When Were You Persecuted?

Posted Monday, January 11, 2010, at 2:27 PM
View 90 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • *

    Guillermo -

    Would you care to be more specific?

    Are you saying that the Constitution kicked God out of schools? Are you saying that the Constitution permits us to kill babies?

    -- Posted by sameldridge on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 3:08 PM
  • Gearjammer,

    Religion-based mob violence is never prett,just or holy. It is always justified by religious zealots and carried out in the name of whatever GOD they claim to worship.

    Ask the non-survivors of Black Kettle's Southern Cheyenne band, mostly children, women and old men who died at the hands of Chivington's bible-waving mob.

    That was a village of mostly Christian converts, living with the U.S. Flag flying proudly from a 20-foot mast before Black Kettle's lodge.

    Religious persecution slaughtered the Christians just as dead as those Cheyenne who had not converted.

    Or the orginal inhabitants of Acre, who were slaughtered so the Christian Crusaders could use that fortress city as their headquarters.

    Or the residents of many villages along the Yangtze, which were wiped out so the Christian European nations could establish a political and cultural oasis in the midst of "pagan China's" 6,000+ year old civilization.

    Or in more modern times, the Islamic Arab residents of 1945/46 Palestine, who fled in the face of certain death at the hands of religious zealots from five Muslim nations, only to be stripped of everything by recently arrived refugees from Europe's Holacaust.

    Those few thousand Jewish refugees, virtually the only survivors of more than 20-Million European Jews. Nearly 8-million fled Europe and dispersed around the world. 12-Million died in Nazi horror camps.

    A few hundred thousand made it to Israel, where their Likud and other elements practiced unrestricted terrorism and savagery against the British occupying forces, Muslims, some Christians and even some of the region's original Jewish Sabra natives who objected to the slaughter.

    Are you implying those religious zealots you list invented the entire concept of religious intolerance and savagery?

    No more than the KKK Christian Savages, worshipping beneath their burning crosses, invented savagery while killing school girls, Christian ministers, women and college students in the Christian segregated South of our lifetime.

    Religious persecution has always and will always cut all ways, claiming innocent victims -- always in the NAME OF SOMEONE'S GOD!

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 4:12 PM
  • *

    Wow Hank, I knew you were old but not that you'd remember the Sand Creek Massacre. Seriously though, do you have any examples from the last year, it would do much more to counter Sam's arguments that dredging up old, some downright ancient examples of Christian violence. I mean, sure Sam cherry picks and only half reports most things but at least he has some current examples.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 4:47 PM
  • *

    I don't know exactly how I respond to this. If I make a stand on certain issue, that will lead directly to me taking more stands on other issues. Next thing I know, I'll be living the kind of life God wants me to live.

    Why do you you pick on me?

    -- Posted by Leo.Pold on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 4:56 PM
  • Looking at the responses, I'd say Sam scored a TD against team atheist.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 6:10 PM
  • Would you like to see the list of stories/names of victims from the Spanish inquisition? How about the holocaust?

    Both led by "christians" persecuting non-christians.

    -- Posted by mccookreader on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 6:18 PM
  • I know something really great.

    Guillermo, HerndonHank, did you know that Jesus loves you as much as he does Sam, or myself? I agree with SWNebr Transplant, stay with an Apples vs Apples comparison, for the love of Mike.

    Speaking of Mike, and History (where you are pulling up your slander), Historical Stupidity has managed to touch every walk of life. Sam is addressing this step in that walk, not the footprints long ago gone.

    Argument being futile, I close, as I opened: Jesus still Loves you guys, just as much as He Loves those of Faith in Him. Eternity is going to be a very long time to wish you had turned your heart to Him.

    In Messiah, Jesus, His Blessings on you that you see His Truth, soon. Arley

    PS: Well Said, Sam, Well Said.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 9:29 PM
  • *

    Guillermo - What I find most interesting in your comments is your total lack of concern for the folks I brought up in my post.

    You completely ignored them, instead you chose to go off on Christianity, and that was not unexpected. Really, you have become so predictable, you're beginning to bore me.

    No where in my post did I claim that people acting under the name of Jesus Christ have never sinned. No where in my post did I claim that only Christians now, or throughout history, have been the only ones to suffer persecutions.

    In fact, my dense and hateful friend, I was not speaking to pagans such as yourself, I was speaking to Christians.

    I find it interesting that you are so well informed on the black side of Christianity, yet you follow along after a guy like Obama who claims to be one.

    I don't think I have ever encountered as big a phony as you Guillermo. A phony from top to bottom, with as much hate in his heart and as much dung for brains.

    And I say that with all Christian love of course.

    -- Posted by sameldridge on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 9:31 PM
  • *

    mcookreader - you may seriously need to examine if you are even a Catholic.

    As with the dense Guillermo, you showed no concern whatsoever for Christians around the world that are today suffering, and dying for their faith. Instead you choose to marginalize and equivocate, and using the typical pretending atheist talking points about the Spanish inquisition?

    Are you freaking kidding me? C'mon dear, you cannot have been this brainwashed. Are you blaming Christ for every sin that man commits?

    Are you further saying that Christians deserve it, because ma'am, get this, I am gonna lay some truth on you, hope your polluted thinking can handle it, but..........WE ALL DESERVE IT!!!!

    Do you want from God what you deserve? Are you nuts?

    I would love to understand this animus you have against a religion you say you are a part of. Good Lord, you are expecting perfection from us, from Christians, and yet you are so very tolerant of everyone else.

    The Spanish inquisition!!! I am amazed!

    -- Posted by sameldridge on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 9:45 PM
  • *

    Herndonhank - I would love to talk to the guy that screwed you up! Wow!

    I do enjoy how you and other goofy leftists continue to bring up Sand Creek.

    I will ask you this question my pixelated friend.

    Did the young man who was gunned down in his own home for being a Christian, deserve it? Did he deserve to be gunned down because of what a misguided Col. Chivington did at Sand Creek?

    What is there Hank, some sort of an account? We get good points and bad points?

    As with you, and Guillermo, and mccookreader, none of you showed the slightest concern for the lives, that at this very moment, are in peril.

    Which leads me to believe, what I have known all along. Your arguments are not rational, they are strikes against a God you hate. Stunning to see it played out so vividly.

    -- Posted by sameldridge on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 9:57 PM
  • A big difference between wars fought in the name of Christianity and wars fought for Christianity. It will be interesting if any of us actually make to Heaven, we might be surprised to seen who made it, and even more surprised to see who didn't make it.

    Yet another great post Sam.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 10:22 PM
  • Sam,

    I have corrected you before, but I am male. Not female. Not that it matters I guess.

    And yes, I can't imagine how the people you mentioned feel. My heart goes out to them, prayers are with them, etc. I guess my point in countering with what I did was to point out that people have been hurt countless times in the name of religion. Which religions don't seem to be important. I guess I just don't understand why you chose to only highlight people victimized by muslims. It seems like you have an agenda in which you attack one religion containing several bad people instead of attacking many bad people in all religions.

    -- Posted by mccookreader on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 10:37 PM
  • Sam 14 - atheists 0

    -- Posted by Husker23 on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 8:22 AM
  • *

    As an agnostic I feel saddened by anyone who is persecuted and/or killed over differing religious beliefs. Sam's post reflects an often untold side of religious persecution. Growing up in the church I remember hearing of Christians in China being sentenced to prison for merely getting together and worshipping their god.

    As Sam's post shows, it would be scary to live in the middle east as a Christian during these turbulent globalized times, especially with the accelerated development of violent radical organizations..

    Us vs. Them. That's human nature obviously and it will always be the problem here. People like Husker23 spell that out. As far as abortion goes I understand Sam's position but as a pro-choicer I simply don't have the chops to debate abortion like the foolishly brave GI.. but to live in a mixed society during modern times, post globalization, under the Consitution of the United States of America, there is going to have to be more tolerance of different areas of society that we do not understand or feel are simply wrong. Coexistence is going to have to prevail, lest we spill more blood.

    You cannot fight abortion, except to reject it and teach against it. In this regard Sam is doing the right thing, by using his message to reach others in his same belief system, and maybe those on the fence, and having a little fun along the way bickering with people who's beliefs differ. There's not much else you can do besides start harassing young women who walk into abortion clinics, murder doctors, or move to the forest and live in a tree.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 9:16 AM
  • *

    Che Guillermo,

    I don't think your manifest bitterness and hatred towards God, even the concept of a Creator, or Christians has proven your intellectual prowess or debating skills. Your posts are, for the most part, just short strawman arguments not even focused at the real issue at hand. When you are refuted you then resort to rants against the supposed lack of intelligence of the poster. We are all ignorant in some areas, but a few big words sprinkled in amongst your arrogance do not prove anything.

    Who are you trying to impress, or what are you trying to prove by these attacks? From the attack style used against your opponents I can only come to the conclusion that you are a disciple of Saul Alinsky and his Rules For Radicals manifesto. I hope your Profs aren't grading you on this assignment!

    Myself, and others have tried to engage you with common sense and rational logic based on a sense of biblical morality, but instead you lash out with hubris, hate, and bitterness. You may hate me all the more for this, but I pray that you will allow God soften your heart before it is too late.

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 11:30 AM
  • *


    Not trying to be too picky,(well actually I am) but my understanding is that technically the Spanish Inquisition wasn't persecuting people who weren't Christian they were persecuting people who were supposed to be Christian. I believe the Inquisition had no authority over anyone who wasn't baptised and nominally Christian. That said I understand where you are coming from, but as I told Hank, more contemporary examples would have more weight.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 1:33 PM
  • *


    Sorry to come in late to the conversation, but leaving aside Marks questions about your religious beliefs; he does seem to have you pegged fairly neatly in other ways. You do have a tendency to attack and often belittle or insult those who disagree, as shown in your retort to Mark above. You begin by belittling then proceed to reply to his criticism by calling him stupid and then continue to insult. Your juvenile behavior are in large part why I generally chose not to respond.

    You decry Mark for failing to engage in honest debate, but I have never seen you do so either. What good is trying to debate with you Guillermo? You repeatedly point out how you are so smart and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid. Please feel free to point out how stupid I am as well as all of the flaws in my arguments; after all, none are so erudite as you.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 1:54 PM
  • Arizona came closer to scoring on the blackshirts. Still zero by my count gi.

    Your debate ability is becoming all too predictable and deteriorates every day. You seem to be using your "cut & paste" more and more often.

    I know that English isn't your primary language, but here's a lesson for you: "Can you please point out where I called Mark stupid?"

    "Your complete lack of skill and ability, as well as your scant knowledge of logic in argument and rhetoric, is quite obvious." -- Posted by Guillermo Inglaterra

    Granted...you used a bit more articulation and description (as you always do), but I believe the "stupid" was implied in your post. Did you successfully articulate above your own intellectual level?

    -- Posted by Husker23 on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 3:33 PM
  • *


    "Smart people (libs): every important issue we want eventually comes to fruition - The uneducated (Cons)"

    Do I really need to go into more detail here?

    Calling Mark stupid only in the recent post:

    "or were unable to, argue against it (I'd guess the latter)" maybe you meant he didn't have access to a computer that day.

    "Your complete lack of skill and ability, as well as your scant knowledge of logic in argument and rhetoric, is quite obvious."

    I don't know maybe you don't truly think highly of yourself, if so that's a shame in my opinion. I think very highly of myself and feel everyone should think highly of themselves. Kinda like Del, "I like me"

    I choose not to adhere to academic standards of discource and logic, I choose to talk to people.

    If you did care, would you have control over what I think?

    Have I addressed your arguments based on the way I think you are rather than on its arguments? Maybe, I dunno. The real problem I usually see on these boards is NO ONE actually takes the time to debate an issue we all just change the subject and try to get out zingers in whenever we can.

    Sure, I'll admonish Mark when I see he insults you. I try to be an equal opportunity hater.

    Mark: In your recent post about Guillermo, I see no reason for you to question his anger towards a Creator, that's just silly. He is clearly not in favor of organized Christianity but I don't think he has ever claimed to be an athiest. Furthermore, what does it matter what his beliefs are? As for his arrogance and pride and hate, if you believe him guilty of those faults it is still not your duty to judge. Argue against his statements not his person.

    I'm sure there are lots of other times BS like this happens I just don't get the chance to read and reply every day.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 3:55 PM
  • Implied as in, "Husker pejoratively refers to anyone on here who disagrees with Sam as atheist"?

    Is that an English thesaurus you're using?

    -- Posted by Husker23 on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 4:37 PM
  • *


    Since you insist on playing word games I'm almost done here.

    The quote about libs being smart was not in response I must not have made my self clear, which in no way calls for implying that I lied in my opinion. (Before this comes back and I'm done responding, stating that I am making things up means that I am lying). That quote was in response to my charge that you say you are smart while those who disagree are not, I thought that quote needed no other explanation. I was addressing your questions in reverse order and I apologize for any confusion.

    I thought by setting off with breaks and a colon that you would be able to understand that that is where I was addressing your points toward Mark. If you continue to insist that you only meant Marks ability to argue then techninally you did not overtly call him stupid. However, I don't believe a reasonable person would view your remarks and not infer that you were insulting his intelligence.

    Please clarify three things for me:

    You do believe that Conservatives are intelligent.

    You do believe that NebraskaMark is intelligent.

    You did not intend by implication, ommission, or circumlocution (I can't wait until tomorrow to see what the next word on my calendar is) to state that Mark is "stupid"

    I look forward to a simple straightforward answer and not another semantic argument that shifts focus. I think you get too much enjoyment from playing little semantic games and that by spending so much time with these you don't debate issues, merely language in many cases.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 5:01 PM
  • *

    Che Guillermo,

    I did initially answer your posts in the other thread, but since you didn't answer even half of my rebuttals, and then mainly with insults towards me and hate for my faith, I chose to ignore the remainder of them. This is what I meant by saying that rational debate with those who morally justify the killing of defenseless preborn children is very limited. With almost no common ground on concepts of morality the debate quickly devolves into futility.

    The articles I posted and their counterparts on the Web speak for themselves. If you are using presumptions on levels of education as your sole criteria for winning a debate, then I have no reason to doubt that those authors are more educated than you. No matter what I write, or who I quote, you will never concede anything and only reply with veiled insults. In any case, my point in this is that when common sense and a moral conscience are married with intelligence they make a person wise. To me wisdom is to be valued much higher than a naked IQ score, framed parchments on the wall, and a sharp/bitter tongue.

    So, that being said, I don't need to waste my time trading insults or trying to prove who is more "intelligent". Just because you say you are more of something only makes it so in Your mind. Apparently you have been taught that trying to establish one's haughty elitism is very important to your status or worth in society. Therefore, you use it to try and shut down debate, use insults to try and bait others into answering, and consequently whoever makes the most bluster wins. I will leave you to your methods. For whatever it's worth, I did go on to engage Hank's more seasoned post in the other thread to which you couldn't answer.

    Finally, although you apparently think you control this blog and dismissed me to go away in another thread, I shall inform you that I do not recognize your authority to do so and I shall remain as long as I please and respond or not respond as I choose. You Progressive Statists do not control my 1st Amendment right to free speech...yet. So now that we hopefully understand each other a little better you can bully away again!

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 5:21 PM
  • *


    I have other things to attend to tonight, but just wanted to clarify that from what I have read, it seems only logical that Guillermo would consider himself an atheist over another view, and that is his right. If he is not, then maybe it would be helpful to all if he made some kind of attempt to clarify his worldview. Although I think this thread shows this to be true, along with anger towards the concept of God and Christianity, I was also referring to his posts in the Bonhofer thread. I don't know if you followed that, or just took them a different way, but I don't think it is "silly" to come to that conclusion. What does it matter what his beliefs are? They don't, as far as how they affect my faith and convictions, but I do believe in using a meaningful term to describe oneself, and if he is an atheist then he shouldn't take offense at that term. I thought "atheist" was politically correct and a proud moniker nowadays? If not, what other term is acceptable? Until next time, and good evening.

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 6:19 PM
  • Sam,

    The point you and other here seek to avoid is that Christians are not the only victims of religious persecution.

    Obviously the reality of Chivington's slaughter of Cheyenne is known to more than a few.

    As with the slaughter of every living soul in one Asian city as a means for Genghis Khan to avenge the death of a son -- who was taunting defenders of that city under seige from horseback, when the horse fell and the son was killed.

    One million people died in that vengeance.

    You can only understand the enormity of persecution of Christians.

    My position is all religious persecution and indiscriminate violence for political, religous, ethnic or any other reason is horrific.

    A beast named Brian Beckwith detonates a bomb in an Alabama church and children die.

    A mob of beasts shouting Zieg Heil!! slaughter thousands of victims.

    Stalin's bullies kill gulag prisoners for fun or for any reason -- and the world ignored it.

    Idi Amin caused hundreds of thousands to die and the world yawned.

    Persecution feels the same to all victims.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 9:07 PM
  • *

    SW -- you should check out G's later posts on the Bonhofer thread if you want to see what I was talking about. The word "sucker" was one of the kinder terms he uses to try and belittle his opponents. And his angry rants against the existence of God and Christianity are blatantly obvious. I still believe, since he didn't previously reject the term atheist, that my use of the term was neither "silly" or "judgmental".


    I am new to this blog and was initially drawn here only about a week ago because of an article Ben Nelson wrote trying to explain why he betrayed the preborn for a Medicaid bribe. That topic lead me to Sam's threads. However, I still think from what I have read so far in your posts is that your being "roughly agnostic" actually translates more towards atheism. But, if being "roughly" something makes you less offensive and antagonistic towards the rest of us then that will do.

    Even for someone who who professes to be "roughly agnostic", I know something "Spiritual" like "Faith" in the God of the Bible is a foreign concept to you. You do have a point that God is unprovable to those who can only "believe" in what they can feel with one of their senses. Of course, I can always counter you that my faith in God as being something spiritual, and being manifest in the wonder and complexity of science and nature is more rational than believing Everything came from Nothing, and that by random chance.

    That coupled with essential disagreements on morality is another reason why we will never get along on this blog. But getting along isn't the point I am here. I am here to counter humanism in all its forms including euthanasia and the genocide of the most defenseless and unprotected people on the planet, the preborn. Life starting beyond conception and "roughly" after the first trimester is laughably arbitrary and not even based on any consensus or fact of science.

    You are also right about your presence here being one based on "argument", meaning contentious speech, as opposed to debate or even discussion. As I mentioned previously, I know why you are argumentative in style. As the Leftist hero Saul Alinsky has proven it can be effective in silencing opponents and shutting down true debate, but it doesn't convince anyone of your point being valid. That is your right, but I also have the right to ignore it. Hey, drive on...

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, at 11:40 AM
  • The constitution did NOT kick God of out public schools, or Jefferson (the author of the much-quoted "separation" phrase, which does not appear in the constitution) would not have purchases BIBLES FOR HIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

    A few MEN made the horrible decision to let ordinary, mortal humans murder unborn children, and the decision to make secular humanism our official religion.

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, at 12:43 PM
  • GI,

    We know you understand the 1% of Christian history involved in the Crusades and witch hunts...but how has such a "smart person" managed to remain completely ignorant of the 99% of Christian history that has encompassed healthcare, education, disaster relief, orphan care, elderly care, food for the poor, missions to build homes and drill water wells, etc. etc.

    Could it possibly be that you are intentionally ignorant?

    Could it possibly be that you ignore all facts that disturb your prejudiced views?

    Are you ever going to educate yourself, or will you continue to make your points with partial-truths and outright lies??

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, at 12:46 PM
  • mccookreader,

    As the child of a WW2 survivor, I'd like you to read up on your history. The Nazis were not only not Christian, but actively murdered outspoken Christians along with the handicapped, the gypsies and the Jews.

    I know this because one of them was a relative.

    Some of these letters make me wonder how many of you took History under Mike. That could explain your severe lack of knowledge in specific areas.

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, at 12:51 PM
  • *

    The Nazis were also known as the leftist "National Socialist Party"

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, at 1:23 PM
  • Reader,

    One note.

    You state the Holacaust was Christians killing Jews.

    The Holacaust was the Anti-Religious killing anyone they disagreed with, which included nearly everyone, especially those with assets worth seizing.

    The Nazis butchered Christians, including clergy of every denomination, Lutherans, Catholics, et al.

    But only somewhere between 750,000 and 2-Million.

    The Nazis slaughtered Jews -- about 12-Million.

    The Nazis butchered millions of Russians.

    Stalin is believed to have butchered in excess of 25-Million people.

    Chairman Mao and the original old-line dictatorship he directed -- total deaths in China, Korea, Laos, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia and the Phillipines -- Somewhere around 25-50-Million.

    Compared to Stalin and Mao -- Idi Amin, Farouk, the Somazas, Batista, Juan Peron and Pol Pot were rank amateurs.

    Japan's War Machine killed millions, possibly 30-40 Million.

    The Spanish conquistadores -- No one knows. The Americas, North, Central and South, had about 300-Million population when Columbus kissed Isabella's ring and sailed west.

    Maybe ten million remained from the original native population in 1940. Maybe 20 million.

    Brazilian developers are still killing natives in central and western Brazil and any stray Catholic nuns who befriend the natives and resist the land grabbers.

    One of my ancestors helped wipe out an entire tribe during the Blackhawk Wars of the early 1800s.

    Man's ability and eagerness to slaughter man is incredible.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, at 3:58 PM
  • *


    By the logic of your attack against all Christians because of what Pat Robertson said (and we don't even know the context, only what you heard on MSNBC), I could retort by saying that because you are for genocide and are a leftist socialist that you are a Nazi! Now you may be the first two, but that doesn't of necessity make you the latter...

    Christianity: I am not sure what you think "Christian" means. If your definition is darkening the door of a Catholic or Protestant church every so often, or having parents that claim to be "Christian", or because of birth, then once again we are not on the same page. True Christianity is not about being born into something (except the new birth that Jesus talked about in relation to repentant faith), attending certain rituals, membership, or attendance.

    So from what you have said you never were truly a Christian, but possibly in name only (CINO). I don't say that to put you down, but simply to state a biblical fact. Being "raised a Christian" doesn't mean anything without ever having had a spiritual encounter with God (by that I mean experiencing repentance for sin, His love and forgiveness, and accepting that by Faith). Christianity is not passed on by birth, nor is ita card-carrying member's club.

    Genocide: I sometimes use the term "feticide" for the premeditated murder produced by abortions, but since tens of millions have been murdered since Roe v Wade, many pro-lifers have taken the truer definition of genocide. Although I occasionally fall back to using feticide from an old habit, feticide no longer conveys the true meaning that it is a human who is being murdered and not just what you call a "fetus". Fetus in abortionist usage has taken on the connotation of what you previously called a blob of tissue and nerves. To me a fetus is basically a synonym for a preborn/unborn child. Only under a secular humanist definition would the wholesale slaughter of innocent, unborn, defenseless babies in the name of "Choice" through abortion not be genocide.

    In any case, one of my dictionary definitions (Webster unabridged) of genocide is:

    "The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group".

    By that definition babies of "national" (American in our case), "racial" (Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, etc), and cultural (again multiple) are "deliberately" and "systematically" being "exterminated" by abortionists. Wow, that wasn't so difficult! So it is quite evident that you are the one who needs look up the term.

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, at 7:16 PM
  • *

    McCook Reader - Sorry about the gender thing. You know, I honestly thought I knew who you were! I thought you were my neighbor lady, and I apologize.

    My mistake. Thank you for your kind response. I get a little caught up in the heat of battle. I am intense about my beliefs. I held one of my grandsons this afternoon, and I cannot tell you the feeling that comes over me about his future.

    Not that I, one redneck trucker in nowhere Nebraska, can really do all that much, but I am so concerned about the future of our country, that I have to speak out, even in my own limited way.

    The little guy is not even 6 months old, he owes $344,000 for government. That is just what he owes, even if he pays allot of taxes in his life, he still has this debt, on top of his taxes, plus interest.

    My God! This is abuse. This government of Democrats and Republicans is run amok and out of control. The driving force behind this evil is libs and progressives. They are con artists, and using emotions, they manipulate voters to vote against this group or that group. It's sad.

    I am still hoping that you and I will find common ground.

    -- Posted by sameldridge on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, at 10:41 PM
  • *


    Um. Your casual brush-aside of the Pat Robertson statement basically indicates support of it. Whether or not an MSNBC link is used is completely irrelevant in this case. I watched the clip and it is cut and dry. The man plainly and methodically said that the Haitians made a deal with Satan 200 years ago to be liberated from the French.

    As such a fervent Christian, don't you feel a bit ill-represented by our country's top Evangelist? His responses to tragedy are nothing short of clinically insane. He belongs in a straitjacket.

    Do you embrace terrible tragedy as prophecy fulfillment? I think Pat (and many others) do. Tsunamis and hurricanes and earthquakes and warfare and... abortion are all merely playing out the sequence of calamaties that lead to the return of Jesus Christ?

    And by the way the Haitian Independence resulted in the French selling America the Louisiana territory, which doubled our country's size for only 3 cents an acre. So we are in binding contract with Satan by association I reckon, guaaally! (plink of a spittoon)

    You were boring at first but I'm starting to like you, sir. Were you drinking? Either way you were showing some swagger and meanness that makes you fit in better around here. That's what I like about Sam and GI, they have attitude.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 9:24 AM
  • *


    Thanks for your input. I too found you boring at first, but may have been wrong. I guess we are even.

    I'll admit that after reviewing many of the left-wing posts on various threads last night, I began to feel a little impish and decided to spice things up a bit and even try out some of those Alinsky Rules for Radicals methods. I hope I didn't cross any lines, but I do stand by the essentials of my remarks on faith, euthanasia, abortion, and the general leftist/statist agenda.

    As for Pat Robertson's remarks, I have never claimed that he represented me, and I dispute your claim that he is "America's top Evangelist", or even represents a majority of Christianity. For what it's worth, I rarely even watch his network on T.V.

    Let's also be clear, the man, like all men, is not perfect, and is not getting any younger. What he said about Chavez's death a few years ago got a lot of missionaries kicked out of Venezuela, and I think it was wrong. I watched the video, and in the context of biblical Christianity, Robertson did make a point about how the choices nations make can come back to haunt them. Do I believe in Biblical prophecy? Yes I do, but perhaps not exactly as Robertson does. I do believe by faith that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and inerrant in the original manuscripts. So, I do take it more or less literally, based on context and grammar. Without this basis, it becomes just a bunch of allegories that can be miss-interpreted/misrepresented to evil ends.

    As someone who has worked in French-speaking countries I know for a fact that Haiti does have a dark past which has a foundation based on spiritism/animism, and a syncretism of Catholicism/animism. That is why Robertson contrasted Haiti and the D.R., which share the same landmass. You might want to consider that before jumping to conclusions. Like Harry Reid's remarks about Obama being a light skinned negro without a negro accent, unless he wants it, Robertson's choice of words may not have been helpful. You probably didn't see where Robertson continued on to ask for prayer for Haiti and was helping to raise funds for relief efforts. As I feared from the first posting, you too failed to mention the whole story and context.

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 10:15 AM
  • *

    Fair enough, I did not dedicate to watching the entire video, but I still don't think that changes the claim that Haiti literally made a deal with Satan to escape French colonialism. Oh well..

    I'm curious, you take the original inerrant manuscripts more or less literally, or the modern translated bible?

    Either way, although we disagree on much, we can be friends, like the U.S. and Russia. I'll be Russia, you know, since I fall into the commie/socialist category being a lib and all...

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 10:40 AM
  • *

    and by the way, what makes animism a "dark past?" Oh that's right it's not the bible so it's wrong. I used to wonder when I was growing up and learning in Sunday school that you go to hell for not being a Christian: does that mean that 3/4 of the world is going to hell? What about the people that Jesus didn't visit? Or the millions of people that never heard his message around the world that died in the millenia between Christ's walk on Earth and the arrival of European missionaries? Do the millions of indiginous people living today that have never even heard of the bible get to burn for eternity?

    I am not mocking, I am interested in your opinion on this, Nebraskamark, because you seem to have a pretty solid grasp on what you believe.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 10:50 AM
  • *


    Your veiled, generalized attack on Christianity in Robertson's remarks did not go unnoticed, but that's Ok.

    Can small children have faith? Yes, they can if it is based on the experience I mentioned -- not your birthright.

    Your definition on the meaning of genocide is noted, but I have read much better stated apologies by pro-abortion groups. All the same, they are unconvincing, redefine the simple definition, and gloss over the horror of their actions. All who are complicit in abortion should be held accountable, even those so-called "Christian" mothers.

    We hope to continue to keep educating people about the truth about life, abortion, and abortion's horrible ramifications on society. We also continue to press forward in reversing the ravages of a radical Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade so that our Nation may grant fundamental rights to all of its people. As it stands now, trees and animals have more rights than the unborn.

    Sam has a point in that most Christians became complacent in the 60's and we wound up with way too many leftist judges in the courts. Since that time our Nation has been paying a high price. Yes, there is no doubt that abortion is a form of genocide.

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 11:05 AM
  • *

    I'm a little bummed that my question was not taken seriously. It's something I honestly wondered when I began to question religion as a young teen. (sigh)

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 11:42 AM
  • *

    Jaded Friend,

    I take them both "literally". I believe that the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts, and that many of the modern versions are highly accurate in their translation of those manuscripts (+99%).

    Without that foundation, based on Faith, I believe there can be no hope and assurance in the veracity of the true Christian faith.

    A normative interpretation of Scripture means that it takes a literal view (not letteral), based on the local and broader contexts, grammar, and what is known of history, culture, and thought processes at the time it was written. That being said, I realize that there is "some" room for variances in interpretation, but only within a normative method. None of this will mean much to those who still do not believe in the part that biblical/spiritual Faith plays in the enlightenment of the human mind and spirit. I'm probably boring you again with all my verbosity...

    Moving on, when you ask for my answers to your questions, of course, you have to realize that my entire worldview is based on what I believe about the Bible as mentioned above. You also have to take into consideration that the Bible is quite large and covers a lot of material. So briefly...

    Yes, there is no doubt that the Bible teaches that all who do not accept Jesus Christ as Saviour, by faith are destined to eternal separation from God, i.e. Hell. That is not my opinion, but instead what God says, as it is explicitly stated numerous time in His Word. As to the exact number who will be consigned to Hell, only God knows, but one verse sums it up well; "Jesus said, I am the way, and the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but by Me". John 14:6

    Also, John 3:15-18 says, "Whoever believes in [Jesus] will not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world might be saved. He that believes on Him is not condemned; but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God".

    If you will take the time to read Romans Chapter 1, in the NIV translation for example, I think you will find the answers to many of your other questions on a righteous, just, holy, God's take on sinful and rebellious creatures. Please read it slowly, re-read it, study it, and take the time to digest it. Beyond that it would take some time to answer your questions, but I'm willing to do so if questions remain. If you don't have a Bible available, please find one online.

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 12:09 PM
  • *

    Hmmm, interesting. Thanks for your response. I read Romans ch. 1 in the New American Standard Version and from what I can understand verses 1-17 are basically a greeting to the church Paul is writing to, starting with his introduction and moving into blessing the believers by describing what a good believer is.

    It takes a tough tone starting with verse 18 and going to the final verse, 32, describing unbelievers and the consequences they face.

    I'm going to paste a verse here:

    18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

    19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

    My question has always been (and I'm surprised I've never heard anyone else wonder the same)

    What about the millions of people that God did not make this evident to them? I think it's a strange inconsistency that God so loved the world that he sent a savior to one little part, and only the ones who follow this one savior get saved. It has been 2,000 years and there are still parts of the world that don't know the message of Christ. I mean at least us agnostics had a chance. What about the many millions that have died since Christ that never knew about Christ. But God so loved THE WORLD. Even though there are millions of Christians it still seems like an exclusive club and everyone else goes to hell just for being born and never hearing about Jesus.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 12:37 PM
  • *


    Thanks for reading Romans 1, and I would recommend you read Chapter 2 as well. The NASV is an excellent translation. The Ryrie study Bible in this version is great. Anyway, I have heard your questions before, they are valid ones, and that is why I asked you to first read and study ahead, especially in light that we live in a post-Christian society. Forgive me if I seem to ramble as I am doing this on the fly.

    To lay the proper foundation, we must start from the beginning. First of all, understand that God is not just love, but also has other equal attributes that consist of being holy, righteous, just, sovereign, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, etc. So, when God created Adam & Eve in the Garden, they were created in His image, and sinless, but with the ability to make choices for themselves. When they subsequently rebelled against God, and His one and only command (not to eat from the one tree), they willfully sinned. God then removed them from the Garden (representing spiritual death), and all succeeding generations have inherited their sin nature. Some may not think this "fair" but that is only through the ignorance of our rebellious, finite, and fallen minds. Stay with me...

    To show this, you may be familiar that since that time SIN took hold in the world. Cain murdered Able, men took multiple wives, all forms of sexual promiscuity became rampant, so God destroyed the world with the flood in Noah's time, and God mixed up languages in judgment over the Tower of Babel. You see the problem? Man, after being created sinless, willfully sinned against his Creator and sin has reigned in EVERY person and generation ever since. As Romans 3:23 states, "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Even from this standpoint alone, God says that everyone is under condemnation.

    In keeping with all of God's attributes, and although He sent a Saviour, those who reject God, of their own will, must also expect His judgment. This concept is not even foreign to us in our Judeo-Christian based judicial system. A possible analogy that might help is, even our law states that "ignorance of the law" is no excuse. Is that unjust? People may sometimes complain about it, but no one I know of ever tried to fight it. The same is true of God. But how do the lost who have never heard know that? I'm getting there.

    Furthermore, throughout all of history, God has also made it "evident", through His majesty in creation, science, human capacity for learning and thought, that he is the result of a Creator. This also exists in every person in the form of a Conscience or basic concept of good and evil, although marred in the Fall. I also believe that if those untold millions who haven't heard the Gospel where Truly and Genuinely seeking their Creator, that God would somehow make a messenger available to them.

    Therefore, every human being, from Adam to this present day, is a sinner and God has made Himself known to everyone through the thoughts expressed above. At the judgment of Babel, the human race broke up and eventually spread out into all parts of the earth. Romans 1 & 2 also says that because of all the sins listed and rebellion, God has turned people groups over to their sinful ways. You mustn't forget that throughout history the nation of Israel, and then the spread of the Gospel since the advent of Jesus Christ, God's Word has been spread to the far corners of the world. Even though missionaries may not have spoken to each individual ever created this does not absolve them from God's righteous judgment.

    I know this can be a tough one to get a handle on, but in the end that is also where Faith comes in. Studying God's Word, recognizing we are sinners, repenting, and asking God to forgive and save us by faith is the key. Thank God that He has allowed you to be born into a nation that has such unprecedented access to the truth of the Gospel! Of course, I also believe that you will also have more to answer for because of this privilege.

    Please read this, reread Romans, think about it and then respond later if you still have questions. I hope that you won't find me boring again after reading all this! Got to logoff for now.

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 3:01 PM
  • *

    There he goes again insulting the intelligence of those who roundly refute him! Good to have you back!

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 3:57 PM
  • You have it here Carl. On too many occasions "Rev." Pat Robertson has said things that totally contradict the Bible. The teachings of love and compassion towards your fellow man, whether Christian or not, seems to have escaped him. Being the example of Jesus Christ in action seems foreign to him as well. Only the MSM love him for his stupid quotes during tragedy.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 4:51 PM
  • To clair up my earlier statement that has caught some heat...

    I know that the Nazi party did not exemplify the attributes of true followers of christianity. My comment probably wasn't the best. I meant if as more of a cultural/ethnic classification than a moral/idealogical classification.

    And I also know christians were persecuted during WWII. My point was that most german soldiers were born to christian parents, and went to christian churches. Hitler was raised catholic and actually attended a catholic seminary.

    I simply wanted to reinforce the fact that christians are not the only people persecuted. But I do see how that seems cheap. I didnt properly acknowledge the loss and suffering of those christians persecuted in sam's blog. I do pray for their families, and can't imagine the loss.

    And Mrs. Smith,

    I respect what your father did for our country. I have nothing negative to say about him. I do not know him. But I too, have a reference point for WWII aside from what history books print.

    I am Polish, and as a matter of fact my last name is the name of a street in Warsaw, that was in the heart of the ghetto during Nazi-German occupation of Poland. My family were polish jews. Again, my only point was that all religions are persecuted, and that is wrong. We need not focus on one religion while ignoring others.

    -- Posted by mccookreader on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 4:52 PM
  • A question to NebraskaMark concerning Jaded American's question about the unreached. Could it be that at some time in history, they have been reached, and that they have rejected the teachings of love and compassion in favor of their old ways? The worship of their traditions.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 4:57 PM
  • *

    Chunky, yes as I tried to point out, even from the time that God split up humanity at the Tower of Babel there was direct knowledge of God by all peoples. I believe there is a direct correlation shown in the commonality of creator god, and flood stories among diverse peoples around the world. More proof against atheistic Darwinian evolution.

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 5:40 PM
  • Very well said NM. God Bless you.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 6:16 PM
  • *

    For the record Carl I absolutely condemned Robertson's statement earlier today on this thread. Nebraskamark defended it because of a "dark past of animism"

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 6:37 PM
  • *

    When there was a direct knowledge of God among all peoples after Babel, isn't it arguable that every world religion is based on the same god? Even animism?

    And if a people made a choice to turn from God a thousand years ago, are their entire future generations damned?

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 6:44 PM
  • Joe Buck,

    Are you serious? It depends what you consider a slum per say. But there are many areas in sw nebraska and se colorada that are living under the poverty line and they are composed of a vast majority of white christians.

    And the first slums in America were inhabited by european immigrants in New York city.

    -- Posted by mccookreader on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 7:49 PM
  • How about this one Guillermo, just freely donate your money directly to them, that way it gets to the truly needy. And how about donating your time as well, as many Christians do. If it's a legacy your after, this could last long after your gone. Otherwise, you will be forgotten 30 seconds after your last heartbeat.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 7:50 PM
  • *


    Please let my remarks on Pat Robertson be read by the individual posters. I think you may have used a little slight of hand in trying to clarify my remarks...thanks. Remember what happened when you didn't watch the whole video of the remarks Robertson gave? I still made no excuses for what he said, just tried to put them into context and show the whole story for everyone else. That's Fair & Balanced. Watching video edited by people with an agenda on the MSMs is not helpful, but Fox can do it too.

    You said - "And if a people made a choice to turn from God a thousand years ago, are their entire future generations damned?"

    I say - You need to revisit my remarks on direct and indirect revelation in my bloated post to you. But, generally speaking, Yes and for the reasons I gave. It as best as I can do given from what we know directly from Scripture. Anything more would be venturing into speculation for my convictions and possibly belittle Faith.

    You said -- "When there was a direct knowledge of God among all peoples after Babel, isn't it arguable that every world religion is based on the same god? Even animism?"

    I say - If you mean does every "god" have some sort of a basis in the God of the Bible, then, yes, in that God says He created all humans in His image, and with an innate desire to worship Him. Of course, that has been corrupted in the Fall, and people have since worshiped, demons (Satan & fallen angles), false gods/idols, themselves, and material things.

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 7:59 PM
  • *

    Ask Benedict Nelson, who is on the Ag committee, about farm subsidies. Ben is the biggest deficit porkbarreler around. Why, just look at all that deficit "stimulus" spending he got us from the Chinese this year.

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 8:28 PM
  • Joe,

    The county in Nebraska with the highest poverty rate is Dawes County, in which white people make up 93% of the population.

    And many of those immigrants never made it out. Hell's Kitchen is one of the worst parts of new york and is nearly all white. South Boston is the worst part of Boston and there are Irish families there that have been there since 1800.

    -- Posted by mccookreader on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 8:32 PM
  • *

    I knew it. Joe is a racist, just like Rush. I should have known I couldn't be on this board for long, ya know, being a black man and everything. I must have sensed it, because the punk irritated me right off. It's aight Joe my brutha we cool, dig?

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 8:55 PM
  • *

    Hmmm... Interesting conversation Nebraskamark, thanks for talking with me. I guess there's really no other option for me than being agnostic but it doesn't hurt to discuss these things with someone who knows what they're talking about. Again, thanks

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 9:00 PM
  • *

    Jaded, may God bless you with "eyes to see and ears to hear" the truth. Enjoyed typing with you.

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 9:06 PM
  • *

    Reverend Wright didn't say "Goddamn white America" he said "Goddamn America." There is a difference my racist little buddy. He did make a valid point with the wrong words about how our corrupt leaders and shameful journey to power are turning the world (and half of our own society) against America, but I give you that. Bad preacher. Bad!

    The white democrat used the word negro. That is considered racist, to me. But what he said was sociologically true. I still don't like that racist old white dude using an out dated word like negro. Everyone knows that is bad. Bad racist. He didn't even know not to call us negroes....

    kiiinnda like my racist little Joebuck who doesn't understand the cumulative advantages enjoyed widely by white society (thanks to years of pro-white policies) as opposed to those pesky little folks "sitting on the streetcorner waiting for Obama handouts? Are they lining up for free debit cards, and FEMA trailers, then complain that the "gubment" doesn't do enough for them while they sit on their can and bellyache"

    "Gubment" haha yessa yessa Ahhm suh sarry I queshin ya suh

    Joe that gave me the impression that you are racist... Sorry?

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 10:11 PM
  • *

    "Strange! All these (according to you) white, christian slums, and none of them wiped out by hurricanes, fires, earthquakes! Once in a while a tornado goes through Oklahoma, and they dig themselves out and go to church! No FEMA trailers, no Don King interviews, no crapping on the floor of the stadium.

    What's up with that?"

    Wow, man. I am speechless. I don't think we are allowed to be overtly racist on this board, are we? Anyone?

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 10:15 PM
  • *

    I guess it's just good that our friend Joe isn't part of the rescue effort in Port au Prince. He obviously views us "negroes" as defecating beggars (and probably something that almost rhymes with beggars) ..and the potential for abuse on Joe's part would be probably full blown.

    I've seen some crazies on here that made the conservatives/republicans look pretty bad, but ladies and gentlemen I think we have a champion here.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 10:19 PM
  • *

    Bashing white America ok crazy person. I can see GI's point now. You don't care if you offend black folks online got it. I promise not to talk to you anymore. Folks like you are all over, I know the drill. Goodbye, my scared little buddy. You were better as Cartman, so I will always remember Cartman.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 10:50 PM
  • *

    Hopefully, someone will shut this thread down...

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 10:43 AM
  • *

    Yeah, Joe has that effect on threads I've noticed.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 11:07 AM
  • *

    You are all to blame for taking this down the path of race baiting...

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 11:34 AM
  • *

    Mark, I just called it out because I was directly offended. Sorry? To blame me for his remarks is insane. I feel that I can be very civil and have.

    Do you really feel that I can't tell a person something they said is racist?

    Who did you mean by "You are all to blame..."?

    Joe is to blame, because he said it. If he has a right to say racist things against blacks, I, as a black man have the right to protest. Right?

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 11:48 AM
  • *

    Without trying to blame any one person, I think the whole thing could have been avoided by just ignoring a few posts, but instead, from there everyone seemed to relish jumping on the bandwagon. I am by no means perfect myself, but this got out of control and if I had been the moderator I would have shut it down. My opinion...

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 1:22 PM
  • *

    Well, in a thread full of opinions, it would be strange for me to ignore that. Why do you think I should? I am not white, so that language was not to be ignored by me.

    It may be easy for you to ignore that, but who are you to decide what is off limits and what's not?

    If the subject is that taboo to discuss then the one responsible for initiating it should have been swiftly banned. Instead I (the one on the recieving end) am being blamed for it. I somewhat understand your point, but am a little sad because I thought you were maybe a bit more reasonable than this. I mean, you wouldn't ignore a post on here if it struck you in the heart, would you?

    Listen. A guy made racist statements against blacks. I am black. You are telling me I should have been quiet. Do you think that's ok? I am APPALLED!!!

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 1:40 PM
  • *

    And for the record Mark my friend, I did not relish anything. I was angry. The guy was basically typing in blackface. So I guess I regret it if anyone is angry with me now, but I am not sorry for my reaction, it is deeply ingrained in us to oppose that kind of hateful display, you know, since that civil rights thing and all.. and if this wouldn't have happened you would have never had any reason to think I was black. So I am not on some chip-on-my-shoulder mission.

    btw, Monday is a very important holiday to me. Probably not for some around here though....

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 1:49 PM
  • "When the residents of South Boston burn down their own neighborhood, give me a call!"


    While they're not burning it per say, riots aren't the kindest on the neighborhood.

    There's about 200 videos of boston riots after world series and nba finals games.

    But other than that, you're right Joe Buck. It's only them **** blacks that ever start trouble on this planet.

    -- Posted by mccookreader on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 3:06 PM
  • *

    Yeah, go ahead and wallow in it. I'll leave the race baiting to those who thrive on it. Knock yourself out....

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 5:14 PM
  • *

    Reverse racism is just as bad...

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 5:29 PM
  • *

    Really? I see.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 5:56 PM
  • There is no such thing as reverse racism.

    It is a fallacy. And people who use the term are indicating their perspective on race.

    To use the term reverse racism would indicate that a person is being racist against the reverse "oposite" proper.

    -- Posted by mccookreader on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 6:12 PM
  • *

    You're right Mark. Sorry for pointing out some insane stuff joebuck said. I did tell him I wouldn't engage him any more so I will try to make good on that. I don't wanna talk to that racist dude anyways. He's not cool, dig

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 6:33 PM
  • *

    Jaded, thanks for at least trying to understand my take on this issue. Personally, I think your attitude shows more maturity than some others who relish in it. While irenic discourse about racism is fine in its place, as you can see, in the other context it can get out of hand rather quickly. What I see on T.V. of all the race baiting on both sides of late is a very troubling sign for the future of or Republic. Thanks again my friend.

    Where's that Sam guy? On vacation again...

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 6:53 PM
  • How many of you in the thread community can say you have experienced racism? And not just the awkward social situations. Just curious.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 6:56 PM
  • *

    mccookreader -- if you dispute some of the dictionary definitions, then let me just say that some people actually believe that only certain peoples or ethic groups/minorities can be on the prejudicial end of racism. That is false because anyone can be a racist. Around the middle of this century, when "whites" become a minority in the U.S., will that mean they can no longer be racist?

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 7:06 PM
  • No. My point was that racism is racism regardless of who is the victim and who is on the other side.

    Reverse racism is a logical fallacy whether its in the dictionary or not.

    -- Posted by mccookreader on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 7:25 PM
  • *

    mccookreader - If you believe it is a logical fallacy then fine. I think it is still applicable because the reasoning I mentioned is rampant and it must be acknowledged and dealt with. Finally, we are onto a civilized discussion on racism...

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 7:37 PM
  • *

    If the discussion goes south again, I'm out of here! Besides it's Friday night and I don't live alone in my mother's basement...

    -- Posted by NebraskaMark on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 7:40 PM
  • GI,

    This is off track but I always found it interesting that many ignorant Americans have no idea what to classify spaniards as.

    Many people I have spoken with cannot grasp the concept that there are black, white, and brown hispanic people. Moreover, I find it hillarious when people believe they are being politically correct when in fact they are just showing ignorance. For instance, a friend of mine begged me to stop using the term "Mexican" because he believed it to be offensive. That says a whole lot about America's social concept of mexicanos in the country.

    In one instance I overheard a guy wearing a Laker t-shirt ranting about how we should keep "hispanics" out of this country period. I grinned and asked him how the Lakers would fair without Pau Gasol. He rebutted by informing me that Gasol was a white guy from spain, and not hispanic. Haha

    I love my country's lack of knowledge in regards to ethnicity and ethnic classification.

    -- Posted by mccookreader on Sat, Jan 16, 2010, at 1:40 PM
  • Guillermo,

    My apologies for taking so long to respond, been in bed all day, struggling between vomiting and death. But yes, that is what I'm talking about. But even more seriously, has anyone came up to you in person and mocked the way you speak, or the way you look.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sat, Jan 16, 2010, at 7:12 PM
  • That's Fine Guillermo, but have you ever been singled out in a crowd and be the target of disdain, and real hatred, people actually physical assaulting you?

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 11:28 AM
  • *

    Equal rights for GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) people is the modern extention of the ONGOING human civil rights struggle.

    I take it Chunky feels that racism isn't an issue unless there is a violent episode inspired by racism. And that, my black/brown/gay friends, is the reason I use the term ONGOING.

    I should be sorry that the thread took this direction, but for 2 reasons I am not:

    1) it was started by Joe typing in blackface, and exacerbated by certain people, who know who they are, blaming myself, GI, and reformed for the racist content because we called Joe out for it (insane logic) and secondly for this reason:

    2) This is probably a healthy discussion to have, being that there are some serious racist attitudes on this board and still in our modern political and social realm.

    SO, besides being very offended and angered,I guess this enriched the experience of this blog. Who would have thought that a fringe crazy like Sam would actually be doing so much good, even if on this minute level.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 4:35 PM
  • I hear the word "racism" thrown around a lot, along with "bigotry", and the use of various "phobias". At the great risk of exposing my anonymity, I could be considered a racial minority.

    I came to southwest Nebraska in the winter of 1976, an orphaned refugee of Laos. Though I cannot recall the names of my host parents, or even where they lived, I can recall the mocking of my appearance. You know, the pulling back of the corners of the eyes, the exaggerated buck-toothed smile, and the obligatory "Ah-so". I thought it to be some strange American tradition, just wasn't funny when I did it back to them, a beating usually happened. I recall vividly my first attempt at ordering a Coke and a hotdog at a baseball game, and the laughter and finger pointing that followed.

    As I studied the American language, I began noticing I was blamed for a son, brother, cousin being killed in the Vietnam war. They let it be known, their loved one died because of me, and that I need to go "home" where I belong. My host parents could not longer guarantee my safety, and I was sent to a community near Wichita, to be with other refugees.

    Things would get worse before they got better for me, so when I hear the words "racism" or "bigotry", I sometimes laugh. Most of those who through those words around, have never experienced it. There is a huge difference the those words, and simple cheap insults.

    Sorry about being long winded, but this is one of those exposed nerves for me. Thank you Guillermo and Carl for you wishes.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 6:06 PM
  • Yes, I hawked a big one on pat robertson, now let's focus on helping Haitians.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 10:01 PM
  • *

    Guillermo, exactly. Carl you have a serious gift in humor. I just loled my a off.

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 11:27 AM
  • Carl,

    I should know better than to respond, but here it is. Since I have not listen to my buy (I'll presume you meant boy) Rush in many years, I really don't know what was said on his program. If Rush said his donations are paid through his taxes, and won't donate anymore, it's his conscience he has to live with, not mine. To me, it doesn't matter who gave what, just give and make sure it is used for disaster relief.

    Please Carl, tell me I am still a First Class douche-bag! PLEASE!!!

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 7:05 PM
  • I care about the money in my bank account ALMOST as much as you do.

    -- Posted by Husker23 on Tue, Jan 19, 2010, at 9:09 AM
  • It still has a positive balance. Doesn't that bother you?

    -- Posted by Husker23 on Wed, Jan 20, 2010, at 9:45 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: