Ted Nugent: Obama is Still President. I've Let The Country Down

Ted Nugent: Obama is Still President. I've Let The Country Down

By Ramona on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 9:21pm | Politics, Arts & Entertainment, Media

Let's face it, there is no shaming that bad boy, Teddy "The Nuge" Nugent, the "Motor City Madman", proud draft-dodging gun nut, NRA spokesman, and Grand Champeen Obama hater. He thrives on badboyism. It has made him what he is today. One look at him tells me he ain't gonna listen to no mamas, so why waste my time?

But it's okay if I make fun of him, right? Because that's what mamas do when the kids go off the deep end and think they're too cool for school. Usually the kids in question are still what we might consider kids and have a chance to outgrow it, but, as in Teddy's case, some mavericks cut loose and stay loose. Sometimes they get lost in their own kid persona and never grow up. It's sort of sad, watching them, but they never stop thinking they're pretty damned cute, so what's the harm?

So here's what that bad Teddy has done this time. In his agony over not actually having the power after all to unseat/destroy the sitting president, Barack Hussein Obama, and all the stray Democrats (a power he, sadly, truly believed he had--see first sentence below), he's gone back to his old Devil's Thesaurus to find just the right words to settle this thing once and for all.

At the 2014 Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show (SHOT) last week, he took a moment to tell a reporter for Guns.com what he thought of Barack Obama. That Obama is one bad dude. He is, in fact, according to Teddy, a "sub-human mongrel."

Here's Teddy:

I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist, raised communist, educated communist, nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America. I am heartbroken but I am not giving up. I think America will be America again when Barack Obama, [Attorney General] Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, [Sen.] Dick Durbin, [former New York City Mayor] Michael Bloomberg and all of the liberal Democrats are in jail facing the just due punishment that their treasonous acts are clearly apparent.

So a lot of people would call that inflammatory speech. Well I would call it inflammatory speech when it's your job to protect Americans and you look into the television camera and say what difference does it make that I failed in my job to provide security and we have four dead Americans. What difference does that make? Not to a chimpanzee or Hillary Clinton, I guess it doesn't matter.

I don't know how Hillary got in there. I would think it's because she could be a contender--a Democratic contender--in 2016, and that would be bad for his guys. But he's a Hillary-hater from way back. At a 2007 concert he told Hillary to ride his machine gun and called her a worthless bitch. (He had some choice words for Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein at that same concert, but you'll understand if I pass on posting them here. )

So. Two things happened that gave Teddy the idea that he might be more than an old rock star--that he might actually have a future in galvanizing Americans to jump into rabbit holes and view the world in a topsy-turvy setting having nothing to do with reality: The NRA gave him a position on their board, and Texas Tea Party congressman Steve Stockman got him a seat at last year's State of the Union address.

That last gig thrilled Teddy no end:

He had a good career going there for a while as a singer. ("Cat Scratch Fever") He could carry a tune and everything. ("Cat Scratch Fever") But it could be that the crowds stopped coming (just guessing) and if he wanted to stay in the spotlight he had to find a new gig.

But what's a Medicare-eligible guy to do when he has his big 'ol patriot heart set on saving the country from assorted Muslims and Communists and uppity wimmin but his only talents lean more toward screaming and cussing and prevaricating while making goofy faces and toting big-ass guns?

Beats me. I'm just glad he's not my kid.

Topics:

Politics

Arts & Entertainment

Media

Comments

OHHHHH GOOD!

I am not the only one who gets mad.

hahahahahahahahahahahah

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

God Almighty I hate this guy.

hahahaha

(Oh and he would never be mistaken as your kid!)

hahahahahah

by Richard Day on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 10:29pm

Quite a guy, huh? I have to tell you, I was shocked when I read he was 65 years old. I just thought he had led a really hard life. Ha!

by Ramona on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 10:04pm

Yup just an old angry white man with a little money and a little bit of celebrity. He just hasn't caught on to the fact the country is moving on. I don't think many pay any attention to him.

by trkingmomoe on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 3:20am

Richard,

Many people hate old Teddy, and I love ‘em for it. But I love Teddy as well. He makes me feel good all over, because I know that big goofy grin on his face is masking tears sorrow over Jim Crow's last dying gasp. I also love him because just watching his agony and frustration, and seeing the American people’s disgust with him, reassures me that in spite of what things may look like, America is on the right track.

by Wattree on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 8:22pm

Tears of sorrow?

I am working on a blog right now about those who wish to advocate the violent overthrow of the government.

Watching his agony and frustration! This bastard who never entered the realm of great musicians; regardless of what he thinks he reached. hahahah

Yeah.

I am beginning to get your message.

Although....

I am happy that Kelsey Grammer...hahahahah....is really pissed off. hahahahah

I am happy that Garry Sinese is...hahahahaha...really pissed off. (Sinese covers his past indiscretions by giving money to Vets instead of White Military Organizations)

I am happy that right wing pricks are extremely pissed off. hahahahah

I really was thinking about this mess; I mean peeps really really hate my President. And these peeps really really hate any real position regarding the actual words of our Declaration of Independence.

It is funny that you show up here whence I was thinking about these things. hahahahah

No kidding.

Your comment is deeper than my personal animosity. hahahahaha

I dunno, I shall think about this as I prepare my Anti-American blog. That is about folks who really really call for the violent over-throw of the United States Government.

This comment is not tongue in cheek.

I actually wrote a brief for the ACLU in the olden days. And my state Supreme Court actually quoted it. All done from a 12 dollar typewriter. hahahah

I dunno, but there are evil evil forces in this universe and Nugent is one of them.

hahahaha

by Richard Day on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 8:54pm

It simply amazes me how the very same people who were so forgiving of the Bush administration over 9/11 can be so outraged over Benghazi. Can you just imagine what what these conservatives would be saying if it came out that the Obama administration helped the families of the Benghazi perpetrators escape from the country, or that a member of Obama's family was having lunch with a member of the planner's father down the street from the embassy the day before the attack? Talk about double standards . . . Why isn't the left bringing these things up?

Obama should have a crack team of researchers right next door to the Oval Office whose should nothing but debunking and bringing out Republican hypocrisy. Then every time a Republican crack-pipe spews a disingenuous Republican talking point he should be able look forward to the next day’s entire news cycle being flooded all of the hypocrisy that he or she has been engaged in throughout their entire career. That’s how you play hardball. If Obama would use that tactic the media would have to engage the Pinkerton’s to run a Republican down just to get a sound byte.

The GOP: A One Hundred Year Record Of swindling the American People Http://wattree.blogspot.com/2010/10/gop-one-hundred-year-record-of.html

by Wattree on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 9:08pm

Wouldst thou have it that we look backward? Fie! Accountability stops with those earning north of 6 figures. Next you'll wonder why it doesn't occur to our community organizer Nobel Laureate to pardon the unjustly imprisoned victims of federal mandatory minimums.

Can you spell p-u-n-k s-e-l-l-o-u-t?

(Insert rant against our dear brother you-know-who in your response, you left that out of your anti-double standard screed)

by jollyroger on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 9:48pm

Jollyroger,

With regard to your allusion to the "unjustly imprisoned victims of federal mandatory minimums." I did a little jailing of my own in my youth, and during that time, I never met one person in there that didn't deserve to be there - including myself. Now, granted many of these brothers we the "victims" of unjust sentencing, but I doubt very seriously that they were unjustly IMPRISONED, and that’s something that needs to be considered.

If Obama commutes their sentences to time served, whose community are they going to return to, to reestablish their trade? And whose son or daughter may become THEIR victim? And there’s another thing that has to be considered. Do you remember Willie Horton? In the event that you don’t, let me refresh you memory:

William R. "Willie" Horton (born August 12, 1951) is an American convicted felon who, while serving a life sentence for murder (without the possibility of parole), was the beneficiary of a Massachusetts weekend furlough program. He did not return from his furlough, and ultimately he committed assault, armed robbery and rape.

"On October 26, 1974, in Lawrence, Massachusetts, Horton and two accomplices robbed Joseph Fournier, a 17-year-old gas station attendant, and then fatally stabbed him 19 times after he had cooperated by handing over all of the money in the cash register. His body was dumped in a trash can. Fournier died from blood loss. Horton was convicted of murder, sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and incarcerated at the Northeastern Correctional Center in Massachusetts.

"On June 6, 1986, he was released as part of a weekend furlough program but did not return. On April 3, 1987 in http://dagblog.com/wiki/Oxon_Hill,_Maryland Oxon Hill, Maryland, Horton twice raped a local woman after pistol-whipping, knifing, binding, and gagging her fiancé. He then stole the car belonging to the man he had assaulted. He was later shot and captured by Corporal Yusuf Muhammad (formerly named Joseph Bell) of the Prince George's County Police Department after a pursuit. On October 20, Horton was sentenced in Maryland to two consecutive life terms plus 85 years. The sentencing judge, Vincent J. Femia, refused to return Horton to Massachusetts, saying, "I'm not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released. This man should never draw a breath of free air again."

So while I recognize that thousands of federal prisoners have received unjust sentences, I have to balance that against reality. First, they placed themselves in the positions that they’re in. Secondly, when they are released, many of them will return to victimize the Black community. And finally, can you imagine what the political repercussions would be if Obama released those thousands of prisoners and just ONE of them repeated the offense of Willie Horton? The GOP would use that to raise so much hell that the Obama administration, and his agenda for the American people, would be effectively over. In addition, the people would be so outraged that it would quite probably usher in a Republican president in 2016.

So considering all of that, and the fact that probably 99.9% of the prisoners are indeed guilty of the crimes that they were convicted of, would you place their interests on the front burner before the interest of America as a whole? Think about that - and while you're thinking about it, consider the fact that it could be a member of YOUR family that they may get out and victimize. President Obama is not turning grey for nothing. It's easy for us to sit up at our computers in our draws and make world-altering decisions, but when you're president, those decisions have repercussions.

And I’m speaking as a man who has a vested interest in this issue. A couple of years ago a young man contacted me from prison after reading one of my articles in the newspaper and advised me that he was my son (my name is Eric LaMont Wattree, and his is Byron LaMont Wattree). We had a paternity test done, and it turned out that it was true. He’s currently doing life in prison due to the "Three Strikes" law here in California.

It turned out that he’s the son of a young lady that I had a brief encounter with just prior to the courts sending me into the Marine Corps in lieu of prison when I was 19 years old. His mother, who has reestablished contact with me, said that she had intended to tell me about him, but I got married almost immediately after I got out of the service, so she didn’t want to bring any drama into my marriage (she was wrong, but her thoughtfulness says a lot about her character).

But anyway, now I have one son, who I raised, who is a Special Agent with the federal government, and now we find that he has an older brother who is doing life in prison. But as a FAMILY we’re petitioning Gov. Brown to get Byron out - and we have an excellent chance of doing just that, because Byron has obtained 6 (six) degrees and six certifications in different fields (business, math, science, psychology, etc) since he’s been in prison, and is working in concert with local colleges to help his fellow inmates to obtain degrees. He’s also an excellent writer with many innovative ideas on curbing crime, which I’ve had published.

But in spite of my personal situation, I think that President Obama is handling the federal prisoner situation just as I would - on a case by case basis.

They’ve become very close, by the way.

Jollyroger,vVTheyTTt

They’ve become very close,

by Wattree on Thu, 01/30/2014 - 7:58am

O wow...that is a heavy story my brother...

My remarks about federal mandatory minimums was specifically (if not explicitly) meant to embrace the entire range of non-violent drug "offenders" As far as I am concerned, society spends upwards of 70 billion a year to make miserable the lives of people who are only manipulating their own neurotransmitters.

by jollyroger on Thu, 01/30/2014 - 10:39am

I fully agree, Jollyroger,

This is a grossly hypocritical society, but my background has taught me that ultimately, we are responsible for our own destiny. If we fall, especially those of us from the "hood," even though the cards are stacked against us, and society is an accomplice in our failure, ultimately, it’s our fault. I taught the son and daughter that I raised that, I just wish I had been around to teach it to Byron.

As Black people, we’ve got to learn to use adversity like a slingshot to hurl us forward, because adversity has the potential of making us more, rather than less. That’s why I wear the title "Hood Rat" like a crown, because nothing on Earth is more formidable than an individual who’s been dragged through the pits of Hell, and then manage to come out the other side a well-rounded, knowledgeable, and fully functional adult. The most motivating phrase in the world is, "I'll show their asses!" And I made that our family motto. So the more shit you bring my son and daughter, the more formidable they become.

The Hood Rat

I’m sure you know that I love you;

You’re everything that I need.

You fit the bill of all my desires,

a perfect match for all of my dreams.

You’re everything I’ve always craved,

that luscious vision from across the tracks;

that delicate flower,
just beyond my grasp, and
now here you are at last.

But what you ask is foreign to me;

You need something that I'm not.

You said, if I'd tweak my nature, just a bit,

you’ll give everything you’ve got.

But that "tweak" you need is who I am;

It's my essence, can't you see?

You want to abolish the hood rat from my life,

the very thing that makes me, me.

While a hood rat may seem trite to you,

a hood rat’s what you see;

So forget about what the other’s say -

here’s what it means to me:

I’ve been brutally dragged through the pits of Hell,

yet, managed to survive,

well educated and fully functional,

when I came out the other side.

I scrounged the lessons taught at Harvard,

because knowledge, I found, was free;

But Harvard can't teach the lessons I've learn -

that knowledge is unique to me.

While they've heard the sounds of a mournful Trane,
and Miles moaning in the night,

not against the backdrop of hunger and pain,

or injustice, hatred, and blight.

Yet, these are the things you want me to purge,

and spurn the life I’ve led.

Well, I’m sorry sweet thing, as much as I love you,

the soul of a hood rat is my edge.

http://wattree.blogspot.com/2012/02/hood-rat-poem.html

by Wattree on Thu, 01/30/2014 - 12:58pm

I'm offended. A communist, a mere communist? Its just not funny anymore. I'm going to stop reading Nugent. I'm going to read the right wing crazies that give Obama his proper due, by calling him the Antichrist, for my laughs from now on.

by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/23/2014 - 11:50pm

Due to space limitations I wasn't able to include every quote. Look around. I'll bet you'll find exactly what you're looking for. (Remember, he has a big old Devil's Thesaurus and he's not done yet.)

by Ramona on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 10:06pm

Ted Nugent represents what we expect from the modern GOP.? We expect the GOP to defend the faux-hillbilly on Duck Dynasty when he reminisces about Blacks in the Good old Days. We expect Rand Paul to be less than enthusiastic about the Civil Rights Act. Nugent just reminds us the GOP is a racist cesspool. Nugent will show up at GOP functions as if nothing happened . Nugent is not a bug in the GOP platform, he is a feature.

by rmrd0000 on Fri, 01/24/2014 - 6:35pm

It makes one wonder: What are the steps that lead a man to this level of incivility? How can a man who has been given (or earned) this much talent and this much wealth be so enraged at those whom simply disagree with him? Worse yet, how can anyone respect his conduct? It's a sad state of affairs for those in the Ted Nugent circle.

by Tim Danahey (not verified) on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 3:06pm

What difference does that make? Not to a chimpanzee or Hillary Clinton,

Hillary Clinton's Benghazi Meltdown: What Difference Does It Make ...

At one point, Hillary Clinton exploded in barely contained fury:

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton asked the Republican Senator. “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”

Public accountability does matter, Mrs. Clinton. The days of Washington politicians pretending to hold themselves accountable during staged hearings that lead to nothing have to stop

It makes a lot of difference

The four died because Washington failed them as it does most everyone else in America, except the many self-serving, who work there

If she runs for office, I believe this tragic event. will come back to bite her and her supporters.

Maybe she has some memo wheres shes screaming GET THEM OUT; GET THEM OUT, NOW!!!!!

The difference They're dead and she's alive; quite a big difference to show such indifference.

by Resistance on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 1:35pm

Did you notice the word "chimpanzee"? What do you think he might have meant by that? Are you really going to defend Ted Nugent here? Really??

But beyond that, Resistance, I don't know how you can read what Hillary said and come up with indifference on HER part. Read again what she said. It had nothing to do with indifference. She went after her interrogators because they kept at her about whether or not the embassy was attacked by demonstrators, as someone earlier thought.

They wanted to know why the State Department said at first that it was demonstrators and not terrorists. That was ALL they wanted to know. They were fixated on the notion that somehow calling the assailants "demonstrators" made them less than evil, or something. I don't understand their fixation. I, along with Hillary, thought it was pretty damned stupid.

So after many minutes of the same questions, she finally said, "What DIFFERENCE does it make at this point?" But since you apparently didn't read what you yourself put up there as some sort of proof of Hillary's indifference, let me grab it from your comment and let you read it here. (Be right back.)

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton asked the Republican Senator. “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”

How's this for indifference? (You could have found this in about two seconds if you had looked for it. But of course you didn't.)

"I take responsibility," Clinton told CNN in an interview while on a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision."

But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, where Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed on September 11.

"I take this very personally," Clinton said. "So we're going to get to the bottom of it, and then we're going to do everything we can to work to prevent it from happening again, and then we're going to work to bring whoever did this to us to justice."

That's not indifference, Resistance. That's leadership.

By the way, that website you linked to thinks Rand Paul gave a "stellar response" to the libido question. Nice bunch of folks you're hanging around with there. Smart, too.

by Ramona on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 7:52pm

Resistance obviuosly has no problem with someone who calls Obama a subhuman mongrel and a chimpanzee.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 8:20pm

You asked and as I highlighted the section that I responded to

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE

and now you come back to the question I was attempting to answer.

In hindsight is guess I should have included the rest of the question you asked

I don't know how Hillary got in there. I would think it's because she could be a contender--aDemocratic contender--in 2016,

As for the chimpanzee remark. I failed to see it as nothing more, than describing another creature, as an animal who lacks the compassion to understand. he could have said jackass and I wouldn't have seen a veiled attacks on Democrats

Her remarks were indifferent to the families that lost their loved ones.

Dare I describe what might go on in a group of chimpanzees who lose one of theirs and the loss is only met with a sniff and a grunt, and the family goes about, in their daily lives as though nothing happened.

Of course some mean spirited person will assume the mere mention of chimpanzee, is my racism coming to the fore.

What difference does it make? that your sons or husbands, brothers are not coming home, because someone screwed up.

A lot of folks believe it was Hillary, who even by her remarks failed to grasp the insensitivity of her remarks as she scrambled to CHA

Did you notice the word "chimpanzee"?

NO! I wasn't looking to decipher his encrypted words.

I don't always see veiled racism as others always seem to find or look for.

I only addressed Ramona's question about how "Hillary got in there"

"So we're going to get to the bottom of it, and then we're going to do everything we can to work to prevent it from happening again,

More Bottoms of it?

There is a Reason They Call it Foggy Bottom - Arthur D. Simons ...

Why is it, that the people we put in charge to protect us, always have the same excuse?

I'd have to go back and reread Reagan' remarks after the attack on the Marine barracks to see possible similarities

Haven't we learned any lessons yet?

by Resistance on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 9:47pm

Show me specifically where Hillary's remarks were "indifferent to the families that lost their loved ones." Which words were "indifferent"? Did you read the quote you posted? Did you read my response? Obviously not, or you wouldn't be harping on the same notion.

She did not say what you said she said. Not at all. Not even close. She did not say "what difference did it make that they died?" That is a terrible lie and you're perpetrating it, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Why?

by Ramona on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 10:17pm

No ones perpetrating lies. Maybe a cover up; to protect a future Democratic contender?

She did not say "what difference did it make that they died?"

Nor did I

All of her skipping around the questions posed, and her babbling about demonstrators or terrorists, would still lead back to this question unanswered

WHY did they die?

Unable to be forthcoming, (Oh we'll look into it, and figure out the correct response to COA; It shows an indifference on her part, for those who grieve,looking for the truth; but because it might not be politically advantageous for Hillary to be forthcoming.

They died because security was inadequate.

Just because you find it difficult to understand the contempt others have for her, after her angry outburst.

Now listen and glean or extrapolate, from the words of a grieving mother, wanting questions about why her son is dead. Listen carefully to her implied question "Why did my son have to die" "Where was the security to have prevented his death"

To get the sense of why Hillary and the Administration are held in such contempt by many

I don't agree with many of Nugents remarks.

I did not respond to your question as a defense for Nugent.

You asked "I don't know how Hillary got in there." and I am only giving you the reasons WHY, many Americans are and will continue to question Hillary's role in this deadly attack

Just like this poor mother, whose son is never returning home, because someone screwed up. Whether it be protestors or terrorists WHERE WAS THE PROTECTION?

by Resistance on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 11:45pm

Sorry, Resistance, when your argument remains on a constant loop and nothing I say is going to get you off of it, I feel as if I'm wasting my time. You get the last word.

by Ramona on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 6:59am

It is amazing that after finding no racism in Nugent's words, he now says that he wasn't defending Nugent. Resistance leaves a word trail then objects when people point out the horrid nature of his words.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 8:42am

The people I associate with most, don’t use such terms to describe others. As I wrote, I made no connection of a chimpanzee to a racial slur. Again how many more times must I write I missed it. Never gave the term a thought until you brought it to my attention.

Quite a bit of difference between a Chimpanzee and a mongrel, but that won’t stop many of you from smearing me.

mon·grel n.

An animal or a plant resulting from various interbreedings, especially a dog of mixed or undetermined breed. 2. A cross between different breeds, groups, or varieties, especially a mixture that is or appears to be incongruous.adj.Of mixed origin or character.

Why it is some people at Dagblog always enjoy impugning others?. I suspect thoughts of slurring and impugning others are always their main objective. Wicked thoughts meant to cause others harm.

Now go ahead, walk away Ramona, after you did your part in these horrible accusations. Shame on you

by Resistance on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 9:25am

So you missed chimpanzee but have no problem with subhuman mongrel?

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 9:57am

Why it is some people at Dagblog always enjoy impugning others?. I suspect thoughts of slurring and impugning others are always their main objective. Wicked thoughts meant to cause others harm

Can you give an example of anything posted here since day one as bad as directly describing someone else as a subhuman mongrel?

A suggestion: think about completely reading a post before commenting on it.

by artappraiser on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 12:35pm

Can you give an example of anything posted here since day one as bad as directly describing someone else as a subhuman mongrel?

The point is, I put in quotation, Nugents remarks, taken from Ramona's post,

They were never my words, nor my thoughts?

They were NUGENTS, I confined my reply to answer Ramona's question.

I don't know how Hillary got in there

by Resistance on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 12:50pm

Yeah, Wattree's caricatures of Cornel West, bone in mouth and what not.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 10:19pm

I reflected upon what I wrote you this AM and I can see how we might be talking past one another.

I beleive the problem occurs because , yours and my definitions and application of the term "indifference" had not been agreed upon.

I couldn't understand, how you couldn't see my point, what you called "constant loop" was only my attempt to clarify my use of the term.

So I attempted to persuade you, by providing a video of a witness, who could express her concerns, about the indifference she and others think about, when they hear Clinton's angry reply, to those seeking answers.

Continuing a pattern of no care or concern in attitude or action, as demonstrated by the result of those with authority who failed to provide security; a major factor in these deaths ;

Indifferent..... unwilling or refusing to pay heed; "deaf to the warnings that things were not settled and peaceful in Benghazi.

"indifferent to the sufferings of others"; by getting angry at those looking for answers.

"indifferent to her plea" when they wont explain or they prohibit the mother from getting answers.

Why is that? Many believe Biased Political reasons, have been given priority, rather than the more important reason; people want to know why they died, not who killed them.

Politics over people? A cold and calculating bias.

by Resistance on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 12:39pm

I don't always see veiled racism as others always seem to find or look for.

Nugent called Obama a subhuman mongrel then followed it with chimpanzee.

by rmrd0000 on Mon, 01/27/2014 - 10:26pm

As others have pointed out, calling Obama a mongrel and a chimpanzee isn't veiled racism. It's just racism. If you need a secret decoder ring for those, then…

by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 8:05am

a secret decoder

Resistance takes refuge in a feigned obtuseness like a Buddhist takimg refuge in the eight-fold path. Only the Buddhist is realistically entitled to expectations of a successful outcome..

"I missed the (implications of the) chimp reference"? Give me a fuckin' break!

by jollyroger on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 1:09pm

Give me a break

I guess you love pointing out other's trespasses, as others did yours?

Maybe you shouldn't have been allowed a tap out, for what others thought was your disgusting remarks. Hypocrite.

by Resistance on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 2:16pm

Were you tapping out? My mistake.

by jollyroger on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 2:36pm

Your first response about Nugent's words were that you did not see veiled racism. Your words indicated that others had a problem because they were trying to twist Nugent's words. Next you gave us a definition of mongrel stating that it was different than chimpanzee.

Next you said that you did not agree with Nugent's words. You went on to blame Ramona for smearing you, finally you blame jollyroger for pointing out that it is hard to believe that you missed chimpanzee and it's meaning.

You gave the definition of mongrel, suggesting that it was a better definition for Obama than chimpanzee. You did not say that you found subhuman mongrel distasteful.

Your explanations that your intent was benign are not believable

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 7:28pm

Uh, didn't we spend much of the Bush years calling him a chimp? Cause he kinda looked like one and acted like one too? Was that racism?

As for the "mongrel" mentioned, I think it's supposed to be a grave insult. Arabs in particular see dogs as being something unclean. I wasn't aware that it was a racist statement - any references on that?

actually, for the Motor City Madman to be disparaging rabies-infected creatures is kinda tampering with his own brand. Cat scratch fever may have affected his brain.

by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 7:20pm

Subhuman mongrel directed at Obama is not racist?

Chimpanzee is not racist. Got it

I didn't think GW was bright, I don't recall calling him a monkey.

Nugent also noted that Hillary has a spare scrotum. Nothing sexist there, right?

Nugent is an NRA board member and has a show on the Outdoor Channel. Just like the guy on a Duck Dynasty, non-racists are doing well.

by rmrd0000 on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 7:46pm

Always so much fun talking to you

Bush + chimp

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushchimplookalikes.htm

http://www.salon.com/2001/01/19/curious_george/

http://www.urban75.org/useless/bush.html

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 2:12am

Reading is fundamental

I said that I never called Bush a chimp

I did repeatedly question his intelligence and the way he snookered a small segment of the Black faith community with his Faith Outreach Program. Once he got the votes that he needed the GOP disappeared from the Black community

I know that you miss being the center of attention in a discussion like this, but do you have any support that I called Bush a chimp?

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 6:44am

I would venture that calling Bush a chimp isn't racist, because there is no tradition of equating the white race, as opposed to individual whites, to apes. There is a racist tradition of comparing black people to simians.

by Aaron Carine on Tue, 01/28/2014 - 8:18pm

Do you think making fun of some ones appearance, is a good thing?

What do you think?

Making fun of others appearance = + 5 on the anti social Richter scale? Unless it brings tears to the one harmed !0?

Racism = +10 for sure?

Tormenting others = + 6 maybe more, if it results in great harm to the recipient, like bullying has harmed others 10 +?

Saying an unkind word to someone ..........what do you say?

Do you get my drift?

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

let he that is without sin .........

by Resistance on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 1:42am

Saying an unkind word to someone

Why is it always, in the end, about you and your tender fi-fi's? You burn more bandwidth taking offense at how you are characterized than is good for your mental health.

by jollyroger on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 1:47am

This comment has been deleted.

by Resistance on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 1:54am

10+ for lack of empathy

What, no points for style?

by jollyroger on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 2:02am

What style? I didn't see it

(It's also poor form to keep choking after *the tap-out.)

While you pleaded for others to stop; "please don't hurt me I.ve tapped out. it's poor form

Then you strike me with your blows?

by Resistance on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 2:09am

I removed it because I didn't want to offend Jolly.

by Resistance on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 3:43am

Do you think making fun of some ones appearance, is a good thing?

No, calling bush a chimp was inappropriate and counter productive imo and I never joined in. Mocking politician's appearance is common on both sides. If democrats want to object to all the ugly hillary or ugly Michelle Obama sites we shouldn't be engaging in Bush chimp insults and pictures.

by ocean-kat on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 2:23am

So to use the same insult on everyone without considering their skin is "racist" because you didn't take into account history of their race?

Don't see a paradox there?

(not that I'm implying Nugent is color-blind, but do we remove "chimp" from our political lexicology for 8 years in honor/concern about a black president? batty. oops, hope "bats" aren't tied into racism, being often black and all)

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 2:15am

Given the racial history of the word, not using it in connection with a Black a President seems to be in order.From a practical point, whatever point was trying to be made will be lost in the discussion of race and racism.

The re are similar words that might best be avoided with a discussion of a female President. Slut comes to mind. Who're is another. I don't see a loss in a political discussion if some terms are avoided.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-02-18-cartoon.jpg

Above is a link to the NY Post Obamacare ape cartoon

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 7:00am

wow, comparing "slut" and "whore" to "chimp". Funny, calling a dude "dog" is often a bit of a compliment, even black dudes. Calling a guy a "slut" is frequently a joking compliment - calling a woman that is always an insult.

BTW, humans & chimps share over 90% DNA - here & here. Doesn't matter if black or white, we're all pretty ape-ish.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 9:18am

We're not ape-ish, we're apes, plain and simple. That said, because of historical antecedents, you do not compare a black person to a chimp, and you don't call them "boy". I, however, would have no problem with you calling me "boy". Calling me a chimp — or a dog — would definitely count as an insult, but not at the same level were I black (referring to the chimp part, not the dog part). We can pretend to be post-racial, but that doesn't make it so.

by Verified Atheist on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 11:35am

"I'll be a monkeys uncle"

Did Obama write the stimulus bill or did Congress?

What kind of monkey business has Congress been up to.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/monkey

I don't think of black people, maybe someone does, but not me.

by Resistance on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 10:05am

Let us keep it in context. Nugent called Obama a chimpanzee, that is a quantum leap from the context of "monkey's uncle". The post did offer a half-hearted apology for their cartoon because many saw the image as aimed at Obama.

You are not suggesting that the context in which Nugent used chimpanzee was identical to the levity you are trying to divert to are you? Nugent words were not benign.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 11:17am

Well, you can use the insult against everyone if you want, but it has always had a racial connotation when used against blacks, and I don't know if the insult can be isolated from that context.

by Aaron Carine on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 7:26am

black people don't call their kids "monkeys" or "yard apes"? I hope "curtain climbers" is still acceptable.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 9:35am

You were unaware of mongrel being derogatory but you have heard Black people refer to their children as yard apes? Are you really willing to go this far to defend Nugent, or are you just trying to be your usual provocative self?

I think a politician or celebrity who used your words would be justly criticized. During a normal conversation calling a Black man a chimpanzee or a Black child a yard ape would get you labeled a racist. Do you see the words bringing a different reaction?

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 10:10am

I have heard mongrel tied with other adjectives or nouns that can be a racist insult, such as explicitly referring to "mongrel blood", but had never taken the word by itself to have that much meaning or bite besides being an undesirable dog.

I've never heard black people use "yard apes", but have heard them use "monkeys" for the little 'uns. You not? And by "normal conversation" do you mean one where I'm considered an other-colored outsider or a normal conversation where I'm a friend or a normal unbigoted person making light banter?

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 10:30am

You can set the scenario where yard apes would come up.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 10:52am

Drinking beer watching kids play in the yard, natch.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 10:53am

You hang out with a different crowd. Since you admit that you haven't heard Blacks use the term, who has?

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 11:11am

It was a rhetorical question, as it's a common American term for young kids, and we all watched the same TV shows and what-not, and since we're all apes as VA notes, it's not surprising to observe our young apes looking long & stringy as they play around the yard & playground. But if blacks don't use the term, makes me no nevermind, file it away with other useless knowledge I've got crammed in my head.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 11:44am

A mongrel isn't just an undesirable dog, it's a dog of mixed breed. To ignore that aspect in context of a mixed-race President when the term is applied to him is suspicious, considering how infrequently the word is used.

by Verified Atheist on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 11:37am

To me it's always been a synonym for a mutt, roughly a stray kind of low-class street dog - not specifically a racial term - see here:

Mongrel

A mongrel or mutt is a dog of unknown ancestry that belongs to no single organizationally recognized breed and is not the result of selective breeding. Wikipedia\\

mongrel

ˈmʌŋgr(ə)l/

noun

noun: mongrel; plural noun: mongrels

a dog of no definable type or breed.

"a mongrel bitch"

synonyms:

cross-bred, of mixed breed, half-breed, hybrid More

"a mongrel bitch"

antonyms:

pedigree

any animal resulting from the crossing of different breeds or types.

synonyms:

cross-breed, cross, mixed breed, half-breed, hybrid; More

tyke, cur, mutt;

yellow dog;

kuri;

pye-dog, pariah dog;

informalHeinz 57;

informalmong, bitzer;

technicalbigener

"a rough-haired mongrel with a dash of Airedale"

offensive

a person of mixed descent.

"she was a mongrel, only half French"

Origin

late Middle English: of Germanic origin, apparently from a base meaning ‘mix’, and related to mingle and among.

Translate mongrel to

Use over time for: mongrel

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 11:52am

Word meanings are placed in time and context. One is hard-pressed to put a benign meaning to Nugent's use of the term especially given the descriptor "subhuman"

It matter's very little if in another context, a parent calls their child a little monkey. The context is different than what Nugent suggested.

There is a current debate regarding "thug" being used as a cover for "nigger".

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 12:24pm

This word stuff is interesting to me and sometimes kind of funny. When I was in my early twenties and friends with some black guys from Louisiana I learned that for them anyway, calling someone a "redbone", which means a human mutt, was more likely to get your ass kicked than calling them the "n" word. And, the word "mutt" meant a mixed breed dog but I also was aware that among mutts were what was often considered to be the best dogs because they had acquired the best qualities of a couple breeds. I was surprised when I first heard of the band named Redbone.
Now 'thug", which has a perfectly straight forward meaning that has not before had any racial connotation is, I believe, in the process of becoming a taboo word right in front of us and as we watch and participate in the process.
In the case of Richard Sherman's comment, which is fueling the taboo-ization I think his comparison of thug to the "n" word was completely misunderstood, although I have not paid attention to what he might have said as a follow up to the controversy it created. So, maybe I am wrong.
Here is how I saw his usage. It goes without saying that calling anyone the "n" word is intended as calling them something very derogatory. In contact sports calling a person a thug is saying something very derogatory about them. It is noting that there is a difference between playing hard and playing to hurt someone and one of those ways is thugish. As a sports fan I believe I can sometimes see examples of the difference and I do not respect a thug who does, for instance, deliberately go for the knees. Or a boxer who goes for the other guys nuts or uses his elbows, or even bites in a clinch or hits coming out of one. That guy is a thug. I also believe that that sort of player is disrespected by most pros. Sherman's comment seemed to me to be relating to the narrow field of pro football or other contact sports. He was not saying the word "thug" in that arena was the same as the "n" word or code for it but that it was equivalent as a derogatory term when used to describe the way an athlete played. He did not want to be considered a thug. He even made the obvious case by pointing to hockey which is almost 100% white but which has many thugs.
Now though, because racism is looked for so hard that it is found even more often than it exists it may become that there are only white thugs in sports because to call a black athlete a thug is somehow being a racist. Another word done gone. So, in the future a white player who plays dirty may still be called a thug but what can we call a black player who does the same?

by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 2:08pm

Thugs or Thuggee were Indians a few hundred years back who would gain the confidence of travellers and then strangle them and steal their belongings. They persisted for quite a while before the British wiped them out. So a bit ethnic origin (more Muslim than Hindu).

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 2:59pm

So now you know, when applied to humans:

offensive
a person of mixed descent.
"she was a mongrel, only half French"

Look, you're talking as if it doesn't have a negative connotation when applied to animals born without human selection of parentage. If purebred dogs weren't preferred, there'd be no reason to create a word to distinguish a "mutt" or "mongrel." "Dog" would suffice.

Now turn around and apply that to humans, and it's real nasty and has extra intensity in this day and age, because we don't do that with humans unless we believe in Nazi eugenics. To apply animal husbandry to humans is offensive in itself. If Ted Nugent called Obama, or any other human, a half-breed, instead of mongrel, it would also be offensive. (Didn't you ever hear Cher's song?)

Your continued attempt to explain away your lack of knowledge of the meaning of a word, instead of being embarassed that you didn't understand the common knowledge punch of it, strikes me as absurd, digging yourself deeper and deeper. It is extra absurd because Nugent made sure his meaning was perfectly clear by adding "subhuman" as an adjective.

by artappraiser on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 3:58pm

I heard Cher's song - I thought it was a bit of a throwaway piece of pop, no?

Is calling Obama a half-breed "offensive"? wow, so little time, so much to offend. I thought it was pretty obvious he was of mixed parentage - okay, might be sweeter ways of saying it, but somehow "half-breed" sounds nicer than "mulatto", the term of old. Who knows, I think you people are whacko on words.

[yes, "subhuman mongrel" adds some, er, "bite" to the quip - I get that he wasn't trying to make friends. just never heard mongrel as 1 of the top 10 epithets of choice growing up, take that for what it's worth]

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 4:26pm

Without implying that you have reached middle age, or anything, you may have overlooked the anti-miscegenation statutes that I'm pretty sure were at least still of recent memory during your childhood in the south. What, exactly, did you think was the goal of criminalizing "race mixing"?

by jollyroger on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 4:43pm

That's been an insult to whites - how's it an insult to blacks? "you look too white"?

In any case, it's 2014, Obama had mixed parents in 1961. Lenny Bruce fought profanity laws from '61 to '66, but it's not like we behave as if they still exist today. Tiger Woods is how many ethnic groups? Would Michael Jordan do anything but laugh if Nugent called him or his kids a "mongrel" from marrying 2 beautiful Latino women? I just don't get it. People can just tell these guys to fuck off, but instead they're going to waste precious moments of life getting offended at idiocy? That just means idiots can keep twisting your tail by whispering 1 or 2 words.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 5:39pm

You are still digging.

Just because you are not offended does not mean that other's might not be offended. You seem to be justifying dismissing the views of others. There are stereotypes of White Southerners that are distasteful with accompanying verbal slurs. Perhaps if you consider a desire to avoid those derogatory terms, you may understand the feelings of others.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 4:49pm

I get it - you want to let a wannabe Motor City cracker keep you mortified for weeks by using a few stupid insults they can't effectively censor from TV and that mean little in a multiracial 2014. Go for it, tell me how it feels.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 5:41pm

Realizing that verbal insults against White Southerners causes discomfort, and unable to continue to defend supporting slurs against other groups, the topic is changed.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 5:47pm

Huh? Who insulted White Southerners?

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 5:50pm

Reading is fundamental

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 6:00pm

Self-confidence is fundamental. Reading is gravy.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 7:03pm

any references on that?

Let me help you out

:1.

mongrel

A cross-breed, can be a derogatory name for those of mixed heritage.

that mixed girl looks like a mongrel (Urban Dictionary)

by jollyroger on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 1:53am

First I've heard it - guess I'm just not well-read enough or too young.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 2:06am

not well-read enough

On the contrary, it means you stay away from Stormfront sites. Nugent,, otoh...

by jollyroger on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 2:11am

No that's a standard definition and it has definitely unmistakenly used a long time as a racial derogatory when applied to humans. Before Hitler. Like so old that you'd challenge the speaker to a duel for the insult. It's a product of Empire (i.e., you control the natives of India, but you don't fuck them,) when "cross-breeding" was a much worse no-no than being a mere bastard. Where having no father was not as bad as having a mother and father of different races. Use of the derogatory presumed one race is far superior than the other and Empire would never continue if one diluted the ruling race.

by artappraiser on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 4:45am

Agreed. It is pretty much common knowledge that the word is a slur.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 7:04am

See Jolly? I told you. I grew up after Hitler & the Raj, and even with a Deep South upbringing was never clued in that "mongrel" was code for black inferiority. All this missing "racialist" education, as Ali G calls it. I feel like a newborn, a pup, wet behind the ears.

(ps - "wog" has its connotations too, but you have to be from Brit regions to understand. I'll be damned if I'm going to learn all that "spanner" and "wicket" and "bonnet" crap just to be PC - the "wogs" will remain nameless in my book).

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 9:45am

Hence "Pity about old Fotheringay, he's gone native, don't y'know"...

by jollyroger on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 12:14pm

Creole was originally an insult term to the Spanish for "they'll fuck anything". In the end, that's much of the Caribbean on down to Brazil, but it's pretty much stopped being a pejorative.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 12:46pm

To all who care to read or listen, I really didn’t intend to offend anyone I told the truth that I wasn’t looking for racial slurs, nor would I want to feed my mind on such detestable things. My focus was solely on Ramona's question. As I wrote, I missed the racial slur, because I wasn't looking for it.

Yet I have been set upon, by those with evil intentions, who want to malign, disparage and impugn my integrity.

These detestable accusers, don’t really know me. It's been obvious to me, that the constant tormenting by these folks, is intended to provoke me and the more I ignore their attempts, the more outrageous their slurs.

I don’t condone racism, God hates it, therefore I must hate what is bad in his eyes. I don't want to see it.

AA was correct when she stated I should have read the whole article. I read the part where Ramona asked why? I answered the question. No malicious intent in my reply, no intent on my part to act dishonorably towards others.

by Resistance on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 1:19am

Yet I have been set upon, by those with evil intentions, who want to malign, disparage and impugn my integrity.

1.No one here cares enough about you to want to impugn your integrity. It's the internet. On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog

2. see above re: fi-fi's

by jollyroger on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 1:59am

That may be true that most wont find out our name ?????? . Does that mean I shouldn't strive to keep a good name?

Maybe I'm too old fashioned, when I recall a time, where a good name was a good thing and values mattered.

by Resistance on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 2:24am

It is curious that you frequently question the motives of others, but object when you are questioned. There are entire groups that you have labeled without batting an eye.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 7:08am

Question the motive? If we were discussing law and another person named Truth points out that person Wrong is giving bad advice to others. This is questioning? If Wrong continues giving bad advice, can one question motive?

by Resistance on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 9:37am

You operate under the mistaken idea that you are Truth. You have an opinion like everyone else at Dagblog.

There are those who come from traditions that instructs us to question our beliefs. There are discussions that range from if God created the universe, who created God.(the idea that God was self-creating finds support in modern physics suggest that there was always something in the universe), to is the current Christian church based upon the Judaic tradition of Jesus and the apostles or the visions of Jesus and his words given to Paul.

When someone merely offers Truth without works to back them up, they are viewed with suspicion.

I respect your right to your opinion , I reject your stance that you represent Truth.

You will not understand this but your words injure as much as you claim that words injure you.

(edited: in last paragraph "i" there incorrectly as the first word. Correct to "you".

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 3:20pm

Jolly, did you screen your old post for unforeseen danger? You wouldn't want another mishap.

by Resistance on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 2:39am

Nah-that's why they call it "ephemera" (except this ephemera never goes away, which is I suppose oxymoronic)

by jollyroger on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 2:45am

Thanks Jolly I think your post about the internet and they not knowing you're a dog, helps me refocus. Not to take things so personal. Thanks again.

by Resistance on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 3:28am

Here's the original cartoon, in case you missed it--of course, the joke is about dating sites.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/on-the-internet-nobody-knows-youre-a-dog

by jollyroger on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 4:03am

Thanks again, some of the images at the bottom are funny.

by Resistance on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 9:22am

Resistance, I know I said you would have the last word, but your comment requires some attention.

I'm going to say this kindly, because I really do think you don't understand how your words affect others. You say, "I really didn't intend to offend anyone", and at the end of your comment you say, "No malicious intent in my reply, no intent on my part to act dishonorably towards others", but then you say this:

Yet I have been set upon, by those with evil intentions, who want to malign, disparage and impugn my integrity.

These detestable accusers, don’t really know me. It's been obvious to me, that the constant tormenting by these folks, is intended to provoke me and the more I ignore their attempts, the more outrageous their slurs.

You have just insulted the very people you say you're trying not to offend. You've called people here at dag "evil" and "detestable". Nobody here has ever said anything even close to that about you.

Think about that, please, and take a breath before you answer a comment.

by Ramona on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 8:22am

I'll take your advice and Jolly's

The internet allows for others to be libelous towards others. I'll have to accept that.

As long as I post anonymously, I guess theirs no harm as Jolly suggested,, unless; I decide to tell my friends and family to check out Dagblog, and my friends see others labeling me a racist. A detestable, horrid accusation.

by Resistance on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 9:14am

Would you rather be called a racist or a so-called Christian? Assuming the former, do you recall referring to others as so-called Christians? I'm sure you've heard the verse that you should not judge others lest you be judged. A corollary of that is you can't complain about being judged after judging others or especially while judging others. (My first memory of you writing here at dagblog was to suggest that I, being an atheist, cannot have any moral values.)

by Verified Atheist on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 11:41am

He does not appear to think that his words injure others. Perhaps this ID due to his belief that he is speaking with the voice of a "true" Christian, the rest of us are heathens and our feelings don't matter.

His response to Ramona focuses only on slights that he feels

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 12:33pm

1) if you want to make the accusation I will do the best of my capabilities, to defend myself against the charges leveled at me.

You are correct, I do need to lighten up, on those who God will judge.

I get upset when some perpetuate ideas that are contrary, to what is recorded in the Bible. . My zeal for overturning tables overcomes me at times. I'll find a way to be less judgmental.

2) As to your recollection, as I recall I asked you inquisitively, how you train your conscience as an atheist, whereas Christians work to acquire a Bible based conscience. I wasonly trying to learn more about You. I thought I had already explained that (How long ago?) but evidently not good enough. It appears to be a festering wound?

I am sorry, if it came out looking like an attack instead of searching for an answer.

by Resistance on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 2:56pm

You are a fallible human being,, as we all are. Your interpretation of the Bible is your interpretation, it is not necessarily the Truth.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 3:23pm

it is not necessarily the Truth.

The thing is, how would you know? We've had that discussion already, when you questioned a particular scripture I made reference to. You said I was wrong. So I asked of you, “what do you think the right interpretation” should be, if I am wrong ? You never did answer the question, although; I asked numerous times. It became clear whatever the interpretation, you were positive, I was wrong.

1) Some folks are either not looking for the Truth Proverbs 2:4-5 so they will never find it.

2) the Truth is hidden from them Matthew 11:25

4 if you seek it like xsilver and search for it as for yhidden treasures, 5 ……….. and find the knowledge of God. Proverbs 2:4-5 TRUTH

25 ........jyou have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and krevealed them to little children; Matthew 11:25-27, Matthew 13:11

11 And he answered them, x“To you it has been given to know ythe secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. Matthew 13:11

by Resistance on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 11:10pm

To be very honest, I don't remember what you are talking about. It is possible that I gave an answer that was not acceptable to you. to be even more honest, given your views on many Biblical issues, I was pretty sure that you were wrong. Since the early days of Christianity, there have been people claiming to be true prophets with great insights I into God's will. They are all dust. I consider you a person with an opinion on Biblical issues, nothing more.

You do do cut and paste of Scripture, an act that is not impressive. You then to lose control when your views are challenged, not a sign of a person with a deep knowledge able to impart wisdom with words or example. You have fire and brimstone but very little love or empathy.

You are certain that other people will be judged, but blind to your own failings. I will treat you like a person with an opinion, nothing more. Some of us have had experiences with true Christians and find you lacking in love, kindness and empathy. We find nothing that reminds of Jesus, This is my opinion. You will view it as a smear, but I speak the truth. I compare the Christian fury of Martin Luther King, Joseph Lowery and others and find you lacking. You lack the ability to connect with people. You are unable to show the beauty of Christianity.

I will read your opinions and give responses. I will not be treating you as a prophet with an inside track to God.You can do some more out of context Scriptural cut and paste, I do not fear. Like I said, I have seen true Christians in action.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 11:16pm

I am no prophet, just a bad teacher I suppose.

As for the matter of others getting upset over my use of the term "so called" Would the term CINO (Christian In Name Only) be less offensive, yet descriptive?.

I have seen others use the term DINO or RINO and I don't hear the same uproar when those terms are used.

If DD or others point out something Robertson has said, such as God punishing Florida with Hurricanes,because they are not getting rid of the gays. or the Baptist group known for their their hateful antics at funerals, is written about, or I hear of more pedophile priests and the cover up, Or that it is found out, that the Russian Churches are behind this latest drive to ban gays? I would think the term IMPOSTERS would be a more descriptive denunciation, than CINO?

by Resistance on Thu, 01/30/2014 - 4:39am

You have called many more than the wicked imposters. Anyone who disagrees with your Biblical interpretation is an impostor. When we compare your words to Christians who have gone before and witnessed their sacrifices we don't place you in the same category. You feel persecuted when there is mere verbal disagreement. This is a farce. Martin Luther King Jr was stabbed and had his home bombed and still preached a message of love. King had empathy for the poor.

I reject your version of a Christianity because I see fire and brimstone and no love except for self. I pray for you.

Open your heart to the loving message.

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/30/2014 - 7:49am

by Resistance on Thu, 01/30/2014 - 4:22pm

Yes I am sure that God hears my prayers, as he hears yours. God loves us both.

I appears the the post I was responding to has been removed

by rmrd0000 on Thu, 01/30/2014 - 4:49pm

Its a little complex but its not all that hard to understand. Most everyone here is passionate about the issues discussed and most have made biting remarks at times. The closer the biting remark hits the more likely to get angry pushback. "Truth" if one can make a convincing case is usually a good defense i.e. the remark may be insulting but the evidence shows it mostly true.

Criticizing someone's religion is always risky since people tend to hold their religion close to their heart and since religious texts are so open to differing interpretations its virtually impossible to claim truth as a defense. One may think the offending remark true but its virtually impossible to get agreement that one has made a convincing case.

You mention Robertson. You could likely say any insulting thing, even if it was a lie, and get no pushback. In part because it wouldn't hit anyone here and, mostly, because he has said so many things that offend us left leaning bloggers. No one is likely to defend him even as a matter of principle. But say the same thing about someone here or someone respected by the left and it all changes.

If someone said, conservatives are lying ideologues, I'd disagree but I, and probably no one else here would object. People here mostly lean left.

If someone said, Christians are lying ideologues, I'd disagree but likely wouldn't object. I'm not a Christian. But there'd be pushback from some here.

If someone said, liberals are lying ideologues, well, I was there since it directly attacked me and I believed it totally false.

Each person here has their pet issues and lines in different places. If one pays attention and are here long enough one can usually guess which offensive remark will cross which person's line.

Part of the response is governed by shock. Someone might make an offensive remark that is typical for them. The pushback might be minimal since many might decide they just don't want to waste time dealing with that person once again. But Jolly made a remark that got a lot a pushback in part because it was so unlike him, so out of character. It was atypical for Jolly and therefore shocking so it got somewhat more pushback. its ironic that sometimes the worst offenders get less pushback than someone making a rare mistake.

Gender or minority attacks will most always get pushback since we're mostly liberal here equality is one of our high priority issues.

That's my take on it.

by ocean-kat on Thu, 01/30/2014 - 6:49pm

I always hoped people participated in forums like this one to hone their communication skills, not to get love or even kudos. (If not to share analysis, which I would prefer, but which I gave up on by like the second month many years ago.)

That would mean welcoming criticism and honest negative reactions, because, well, you learn from that how not to set people off, how to say things better, how to communicate better socially.

Silly of me, I learned many times over. Lots of people who blog a lot are apparently looking for dittos and love and respect (since they can't get money for their writing, those suffice I guess.) And lots of other people who comment a lot are looking to debate to the death, if not going so far as getting their jollies from getting a rise or emotional response out of people (i.e. trolling.)

by artappraiser on Thu, 01/30/2014 - 8:23pm

As I'm sure you know, there's lots of reasons people come to forums, both emotional and intellectual. I come here because no one in my circle of friends reads the news much so I have no one to talk with about it. In a way I think about it as a hobby, like botany/herbalism. I like to hang out with botanists, identify wild plants, and chat about their edible and medicinal qualities. I like to hang out with people who read the news and chat about it. The debate can strengthen my understand of an issue, I can get insights from differing angles, and I can listen in on conversations from people who have looked deeper into some issue or have specialized knowledge in some subject.

I too don't understand why some people seem to want love or kudos from complete strangers they're likely to never meet. But I don't think that's a big driver for most here. It was a major reason many came to TPM. That's one reason TPM was worse than Dag. TPM also didn't moderate negative behavior or trolling at all so it really spun out of control. Dag's main problem imo is there are just too few of us so we tend to get somewhat in bred. In its large number of diverse people TPM was better than DAG.

by ocean-kat on Fri, 01/31/2014 - 2:10am

I like to hang out with botanists, identify wild plants, and chat about their edible and medicinal qualities.

I wish there were a way you could share this knowledge. Maybe in the Creative Corner?

by Resistance on Fri, 01/31/2014 - 2:19am

I like looking at issues in different ways than typical received wisdom & PC ideas, but that's often responded to as "trolling" and find it usually results less in in-depth discussion and more in entrenched recitation of same ideas and overly personal reactions. Oh well.

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Fri, 01/31/2014 - 4:35am

I know you think that's true but others see that as a rationalization. And when you tell people they're ideas are typical and PC that's often perceived as just as insulting as you perceive your ideas being called "trolling"

Its just like resistance thinking he is unfairly targeted by the moderators while others are protected by a "mutual admiration society" with friends in high places i.e. the names at the top of the page. While the others don't think the mutual admiration society exists or don't think they are friends with anyone here let alone the names at the top.

Pilate asked, "what is truth" and much of this thread was spent arguing that very question.

by ocean-kat on Fri, 01/31/2014 - 5:16am

Well, sorry if truth hurts. To support Hillary over Obama at one point became very un-PC: she was the divider, she was a corporate shill, she was a warmonger (especially her comment re: Iran and the vote for the AUMF to pressure Iraq), and she was keeping a black man from signaling progress in America. I dealt with it as logically as I could vs. the "racist", "manipulative", "scheming" Clintons and all the class warfare and dynasty talk. I never had a problem accepting that she had ties to big money and wasn't a radical liberal, but then again I felt the same about Obama - but that part wasn't accepted.

Years later, the PC line has become "Obama's doing what he can" and most talk is to complain about how obstructionist Republicans/conservatives are (they are of course, and have steadily gotten worse, but that could be seen coming at least since 2000, and is partly to do with how we confront it).

Additionally, it's become very PC to be security grownups, pragmatic about everything from Afghanistan to Gitmo to a massive government organized dragnet of personal information, similar to the PC pragmatism re: the bailout and the mortgage fraud and LIBOR rate and related scandals. You might tie this PC attitude to Rahm's insistence "the perfect is the enemy of good" which has become the unofficial motto of the Obama years.

Note that this type of "PC" is the Washington insider view, that the public just wants politicians to get along, not fight, even if fighting might produce better policy. It's the PC that makes #OccupyWallStreet a bunch of Dirty Fucking Hippies who never had a point, the conventional wisdom that a jobs program would never make it through Congress, that ACA can get fixed later, and to push for improvements now is just whining, dangerous in the face of TeaBaggers, unrealistic - the left that can never be satisfied.

Then there are the PC positions re: what can or can't be said re: racism, LGBT, immigration, offshoring/China, MSNBC hosts, the military, white people, religion, differences between the sexes, et al.

The joke all along about being PC was that PC folks were supposed to be free-styling philosophically open folks who wanted dialog and inclusiveness, who instead ended up becoming very limited by a kind of strict philosophical/political cant that could be inscribed in a Mao's-red-book-like scripture.

The only difference I see is that PC has grown up a little bit from its origins, perhaps split a bit on certain issues while "evolved" on others, but hasn't gotten a lot more open to debate overall. Just my 2 cents.

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Fri, 01/31/2014 - 7:14am

Criticism about something not being PC is often used to point out a crazy idea. It is not PC to consider having children work as janitors to pay for their free lunches. The argument against the janitorial work includes the fact that it creates an obvious. Source of embarrassment and taunting target for a subset of children

The indicted Dinesh D'souza can write about urine filled streets in urban areas in "The End Of Racism"'and Ted Nugent can rant about Blacks needing to clean up the criminal cesspool where they live. Both statements are not PC. Both statements divert attention from where and why crime problems exist in Black Anerica. In Chicago, a city with a high homicide rate, most citizens don't realize that there is a crime problem. The Chicago neighborhood where Barack Obama and other Chicago Blacks resided was not a homicide haven, A mile, away, Hidiya Pendleton's neighborhood did have a high homicide rate.

The non-PC rants offered no solutions. It did allow some bigots to spout off.. Pointing that something is not PC does not mean the the criticism that follows is unwarranted.

by rmrd0000 on Fri, 01/31/2014 - 8:47am

What's the cause & solution to the high homicide rate (IYHO)?

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Fri, 01/31/2014 - 11:35am

The homicide rate in Chicago dropped dramatically in 2013 to reach the same level as 1975. Police targeted the major culprits of the violence, violent street gangs. There were also programs targeting at risk youth including summer jobs programs.

Improving education and job opportunities should also help. Decrease crime.

by rmrd0000 on Fri, 01/31/2014 - 12:49pm

Pilate's cynical "What is truth"

Truth: People only hear, what they want to hear

What's with the dragging me back into a fight, with some in management?

I don't know anyone, unless they're a newbie; who doesn't understand who not to get angry.

The moderators are the best? The moderators are the best? Loop

by Resistance on Fri, 01/31/2014 - 9:00am

by Resistance on Fri, 01/31/2014 - 6:39am

I've read the responses to your comment and thought about what Dagblog is, isn't or should be. I think the fact that we're talking about this at all shows how unique Dag is. It's hard to define because, as you've said, it's different things to different people.

Some see it as a comfortable gathering place and some see it as a space to argue points with more freedom than they might get at other places. It's both of those things and I think that's what keeps people here. But it's a format that doesn't necessarily draw new people.

It may not be a good fit for everybody, and it could be that it has become so cozy people coming in from somewhere else see an inner circle they don't think they can penetrate and don't hang around. (Or it could be we're really just boring; who knows?)

Whatever the reasons, we're small enough where nobody gets lost in the crowd. Everybody can have a say.

The news feature gives non-bloggers a voice and a chance to push a point without having to own it.

Creative Corner gives people a chance to show their interests and their skills without having to defend them.

The eggheads can write about their own interests and be assured that at least some of us will know what they're talking about.

Anybody can write about anything, whether it's cerebral or esoteric or funky or against-the-grain, and it all fits here.

I wouldn't want that to change.

by Ramona on Fri, 01/31/2014 - 8:50am

My little comment wasn't meant to be a comprehensive analysis of DAG. Just a response to some of AA's thoughts. I agree with everything you posted. Also one of the best things about the people here imo is that they are willing to post long paragraphs fully detailing their thoughts. On many other sites the comments are like a list of superficial one sentence tweets. Rarely a substantial response.

by ocean-kat on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 5:17pm

how you train your conscience as an atheist,

At the risk of provoking yet an entirely new hijack, let me put this to you:

Even chimps (who have already made their appearance on this thead) understand the golden rule, without benefit of any contact with the gospels.

Viz, they bristle at unfairness. In truth,you need no further moral compass than the intuition that conduct which, if directed at yourself, would give rise to a sense of unfairness, let alone injury,, ought not be perpetrated on another.

by jollyroger on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 3:46pm

Oh, and also, no shellfish, let's not forget that...

by jollyroger on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 3:49pm

It's not eating the bacon that's the real hard one when you're trying to form young consciences, I would think. Overall, we can feel confident about the OT as a blueprint; it also has things like great guidelines for how one should treat one's slaves should such guidelines become widely necessary again.

by artappraiser on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 4:09pm

And when it comes to generating respect from one's kids, I'm certain that the surviving siblings straighten right the fuck out after they've seen how talking back gets you stoned (and not in the good Rainy Day Women way...)

Edit to add: I have much the same response to dietary rules as I do to my gay brothers' disinclination to fuck women. More lobster for Rogie; More pu...um, never mind.

by jollyroger on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 4:36pm

And how to deal with one's girlfriend during "that time". Really, chock full of Hints from Heloise, it's the guide that keeps on giving - stoning, sodomy, sleeping with 2 daughters at once - amazing that other parts of the world developed without it.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 7:07pm

Reasoning backward from the proposition that laws are generated in response to perceived problems requiring state intervention, one is ineluctably drawn to conclude that there was a veritable epidemic of daghter-in-law defiling and offspring rebelling in Canaan

by jollyroger on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 8:18pm

personally, Deuteronomy 23 is one of my favs, lots of good tips on "morals to live by" there.

by artappraiser on Thu, 01/30/2014 - 11:04am

If one of you becomes unclean because of a nocturnal emission, then he shall go outside the camp; he must not come within the camp.

Don't fart in the elevator, don't piss in the tent, and don't come in the camp--makes sense.

by jollyroger on Thu, 01/30/2014 - 12:35pm

on loans to another Israelite you may not charge interest,

Someone, quick, bring this to the attention of Goldman, Sachs.

by jollyroger on Thu, 01/30/2014 - 12:39pm

Wouldn't that be nice, I would immediately change my name to Goldman. But what if they ask to see my ....credentials?

by Resistance on Thu, 01/30/2014 - 1:14pm

Wow, Deut 23 - the assembly of the Lord is rough on genital mutilation. Worse on those who didn't help on the way out of Egypt. Had never seen the loan preferences for Jews over others before - banking 101 I guess. Happier to be an atheist - my book's quite short.

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Fri, 01/31/2014 - 11:32am

All these things you speak of; all the tribes were experiencing

Stoning, sodomy.... In Egypt, they had a law against adultery, so they found a way around that law; just eliminate the husband and take the widowed wife to bed. No adultery.

by Resistance on Thu, 01/30/2014 - 11:37am

Wasn't that an interesting observation about the C...Ps?

I would only add

14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, xby nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is ywritten on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 zon that day when,aaccording to my gospel, God judges bthe secrets of men cby Christ Jesus.

Romans 2:14-24

by Resistance on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 10:45pm

The response indicates that only personal injury is noted. There is no acknowledgment of statements directed at others.

by rmrd0000 on Wed, 01/29/2014 - 9:51am

Last night as part of a synagogue program we had a group of congregants over to our apartment and it was lovely. Abby started making fun of me as she loves to do about my blogging fetish, and all had a good chuckle. On the other hand, they couldn't understand how progressives would be debating the propriety of calling an African American a mongrel. It's 2014, and all around the table agreed that it was absolutely indefensible. Most were baffled and couldn't even believe me. It was perhaps a reality check.

Then I told them about the consensus that seemed to have coalesced about the frivolity of the Jewish Bible, referred to herein as the Old Testament, and presumably in response to Resistance and his strict interpretation of both Old and New Testaments. We had an interesting discussion, particularly because one couple was going through a conversion program and have been addressing this issue on a regular basis.

Most of these folks are more observant than Abby and me. None of them practices Judaism based on the literal construction of the Bible. None of them lends money without interest to Jews, but not to non-Jews, and none of them--at least admittedly--ever stoned their kids.

To my knowledge, both Jews and non-Jews at Goldman Sachs follow the same practices. To my belief a political or philosophical discussion about the Jewish Bible is diminished when reference to a Jewish sounding financial institution somehow becomes incorporated in the discussion.

There is a rabbinic interpretive tradition in Judaism, also with cockamamie edicts, that has evolved since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70. Lots has happened since then,

This is a comment made in good faith and I hope it is taken as such. I don't understand.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 5:05pm

I'm quite ignorant of Judaism, but I heard that the Talmud was more important then the Old Testament.

by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 5:08pm

I don't think there's really a debate about calling an African American a mongrel. I think there's overwhelming agreement here that its reprehensible. There's a couple of outliers here that always seem to want to debate these points. I've posted my guess as to why that is, I'm not going to get into that again.

Its not like liberals are jumping up to slam the old testament, Christians and Jews with some archaic texts out of anti religious bias or antisemitism. It doesn't occur in a vacuum. When the fundamentalist Christians (maybe ultra conservative Jews as well?) use these archaic texts to attack gay rights or on other issues liberals respond with other archaic texts, like stoning kids or adulterers. In essence saying, "If you believe the bible is the inerrant word of god when it comes to gay marriage why aren't you stoning adulterers?" If fundamentalists would stop bringing up their 4,000 year old text to advocate regressive social policy liberals would stop bringing up other 4,000 year old texts.

I think we both agree that lots has happened since then and, I'm guessing, agree on most social policy issues.

by ocean-kat on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 5:09pm

My rabbi cannot wait to marry his first gay couple at the synagogue. Thank you OK. Had you not spoken up last week it would have been pushed under the rug or shrugged off as another rant by me. The thing is, I happen to know that I am not crazy! I am grateful fwiw.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 5:19pm

I don't understand it, either, Bruce. The "mongrel" comment was meant to be derogatory and there is no defense for it, but that has never stopped the people who have no respect for this particular president. They'll grab whatever's handy and run with it.

The Old Testament is another matter. I was baptized, confirmed and married in the Lutheran Church. In order to be confirmed, we had to memorize and at least pretend to understand our Catechism. I've never been good at memorizing and I never understood what I was memorizing but somehow I managed to be confirmed when I was 16. At the time that accomplishment, even though barely earned, was important to me.

When we were to be married, I insisted it had to be in a Lutheran church. Two of my children were baptized Lutheran. By the time our third came along it didn't seem as crucial and she never was baptized..

I don't have a feel for religion anymore, but I have a history with it and still harbor a kind of fond familiarity with certain aspects of it. I don't want to see religion used as a vehicle for hate, so when I see the worst parts of the Old Testament used as justification for every kind of abuse, I have no problem with throwing passages from, say, Leviticus, back at the haters.

I honestly have to stay away from those religious arguments, where hate and punishment is glorified. I just want to smack 'em, which goes to show, not much of my early training took.

While there are passages in the Old Testament that are inspiring and beautiful, there are as many that are stunning in their cruelty and stupidity. Much of it makes no sense to me, and I've come to look on the Bible as a book of brilliant but flawed fiction. I don't see it as sacred--I don't think I ever did--but there is no denying that its influence is powerful and far-reaching. I used to find comfort in that; now it just scares me.

by Ramona on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 5:13pm

Rmrd said that Christians don't have to accept everything in the New Testament. That just doesn't seem logical to me. If the New Testament isn't binding on Christians, what is? If parts of the book aren't the authentic word of God, why should we believe that any of it is?

by Aaron Carine on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 5:31pm

As I recall you were saying that the Bible was pro-Slavery and had a Super-Duper Compendium that "everyone" agreed was the gold standard. I pointed out that African-American scholars like Benjamin Mays had addressed the issue. Mays did it in a book in the mid 1930s. Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey and John Brown were Christians who found a message that slavery was an abomination in the Bible. You seem unhappy.

by rmrd0000 on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 5:49pm

I don't think that Turner, Vesey, and Brown were correct, since the Pauline letters explicitly condone slavery(and if Paul had a problem with slavery, he would have said so in the Letter to Philemon, which is mostly about Philemon's slave). People have different interpretations of the Bible, but some things in it are pretty definite. When it says that drunkenness and fornication are sinful, we can't interpret that to mean that they aren't sinful. Same with the endorsement of slavery, I think. Actually, I feel reasonably happy right now, but I appreciate your concern.

by Aaron Carine on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 6:29pm

You conveniently overlook Paul's advice to seek escape from slavery in 1 Corinthians

21Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. 23Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. 24Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

Vesey, Turner and Brown were correct. You are wrong.

by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 10:04pm

It should be noted that there is a question whether the original text labeled Onesimus a slave. The case against Onesimus being a slave was argued by Allen Dwight Callahan in the Harvard Theological Review.

Callahan expanded his view in a book, "The Embassy of Onesimus"

by rmrd0000 on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 11:24pm

Dude, telling slaves to seek their freedom(I don't think he was urging them to rebel) isn't the same as telling people they have no right to own slaves. He told slaves to be loyal to their masters. Vesey, Turner, and Brown didn't say that. If Onesimus was a slave(rmrd says some people don't think he was, although it seemed clear to me, at least), then if Paul opposed slavery, he would have said so to Philemon.

by Aaron Carine on Sun, 02/02/2014 - 7:40am

Dude, you are wrong

Denmark Vesey, for example, formed a Methodist church that served as the focus for his thoughts on the Biblical view of slavery, from his Wiki page

He urged his congregation to break free from slavery, and he quoted verses from the Bible to give them encouragement

Vesey had a Biblical basis for his rebellion,

by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Sun, 02/02/2014 - 7:56am

I understand that you can't see a liberating message in the Bible. The fact is that others did. Given a choice between the liberating message heard by Denmark Vesey, Nat Turner, John Brown, Gabriel Prosser, David Williams and others as opposed to the slavery message heard by Aaron Carine, I obviously go with the freedom message.

Regarding Philemon, I find the arguments of Allan Dwight Callahan compelling. The idea that Philemon was a slave may be in error. If this is true, the Philemon pro-slavery argument withers away, I think that questioning beliefs are a strong part of Christianity.

Martin Luther King Jr found a liberating message in the Bible and said that Christians could support the oppressive practice of Jim Crow. Again given the choice between the message heard by MLK and the one heard by Aaron Carine, it is easy to choose MLK.

Here is an article from the PBS series "Slavery in America" noting the role Christianity played in many slave rebellions. The slaves were hearing a different message than the one you received.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/02/2014 - 8:26am

Well, I think I can stand on what I said. The Pauline letters explicitly condone slavery.

by Aaron Carine on Sun, 02/02/2014 - 10:20am

Dude I provided names of a number of slave revolt leaders who used the Bible as validation of their anti-slavery message. Several were Church leaders. I noted passages that instruct slaves to flee if possible. I also noted the clear instruction not to be slaves of men. I noted the question of whether Onesimus was actually a slave.

I would point out that there were abolitionists who used Philemon to argue that slavery was not a Christian position, but we would still be left with your unchanged opinion. You have concrete thought on this issue. It is of little concern since important figures read something else in the passages.

Perhaps you could provide links to those individuals who support your pro-slavery view of the Bible. I will counter with other scholars.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/02/2014 - 2:37pm

Well, I think I can stand on what I said.

Sounds like what a lazy reporter would say after the published story is found to be full of crap.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/02/2014 - 11:39pm

Crickets in response

Appears that you have a relatively isolated opinion given modern Christian thought. You might try reading some more modern interpretations of the Bible. You will find that there is disagreement on the reasons for the destruction of Sodom.

Understanding of the Bible changes. It used to be taught that God had cursed Blacks and said that they would be permanent slaves to Whites. Turns out that a drunk guy embarrassed that his son had seen him naked and drunk uttered that nonsense. The Curse of Ham was non-existent. You might still mistakenly be considering that a Pro-slavery episode.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/02/2014 - 11:49pm

Paul's Plea for Onesimus

10 I appeal to you for pmy child, qOnesimus,1 rwhose father I became in my imprisonment. 11 (Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.) 12 I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. 13 I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me son your behalf tduring my imprisonment for the gospel, 14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be uby compulsion but of your own accord. 15 For this perhaps is why vhe was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, 16 wno longer as a bondservant2 but more than a bondservant, as xa beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, yboth in the flesh and in the Lord.

Philemon 1:8-16

Footnotes

[1] 1:10 Onesimus means useful (see verse 11) or beneficial (see verse 20)
[2] 1:16 Or slave; twice in this verse (for the contextual rendering of the Greek word doulos, see Preface

by Resistance on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 11:06pm

If you would like a response to the highlighted "not to be servants of men". I'll be glad to show you the Real context.

Paul would never have told Christians, to rebel against Caesar and help in a revolt of the slaves. Which would have given more reason, for the Romans to charge the Christians with sedition.

by Resistance on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 11:59pm

Here is an article about forms of slave resistance in Ancient Rome.

by rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/02/2014 - 12:23am

I don't know the answers. As I said, I've never considered the bible sacred. My understanding is that fundamentalists believe that every word of the bible is true. I don't remember being taught that in my church.

There is or was a branch of Lutheranism that is more fundamental--the Apostolic branch--and I went for a short while to one of those churches. Scared the hell out of me. We girls weren't supposed to cut our hair, wear makeup, dance, or have fun after church--which meant we couldn't go to the movies on Sundays, which of course we did every Sunday.

Before we could leave we were made to promise that we wouldn't.go to the movies What an odd thing, huh? So it could be that they believed in truth in every word of the bible but the minister was so creepy none of us listened to him, anyway. He could have told us anything.

by Ramona on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 5:57pm

If the New Testament isn't binding on Christians, what is?

Nothing, to those who want their ears tickled. They would rewrite the Book if they could.

by Resistance on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 9:08pm

My point on the OT is that is only the beginning of Jewish practice and standing alone it is rather alienating I think -- and for the reasons you convey. But Judaism is more than the Bible, and that was my more benign point.

I think the injection of a Goldman Sachs into the discussion renders it something else beyond the alienating nature of these ancient edicts.

Thank you for your courteous response. It is not my intention to seek to blow this up.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 5:39pm

Bruce,let me begin by expressing my astonishment at the final sentence of your post--Anyone who thinks that any of your postings is in anything other than good faith is an asshole. We have our share of trolls here at the dag, but you are not one of them.

That, said, (and also in good faith), since you have raised the topic of rabbinical mandates, can you illuminate for me the Haredi practice among women to cover with a shawl the wig which covers their shaved head? This would seem to completely turn the parallel semitic practice in fulfillment of which Moslem women reserve for their spouses or close male relatives the sight of their hair.

Not incidentally, now that I know of the social events following the Shabat Ma'ariv at your local temple, I could find myself subscribing. I happen to be informed that there is at least one cute blond in attendance, and I might even have seen her at the intersection of Vanderbilt and Atlantic training for the marathon.

Jus' sayin'.

by jollyroger on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 5:18pm

I ,don't speak for or condone the Haredim. My wife doesn't shave her head, she works as a lawyer and you can even shake her hand.

I love you JR and you are always welcome in my home and in my shul. But I don't think you should incorporate Goldman Sachs into a discussion about the Jewish Bible.

And speaking of stoning I bet I could beat you still in a bong hit contest.

Thanks JR but seriously there's enough nonsense and I think we should debate, have fun, and be a tad more sensitive to one another.

P.S. You sneak.. I didn't realize that the blond you referred to was my daughter.! She's in Florida now, sorry to say. But I know some nice prospects. Talk to me.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 02/01/2014 - 5:44pm

In the News

Russia plays weak hand in Palestine
Russia plays weak hand in Palestine

submitted by PeraclesPlease 9 months ago

The intra-Palestinian meeting in Moscow has precedent

Russia's hosted such meetings in the past, most recently Feb 2019

Russia has long lamented the US' "monopolization" of the peace process & tried to carve out a niche for itself: mediating among the disunited Palestinians/2
— Hanna Notte (@HannaNotte) February 29, 2024

Read the article at https://twitter.com/HannaNotte/status/1763116222256701787

Add new comment
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters

submitted by HSG 10 months ago

Here's what I told them: https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

Read the article at https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

2 comments

Add new comment
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes...
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force https://t.co/pCoDg05irX
— Gareth Harris (@garethharr) December 28, 2023

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/28/brazil-law-indigenous-land-rights-claim-time-marker?CMP=share_btn_tw

1 comment

Add new comment
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (...
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (December 25, 2023)

submitted by artappraiser 12 months ago

Location: U.S. Embassy and residential compounds

Events: Heavy gunfire is occuring around the area of the U.S. Embassy and residential compounds adjacent to the Trutier area of Tabarre. All Embassy personnel have been instructed to remain indoors and shelter-in-place until further notice. All others should avoid the area.

Actions to take:

Avoid the area;

Avoid demonstrations and any large gatherings of people;

Do not attempt to drive through roadblocks; and

If you encounter a roadblock, turn around and get to a safe area.

Read the article at https://ht.usembassy.gov/security-alert-u-s-embassy-port-au-prince-haiti-december-25-2023/

3 comments

Add new comment
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

By The Editorial Board @ Bloomberg.com, December 8, 2023

A mass expulsion of Afghan migrants could destabilize the region and fuel radicalization. The West should pressure Islamabad to change course.

Read the article at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-12-08/pakistan-s-expulsion-of-afghan-refugees-risks-another-crisis

6 comments

Add new comment
Internet shut down in Chad
Internet shut down in Chad

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

All eyes on #Chad right now
Chad has two internet trunks coming into the country: One from the Red Sea via Sudan; the other from Cameroon. Not possible for the totality of the country's internet network to be shut unless done centrally. A lot of rumors swirling; few facts. https://t.co/N6bDJZ2ixO

Read the article at https://x.com/_hudsonc/status/1732891968709992511?s=20

2 comments

Add new comment
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short

submitted by PeraclesPlease 1 year ago

Read the article at

3 comments

Add new comment
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across...
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

BREAKING: Three loss prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed, one of them has died from stab wounds, @PhillyPolice sources tell me. Police converged on the store as the three workers were rushed to Jefferson Hospital. pic.twitter.com/4U1eKycL4W

Read the article at https://x.com/KeeleyFox29/status/1731713272942940365?s=20

38 comments

Add new comment
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As...
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

Former US Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba https://t.co/LDwo4ZJI1K
— HuffPost (@HuffPost) December 4, 2023

Read the article at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manuel-rocha-ambassador-arrested-cuba_n_656d1e2ae4b028b0f3d07478

Add new comment
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

[Chapter I news is HERE, Oct. 7 til today]

You don’t get it.
It’s not about an UNRWA teacher who held an Israeli kid hostage in his house.
It’s all about how for 75 years you have destroyed the future of generations of Palestinians, including my family.
My cousins in Arab countries are still not citizens - not even the… https://t.co/nv6anubGhc
— George Deek (@GeorgeDeek) December 2, 2023

Note 'Community Notes' attached to UNWRA's statement.

Read the article at https://x.com/GeorgeDeek/status/1731020551328579863?s=20

58 comments

Add new comment
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From...
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From a Neighbor

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

Imperialism for me but not for thee?

It's wild that Venezuela is now holding a vote on whether 2/3 of Guyana actually belongs to them! Analysts suggest that Modoru may want military action to pump up his sinking popularity.

Could we have a war in South America?!?

"The people who live in Essequibo are largely… pic.twitter.com/QvMEjkkgwy

Read the article at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/world/americas/maduro-vote-essequibo-guyana.html

6 comments

Add new comment
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House...
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House Republicans powerless

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

The lack of a cohesive delegation has allowed attention-seeking lawmakers to act on their own.

McCarthy: “You have [Rep. Matt] Gaetz, who belongs in jail…”

Gaetz: “Tough words from a guy who sucker punches people in the back. The only assault I committed was against Kevin’s fragile ego.”https://t.co/LctPuz6Pcf

Read the article at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/29/divisions-leave-floridas-house-republicans-powerless-00129200

10 comments

Add new comment
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-...
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-Pelosi clashes

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

By Martinn Pengelly in Washington DC for TheGuardian.com, Nov. 30

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells Ryan Grim life in Congress ‘completely transformed’ after Democratic leader stepped down

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/30/squad-book-aoc-nancy-pelosi?CMP=share_btn_tw

15 comments

Add new comment
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

@ Reuters, Nov. 29

Read the article at https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-health-insurers-humana-cigna-talks-merge-wsj-2023-11-29/

3 comments

Add new comment
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-...
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-proofing

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

"Both the AU and the intl community place more weight on whether elections are held than whether they are free and fair. Sanctions/expulsions occur when there is a coup but not necessarily when elections are rigged or if an “institutional coup” occurs." https://t.co/m9dNimJP0D
— Cameron Hudson (@_hudsonc) November 28, 2023

Read the article at https://africanarguments.org/2023/11/central-africas-dinosaur-regimes-and-the-art-of-coup-proofing/

Add new comment

From the Readers

Creative corner

From the Dagbloggers

Hits of the Day