Home / Culture and Society / What Argument Will Commenters Offer Now?

What Argument Will Commenters Offer Now?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I have been accused of racism several times at Blogcritics because I chose to oppose policies of President Barack Hussein “kill list” Obama. Typically, when commenters could offer no logical argument, they reverted to calling the opposer a racist. Well, today even that charge has been taken from them. To what will commenters now resort?

A group of African American pastors, the Coalition of African-Americans Pastors, led by its founder, Rev. Williams Owens, announced that it will initiate a campaign to convince African Americans to reconsider their support of Obama, especially after he has attacked American families. This is a campaign by a group of conservative black pastors responding to Obama’s evolution on the subject, to his support of same-sex marriage.

Said Owens: “The time has come for a broad-based assault against the powers that be that want to change our culture to one of men marrying men and women marrying women. I am ashamed that the first black president chose this road, a disgraceful road.”

I guess Owens forgot that Toni Morrison and the MSM anointed Bill Clinton as this country’s first black president. But Toni Morrison now says that she was referring to Clinton’s adulterous behavior. Does that mean Morrison is defending adultery? Is she equating adultery with blacks?

Owens said that was upset that the NAACP claimed the gay rights moment was similar to the civil rights movement.

What I find quite funny is the verbiage posted by Jeff Dunetz: “… his [Owens’] attacks on this President are obviously racially motivated ….” “True the Reverend is also a person of color, but I am sure Cookie Roberts would say that George W. Bush did a Vulcan mind meld on the poor pastor and made him act racist.”

As is typical, Dunetz spouts his opinions, yet offers not one word of substantiation for what he says. He offers absolutely nothing to support his statement that the Owens’ attack (as he calls it) is racially motivated. But you can tell that his opinion must be taken seriously since he refers to a “Vulcan mind meld.”

Ironically, it has been fellow Mississippian Glenn Contrarian who has accused me the most of being a racist. Glenn, do you agree with Jeff Dunetz? Is Rev. Owens a racist as well?

And in his Blogcritics profile, as written by him, Glenn says that he is a “Strong Christian.” Glenn, does a Strong Christian believe that the Bible, the entire Bible, is the sacred word of God? Or is it just a book that you can cherry-pick through to support your current beliefs?

On both topics, racism as well as same-sex marriage, I anxiously await your comments, as well as comments by others.

BTW, just for reference, 1 Timothy, chapter 1, verses 9 through 11 says:

9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers – and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Also, for all you who are calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Aurora, CO, shootings, notice how verse 9 begins: “… the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers ….” That statement is true whether you believe in the Bible or not. Just remember, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them.”

But I have faith. Liberal commenters, never ones to be shy with their opinions, will come up with something.

But that’s just my opinion – worth exactly what yours is worth.

Powered by


  • then I have go in for an artificle left elbow.

    Alas, Jet – the last of the original parts you started out with.

    Are we going to have to start calling you by a different name soon?

  • well for another couple of weeks anyway, then I have go in for an artificle left elbow.


  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jet –

    Good to see you’re still in the fight!

  • Well it’s nice to see that all of you have continued putting this jackass in his place while I was in the hospital!

    Noting his absence in the comments section, even he can’t defend this drivle…

    Heeeeeeeeee’s baaaaaaaaack!

  • Zingzing

    The first one is just the fantasy/romantic element, and that’s cool with me. The second one is right at the start of the movie (as it unfolds in the plot’s real time) and you don’t know what unfolded before that, so that’s forgivable. And of course they’d be on the other side of the fire swamp waiting to see if they emerged, as you knew they would. They had to be there.

    I see no problem (story-telling-wise) as far as those go. But andre suddenly becoming the most informed man in the land, even though I guess he was on the brute squad (“you are the brute squad”), that’s a big hole. Why would anyone tell him about the six fingered man and his relationship with the most awesome character in history?

  • And other than Andre (can’t remember his name in the movie) telling the spaniard about his father’s killer (how’d he know that?), what other plot holes?

    There’s that, and Inigo hearing Westley’s screams and immediately knowing not only that it’s the Man in Black but that he is Buttercup’s true love. There’s the question of how the Man in Black knows Vizzini and his gang have kidnapped Buttercup and where they are going. There’s also Humperdinck and his men lying in wait for Westley and Buttercup when they emerge from the fire swamp, even though he’s written them off because nobody comes out alive.

    I’m always in a forgiving mood with The Princess Bride, and choose to interpret the holes as the grandfather leaving bits of the story out as he reads to his grandson, similar to what happens in Goldman’s original novel.

  • Les Slater


    It took me a while to figure it out. Only partly figured out but have decided to buy the blu-ray version of ‘The Princess Bride’.


  • Clav

    Comments 10 to 17 prove to me once again that I live on a different planet than you folks; I have no idea what you’re talking about — none.

  • Zingzing

    I had no idea he was the guy in dog day afternoon… Guess he didn’t get type-cast.

    I like buttercup, even if she is rather simple. It’s a fairy tale. And she has perfect breasts, allegedly. And other than Andre (can’t remember his name in the movie) telling the spaniard about his father’s killer (how’d he know that?), what other plot holes? That’s the only one that stuck out to me anyway. It had been many years since I’d seen it last and I’ll admit I was in a “forgiving mood” while watching it last week, but I thought the plot was pretty tight other than that one thing…

  • How sexy did she find Sarandon’s performance as Pacino’s “wife” in Dog Day Afternoon?

  • The guy who played humperdink

    Chris Sarandon. I was once reliably informed by an authority of the feminine persuasion that his performance as the vampire in the original Fright Night was more or less the sexiest thing ever, and makes the poseurs in True Blood and Twilight look like Denzil the Trainspotter. Not that such an erotic tour de force was Sarandon’s intention in The Princess Bride, I’m sure.

    It’s a classic because so much of it just clicks, even though Robin Wright’s insipid heroine Buttercup is terrible and there are holes in the plot you could sail the USS Ronald Reagan through.

    Reiner certainly was on a roll back then. I think Spinal Tap, Stand By Me (another one on my all-time top 10 list), The Princess Bride and When Harry Met Sally all came out in the same 3-4 year period.

  • Zingzing

    The history of the dread pirate… “good work today, I’ll most likely kill you in the morning.” “welcome to the pit of despair *cough cough*.” Christopher guests’ interrogation of his torture victim, “and remember, this is for posterity.”

    The guy who played humperdink gave a long speech at the screening I saw, detailing his daughters’ fascination with Andre the giant (or his character) and their terror once actually meeting him. Funny and kind of sad at the same time.

  • Zingzing

    There are so many smart bits in it. The game of wits at the beginning, Billy crystal’s bit, the spaniard’s hair-raising “my name is…” repetition, the “to the pain” speech… It was great as a kid, but as an adult, it’s sublime. Certainly a classic. Reiner was on a role back then.

  • I’m watching it on DVD right now. My favourite movie of all time. I well remember seeing it on the big screen when it first came out: I’d never seen an audience enjoy a film so much, even Star Wars. I think everyone realized they were seeing a classic.

    Must go. Inigo is about to finish off Count Rugen.

  • Zingzing

    I just saw that movie last week. They showed it in a park in Brooklyn, and when cook came on screen everybody clapped and then this huge chorus of “mawwaige” was echoing off the apartments around the park. Glorious.

  • Mawwiage.

    Mawwiage is what bwings us togevver today. Mawwiage: that bwessed awwangement; that dweam wivvin a dweam.

  • Igor

    @7-John: the word ‘marriage’ is a legal term (bequeathed on couples to afford them certain legal preferences and perquisites) NOT a religious term (not exclusively, anyway). Therefore secular.

    The religionists gave the word away when they used their political influence to get special treatment for their membership. The only way to reserve ‘marriage’ for their followers would be unconstitutional.

    It was the inevitable “unintended consequence” of their grabbiness.

  • As those who know of my position on religion, I rarely find it worth the effort to quote the bible, but here goes:

    1st Timothy Ch1 Vs10

    “For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for manstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine:”

    This is from the King James version. “For them that defile themselves with mankind” I suppose could be taken to mean homosexual behavior, but of course the newer versions take licnse to be specific in its description. Could it not also refer to masturbation and other nasty, filthy disgusting acts?

    Talk about cherry picking. That is the stuff and substance of most “true believers.” There is much in the bible that is inconsistent and highly contradictory, yet bible waving evangelicals, and apparently good old Warren, choose to ignore those things. Is the supposed “inerrancy” not quite so inerrant as they would have us believe?

  • John Lake

    In explaining his choice to support gay marriage, Obama referred to the evolution of culture. Here in the 21st century, most people choose to bond with folks of either sex. For women, this is a necessity; for men, it is an option.
    If we are a free country, then we must recognize people’s rights to do extreme things, and to hold extreme views. As the Libertarians might say, “So long as they don’t damage me .” Or society. You know.
    As a representative of the people Obama had to assure equal rights for those with diverse views.
    Myself, I might have argued with the use of the word “marriage”. Is the word “marriage” a religious term, or a secular term?
    In any case, our liberal/centrist president went the full 10 yards, and chose to support gay unions. Had he opposed them, what would critics have had to say?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    AFAIK Warren didn’t say he was from MS, but he certainly spent a lot of time in the MS Delta – he seems to know it as well as I do.

    That said, of course there’s a lack of critical thinking classes in MS. I point to myself as an example, and how – even though I thought myself reasonably intelligent and educated – I was schooled by others on this site (esp. Clavos) on logical fallacies and some finer points of the use of the English language, and several of the BC regulars (including yourself) gave me some idea of how much I still don’t know.

  • “What Argument Will Commenters Offer Now?”

    About what?

    I have a lot of arguments, none of them fit for this joke of an article, which raises only the question: what the flying fuck is Warren banging on about?

    Warren’s a Mississippian, right? Then perhaps at this point I should mention that out of a desire to be of some assistance in the honing of his rational faculties, I visited the websites of numerous Mississippi junior and community colleges, and must confess that I was not entirely surprised to find that not a single one of them appears to offer a critical thinking class.

  • Zingzing

    I don’t know who this Jeff dunetz is or why his opinion matters (even Warren suggests it doesn’t), or what Owens said that was racist (bigoted, yes, but not racist), or how that gets Warren off on racism charges… Really, I had to go back and forth through the pages a few times looking for connections between these things and I still can’t quite figure out what warren’s trying to say…

    “Or is it just a book that you can cherry-pick through to support your current beliefs?”

    Heh. Of course it is. I can’t think of a single person on this earth that can truly say they believe and follow all it says. Such a person would be incredibly indecisive, probably bipolar, and more than a little confused.

    And the bit about gun laws that’s tacked on at the end… It seems to contradict what he’s trying to say… Seems to me, gun laws written with lawbreakers in mind certainly wouldn’t make it unreasonably easy for them to get guns…

  • Warren has repeatedly shown his poor grasp of logic and reason and his opening paragraph is yet further evidence of that.

    That some black religious people, about whom I know only that they are as uniformed as any other faithists all around the world, are opposing President Obama in no way gets the author off the hook with regard to allegations of racism.

    That is not to say that Warren is or isn’t a racist, just that his powers of thinking are clearly pretty weak…

    I am a little surprised that such a poorly constructed article has been published, particularly as the editor in question is often as hard as nails!

  • Deano

    I’m curious to know why the BC editors bothered to let this one through? Articles are supposed to actually be *about* something, not just disjointed meanderings, self-justifications and call-outs of other commenters….

  • Baronius

    Terrible article. Just terrible.