writing below.
And it was Abraham who was willing to kill his son, Isaac. Sorry.
The problem with you people brought up on a literal reading of the Hebrew Bible and nothing else is that you don't know how to read it. Your interpretations are unbelievably shallow and uninformed. Whether you know it or not, there has been over 2000 years of deep and scholarly discussion and interpretation of every aspect of the text. The first five Books of Moses are to be read as moral literature - stories developed to teach something much deeper than what's simply on the page. Do you have no imagination or insight?
Here is one example cited from Wikipedia:
"Others suggest<sup> </sup>that Abraham's apparent complicity with the sacrifice was actually his way of testing God. Abraham had previously argued with God to save lives in Sodom and Gomorrah. By silently complying with God's instructions to kill Isaac, Abraham was putting pressure on God to act in a moral way to preserve life. More evidence that Abraham thought that he won't actually sacrifice Isaac comes from Genesis 22:5, where Abraham said to his servants, "You stay here with the ass. The boy and I will go up there; we will worship and we will return to you." By saying that we (as opposed to I), he meant that both he and Isaac will return. Thus, he didn't believe that Isaac would be sacrificed in the end."
This book might be useful to you: "How to Read the Jewish Bible," by Marc Zvi Brettler.
And from a website on science education which demonstrates that the non-literal approach is not limited to any one monotheistic faith:
"From the earliest days of the Church, Christian clerics and theologians have also argued that there are multiple layers to scriptural meaning, and multiple ways of reading the Bible. Many early Church fathers warned that when the apparent literal meaning of a biblical passage is contradicted by common knowledge, the reader must seek an allegorical, or a moral, or even a mystical interpretation of the passage. Most modern Christian theologians would consider this to be a crucial point, believing that a dogged insistence on literalism unnecessarily weakens the credibility of the Christian voice in the discussions of a pluralistic society."
What do you say to that, Bridle?
I've often wondered if the world would be a different place had all the time that's gone into interpreting and reinterpreting the Bible been spent trying to solve real-world problems.
The problem with Proud's position is that the Fudgelicals insist on a literal interpretation when it benefits their position at the moment.
Enlightened fundgelicals argue that the book is meant to be interpreted as parable and allegory when it is pointed out that most of it is silly, incomprehesible, brutal and self contradictory.
People attack lawyers for arguing and "twisting the law." Lawyers don't hold a candle to Proud and his ilk.
Proud's concern is not that we don't understand the Bible. His primary concern is that we understand it too well.
Fundgelical preachers interpret, "Jesus wept." as meaning: Jesus wept because you did not put enough money into the collection plate or buy enough prayer cloths.
Not that I object to Baptist-bashing, but could we please get back on topic? Does anyone know what sort of business Dan Soucek operates?
We're not Baptist bashing - just clarifying a few points. Proud Dem, all of that metaphorical analyisis and interpretation and rationalizing strikes me as evidence that people realize what a dreadful history the Bible recounts and they desperately want to make it OK so they don't have to alter their world-view.
I agree with Not Really.
Bridle, an early Christian thinker agreed with your point of view. He had the same problem with the Old Testament God that many still have today. He was pretty much squashed.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:EJgWKjob4HsJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism+early+Christian+sect+opposed+to+Old+Testament&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
is he from new jersey? i heard hes only voted in like 5 elections in nc.
Is the early Christian thinker from New Jersey???
Thanks for that interesting link to Marcionism. Are you familiar with the Jefferson Bible? It's T.J.'s ideal version of the New Testament omitting the supernatural stuff.
I understand he collects trash....no joke.
I'm still trying to figure out why, after going to college on the military's dime, he served less time in uniform than most graduates do....unless he left the Service early for some "reason".
This is my final word on this topic: Not Really (and perhaps you too, bridle), if you had any real knowledge and understanding of world (or at least Western) history, theology, and the history of religion, you'd realize the irony of what you wrote in putting the solving of "real-world problems" in opposition to deeply sincere efforts to understand and interpret the message of the Hebrew Bible. It is precisely in order to do the former that the latter has been undertaken for centuries.
The whole purpose of the stories in Genesis, Exodus, etc. is to convey to the world (yes, the world - not just a particular people) the importance of Ethical Monotheism and the behaviors which it requires of all of us, a truly novel concept and message in the ancient world. [Forget what you may have learned as a child , perhaps, in a very superficial and shallow presentation of the Bible.] It's not a question of what you are to believe, but what you are TO DO. Central to this perspective is the concept of "Tikkun Olam" or Repair of the World. Do you see?
If you're not certain about this, you might discuss it with one of the people mentioned in this post, and I don't mean D.S. (I have.)
I'm going back on my word below, but just with this brief selection from Micah 6:8 (New International Translation):
"...O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God."
Here is another point of view -
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH01/0001b.html
I think that studying the Old and New Testament (and all religious and non-religious teaching for that matter) is essential to understanding the human condition. There are many times in the New Testament when Jesus refers to the Law and the Prophets and then adds another dimension of meaning. So how can Christians eliminate the Old Testament?
<p>Do the Old Testament laws still apply? - Jesus says they do. (Matt.5:17)
</p><p>So what does the Bible tell us?
</p><p>Who should we kill? - Homosexuals (Lev.20:13, Rom.1:26-32) - Adulterers (Lev.20:10, Deut.22:22) - Disobedient children (Deut.21:20-21, Lev.20:9, Exod.21:15) - Women who are not virgins on their wedding night (Deut.22:13-21) - All non-Christians (parable told by Christ - Luke.19:27) - Those accused of wickedness by at least two people (Deut.17:2-7) - Anyone who works on the Sabbath (Exod.35:2-3, Num.15:32-6) (not even to kindle a fire, and no exclusion for ambulance drivers)
</p><p>Women - It is “shameful” for a woman to speak in church (1Cor.14:34-5) - A man must OK his wife’s words if they are to have force (Num.30:8) - A woman must not teach or hold authority over a man (1Tim.2:12) - Lot saves the messengers from the men of Sodom by offering up his virgin daughters to “do to them as you please” (Gen.19:8) - “Kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man” (Moses - Num.31:17-8)
</p><p>Marriage - It’s best if all people remain unmarried. Marriage is a lesser-of-two- evils compromise for Christians too weak to resist their sexual urges, “for it is better to marry than to burn.” (Paul - 1Cor.7:1-2, 8-9, 25-6, 38) - The rapist of an unwed woman must buy her and make her his wife (apparently a far more 'holy' union than a genuine, loving same-sex relationship - Deut.22:28-9)
</p><p>Justice - If a man suspects his wife of cheating he can serve her a cursed drink; if she becomes deformed, then that proves her guilt (Num.5:12-31) - 42 children killed by bears for calling a prophet ‘baldy’ (2King.2:23-4) - OK to beat your children with a rod - it wont kill them (Prov.23:13-4) - God commits, orders, or endorses every form of atrocity known to man (pretty much pick a page of the Old Testament at random)
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p>
The problem with the Old Testament, the New Testament, and any religion at all is that there is no grounding in testable reality. Once a person decides that evidence and fact are not important, it becomes possible to believe anything, no matter how implausible. So one can get gentle kind religions such as Bhuddism, or the Quaker faith, or one can get the brutal violence of the Aztecs or the Jihadists or the Christian witch burners and inquisitors. How can I reconcile the Christianity of the liberal kind Baptists I know with the cruelty of the Christians on the other local political blog, who justify torture and hatred based on religion? None of it makes sense.
Shyster, did you find anything good in there while doing your research? If so, the good should receive equal time.
RV, why?
Once a religion tells me to kill women and children that's pretty much all I need to hear.
"I will kill the first born of Egypt, but I'll let really good stuff to eat fall from the sky."
The book is silly and indefensible. Why does any part of it deserve any more time than any other.
Proud has been arguing that it is not to be taken literally. That, in itself, will get him damned from most fundgelical pulpits. I'm just wondering how some of the parts I've cited can be interpreted as anything other than the written word.
Shyster, people will do anything rather than face facts that contradict their belief systems. They will come up with all kinds of tortured interpretations and analyses that "explain" how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says. Like a battered spouse might try to explain and excuse the actions of the abuser.
<span>I believe that people wrote the Bible. If they had been perfect people, they would have written a perfect book. Despite this, the teachings of Jesus shine. </span>
Sorry, RV, it doesn't work that way. The bible is either history and fact; the revealed word to those human scribes. Or it is a book of fairy and horror stories written to scare children and the weak-minded. You and proud can't have it both ways.
There was either an ark full of animals and a world-covering flood or there wasn't. There was a tower of Babel or not. A jewish preacher was literally raised from the dead or he wasn't. Since no facts or history exists to support these tales, my vote goes for NO!
Do you think Jesus existed?
Shyster, at the very least the Bible is a work of literature. We do study literature and assume we can learn about the human condition from great works of art. My personal opinion of the Bible is (as Mark Twain said about the Book of Mormon) that it is "chloroform in print". But my guess is that it does recount the reasonably accurate history of a marauding band of herders who swarmed across the middle east at the dawn of civilization spreading their monotheistic desert God beliefs by the sword. We must take into account the nature of oral history of course. Take out the supernatural, step aside from the jingoistic slant and we can probably learn something about history and human nature. Not a very happy lesson unfortunately.
Bridle, the problem is that, as history, it has little to no support. As literature it is, with one or two rare exceptions, not worth reading or reviewing.
RV, there is little credible evidence that Jesus lived. If he did, as an Oral Roberts type preacher, there is no evidence of miracles or rising from the dead.
Bridle: Your discussion with shyster brings to mind a favorite Woody Allen quote:
"I don't believe in an afterlife, although I am bringing a change of underwear." -W.A.
Shyster, would you throw out the concept of justice because some bad laws have been written?
I think that if you were a believer you would be just as adamant. You are an evangelical atheist, like it or not.
What's your point, RV? Is it: don't throw out religion because the bible is badly written? Save the good parts and ignore the bad parts.
Which are the bad parts? Which are the good parts?
Do you believe in the divinity of any of the hundreds and thousands of gods worshiped around the world? If you do, please name or list them and please be specific.
As I have said before, I don't live in, work or vote in Boone so I work hard to avoid commenting on local politicians or political issues. It does seem that I have become a part of diverting this thread from the original question. While I wait for RV to respond, may I return the thread to the original question?
WHAT DOES DAN SOUCEK DO FOR A LIVING AND WHAT "SMALL" BUSINESS DOES HE OWN?
Why not ask him?
Since I believe there is a divine spark in everyone, it would hard to list us all.
RV, All of us are god? Damn, I need to use my powers for good.
As for Soucek, I don't care (see my comment). I was just returning the thread.
"I need to use my powers for good." Yes!
Would the this be like the spread of Islam today?
I met Dan Soucek a couple years ago when he was running for the House. He seems like he is willing to tackle issues that other politicans are not - immigration, education, 2nd Amendment, etc. We need politicians who are going to shake the boat, left or right, and Soucek does not seem mainstream.
Sounds like he will "shake the boat" in Raleigh. I mean, fighting for the jobs those damned iillegals take from us, supporting Amendment #2 (forget the 26 others.) Sounds like a real "maverick" to me.
More balderdash.
BikerBard,
Excuse me, but why do you seem to have such a problem with me? I have not treated you badly, yet you are not using the name I would like for you to. My handle is Boggeydosh, not boulderdash, balderdash or anything else. I am very sensitive in regards to this name as it was chosen with sentiment towards someone I knew. Thank you.
BD:
First, wipe your eyes and reread my last post. As promised, I did not call YOU "Balderdash." I called your DRIVEL, "balderdash." Perhaps a thesaurus would help.
So far, you seem to approve of politicians who also blame our problems on illegal immigrants and sleep with their guns. Am I wrong here?
AND STOP WHINING! JEEZ!!
Bikerbard,
I do not spout drivel. I say my opinion. You don't like my opinion, and I am just going to rise above the hate and take the moral high course. I approve of politicans who allow us to live our lives unobstructed by too many unecessary rules, regulations, and such. Now that is drivel. As for the 2nd Amendment, I believe it is a litmus test for all other amendments and rights contained in the Constiution. If it goes then they are all in jeapordy.
boggey;
it might just be that the second ammendment has fulfilled the founders stated reason for its being, in part; to give us, the great unwashed, the power to keep the criminal, power elite who masquerade as our "leaders" just enough uneasy with the possibility of the guns being used, to keep them somewhat subdued in their crimes.
BD:
I was always partial to # 1. I thought the country was FOUNDED for it.
Our founders also NEVER IMAGINED an AK-47 assault rifle or a "Tommy-gun.", night scopes or laser targeting. I think we need to revisit #2 in light of technological advances.
Keep all the flintlocks you can muster. ;)
Biker, Have you noticed that right-wing gun nuts never mention the part about "well regulated" when they extol the second amendment?
Never noticed. Now that you bring it up, I think that's true. Good point!
<span>The Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, (2008) ruled that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" and "that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." </span>
<span>Sorry Bridle and Biker but that issue has been solved for the time being.</span>
Nevertheless, the regulation part is still quite relevant.
" 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
I think we need to revisit and redefine what is a "lawful weapon." I would like to see assult rifles and weapons such as the AK47 classified as "military use ONLY." Such weapons are designed to kill as many beings as possible. I, for one, want them kept out of the public's hands. Is that possible? By the way, I AM a gun owner. I just don't buy the NRA bulls**t
Biker, I can (but don't) legally carry a concealed weapon. I also agree that most laws limiting access should be upheld and the courts are doing that as they apply Heller. My point was that the "well regulated militia" argument has sailed.
Post a Comment