Oh come on. Is that your argument? Really? They did SOME of the labor mostly in the cotton fields. They had little to nothing to do with taming the west. And according to liberal yankees, they weren't enslaved up there so they weren't being forced to work there. Please, while slavery was a dark time for our country, don't even try to convince a thinking person that this country thrived because of it. I would argue, it thrived despite it. All the other slave countries are still third world crapholes. Would you like to know why? They're not being run by the white man. Your welcome.
I can assure you that there wasn't much laziness at the time.
Good thing is, democrat voters are making up for the laziness with their govt freebies.
Really? You wanna go 'there'?
When Union troops rode into southern towns following lincoln's emancipation, their officers were telegraphing DC, reporting that "emancipated blacks were just hanging about, doing nothing, badgering union troops with, 'Who goin' feeds me now? Massa lincoln goin' feeds me?'"
Sure sounds the "builders of the country" to me. Yeah right.
Hmmm. my ancestors never owned slaves...
93% of confederate soldiers did not own slaves.slaves were in the north too .lincoln was a racist tyrant.my dog knows more about u.s. history than you
Oh, please. Wheel barrows are considered machinery in the inner cities, requiring years of specialized training.
[-2] September 21, 2015 at 10:51am
Good to know that all those on the right who say they support the constitution agree with this idiot. There are no religious tests and if you support the constitution that should be your stance. If you are far right racist who wraps yourself in the constitution to hide your bigoted views you agree with Carson.
Good to know my thoughts of the right being hypocrites isn’t unfounded. Proof is right here for all to see
There are no religious tests for a person to run for president. We all know this.
What you do not know is that our individual minds (such as Dr. Carson has) CAN, WILL, and DO make decisions on who to vote for based on our own preferences. His preference is NOT to vote for, or even support, any Muslim running for president. So what? You don’t use your own mind to make decisions based on your personal preferences?
Nevermind . . .
You clearly pointed out who the idiot is, scarecrow.
And just when did Islam become a race?
[-9] September 16, 2015 at 12:28pm
I find it odd that most on this site support the bakers refusal to serve gay people saying it is a private business and they can refuse whoever they like. Then when a private business turns away officers the outrage from this site is on full display.
Either you support private business right to serve whomever they like or you don’t. You cant be on both sides of the argument just because its police
It is there business and it is there right to refuse service. We just don't have to support that buisness with our words or our money. I don't see anybody talking about trying to force Whataburger to serve them using government authority.
Apples and watermelons. The bakers have a Constitutional
right called freedom of religion and they are not refusing to
serve gays. A gay can buy a cupcake or cookie
but not a product that the making by the baker would compromise
they're religious beliefs. Bakers also don't put their lives on
the line protecting scumbags.
The Baker's didn't refuse the gay couple they just refused to make a gay themed cake ..... These guys refused service because they were cops in uniform ..... definitely two different scenarios. Nice try Nevermind but no Kasaba's for you!!!
1) The bakers were asked to produce customized art specific to the event.
2) The bakers were asked to deliver and participate in the wedding.
The burger flippers were asked to do nothing more than they do every day. Had there been a wall between them and the officers there would have been no way for them to "discriminate." By the same token, if the gay couple had walked in and asked to buy a cake off the shelf and were refused, that would be discrimination. Can you see the difference?
The bakers were willing to (and did) serve gay people; they refused to make a cake for the wedding. It’s like saying you’ll serve cakes to white people, but refuse to make a cake for a KKK rally.
That said, the business has a right to refuse service. The crux of this story is that it was probably an employee with an anti-police attitude, which has been more fomented in recent years by the “leaders” in our country trying to divide and conquer,
I understand your comment, however the big difference is the baker/owner making the decision not to serve VS a paid employee, making the decision, which in most cases is not supported by the owner or their policies.
BIG difference, this was an employee of Whataburger denying service, not the owner. The employee defied the owners wishes.
As all but one of the commenters pointed out, @nevermind has the facts wrong. It follows that the conclusion is false, too.
 September 15, 2015 at 12:35pm
2008 The GOP complained about Obama being a celebrity with no record ,just gave good speeches. You lost with Mccain.
2012 You said you needed a “conservative” yet you all voted for Romney who is far from conservative . And you lost
2016 The GOP puts up a celebrity with no record and someone who is far from conservative and you guys are falling for him. Some principles the GOP have huh?
2012: In an election supposedly about Obamacare, they nominate a republican who did Obamacare before there was one.
Hell must be freeing over ,when I’m on the same side of an issue with you two.!
NOW..I’m going to have to take a step BACK and look at where “I” went wrong.!
Exactly why the GOP needs to go the way of the Whigs! I mean when the supposed good guys are the same as the Gimmedat bad guys, it's time to git rid of em!
The establishment Republicans gave us McCain, the establishment Republicans gave
us Romney and the establishment hate Trump, K?
Good enough for me.
Trump Cruz would be great.
Trump Carson would be great.
Serious question. Can someone give me a link to a story where Trump succeeded using eminent domain? I've looked and can find only two attempts. Both failed.
[-4] September 14, 2015 at 4:39pm
You guys are funny. So ” Matthew ” said god told him and it is true? Or was his audience a bunch of uneducated sheep headers who fell for his BS.
Again…. Jesus said nothing in regards to homosexuality. He did speak on divorce and hypocrisy . He without sin cast the first stone is a good one. So seeing as according to jesus we all are sinners why are you casting stones? Doesn’t really follow the teachings huh?
Gosh this goofy book is soo much fun to pick apart.
You know there is as much proof that harry potter is a real person as was jesus?
[-7] September 14, 2015 at 4:09pm
Again, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Matthew is not Jesus. Matthew is also written almost a century after jesus died not really making him know too much about Jesus.
Jesus did say ” let he without sin cast the first stone” but I guess you guys missed that part
 September 14, 2015 at 3:47pm
Because the justification for homosexuality being a sin is from Leviticus which is in OT. I would love to read a verse from Jesus about homosexuality but there aren’t any. Only his “disciples” spoke on it.
Matthew 19:3-7, ESV)
"And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,
‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
Seriously? Not sure why you cannot connect the dots...
From Matthew - And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '?
Jesus didn’t speak to homosexuality specifically but he did speak to marriage-
Matthew 19- “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two shall become one flesh?’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
God created man and woman for marriage. Not homosexual marriage.
Again, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Matthew is not Jesus. Matthew is also written almost a century after jesus died not really making him know too much about Jesus.
Jesus did say " let he without sin cast the first stone" but I guess you guys missed that part
You are completely delusional and obviously don't know how to read the Bible. Turn to MATTHEW chapter 19, verses 3-7.
The Pharisees were testing Jesus.
Matthew 18:18 Jesus tells His disciples whatever they loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven and whatever they bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven. This means He gave them authority over doctrine moving forward. Whatever His disciples said was as good as His word according to Jesus. They revoked the need for converted gentiles to memorize and follow the many restrictive Old Testament laws while reaffirming that homosexuality was a sin. This means that the Old testament understanding that homosexuality is a sin carried over while the severe punishment of it on earth under the law by Christian standards did not. However it also says that among a list of other unrepentant sinners, unrepentant gays will not enter the kingdom of Heaven.
First, homosexuality being a sin is all throughout the Bible...beginning to end. This idea that Jesus didn’t say it, only His disciples did, is false. What they said and wrote IS God’s word…the Bible…ALL of it is His word.
John 16:12-14 and
2 Timothy 3:16-17 just to name a few will help
I’m not a Christian and I support same-sex marriage, but I think your response has some major flaws:
“Matthew is also written almost a century after jesus died not really making him know too much about Jesus.”
First, “Matthew” as in the disciple Matthew, did not write the Gospel of Matthew. Almost no one who has studied biblical history thinks that the disciples for which the Gospels were named actually wrote them. In this case, it’s commonly thought that Papias of Hierapoli attributed it to Matthew in the second century. The actual author is unknown.
Second, although it was written sometime between 70 and 110 CE, the material for it could have passed orally for a few decades before. No, it’s not likely a first-hand account; but it could be a second or third hand account. Hence why it’s included in the Gospels.
“Jesus did say ” let he without sin cast the first stone” but I guess you guys missed that part”
Third, you can’t really make an argument that “Matthew didn’t really know about Jesus because it was written decades later” and then quote part of the pericope adulterae from John. The entire story of the “woman taken in adultery” cannot be found in any of the surviving copies or fragments of John prior to 300 CE. There are references to something there as early as the third century, so there’s still a lot of debate on whether it was real and removed, or created and added later.
But as said, you cannot discount Matthew for age and justify it with John.
Nevermind, you conveniently fail to finish the quote from Jesus in John Chapter 8: “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for attempting to condemn the adulterous woman. Jesus did not endorse her life of sin.
It is laughable to think God is powerful enough to create all things, but, was fooled by the Apostles He chose to pass on His words. God authored the entire New Testament even the quotes not attributed to Jesus.
I cant believe you guys really think a god wrote a book...silly
Aside from the Scriptural, what other sorts of evidence exist that the early Church tolerated homosexual relations? Are there any letters, catacomb murals, burials, or other signs that it was "OK to be gay?" If so, I haven't seen any. Whatever Jesus said, early Christianity as it actually evolved had a lot of sexual taboos inherited from Judaism.
Amal...I can't believe you get your panties all in a wad over what do or do not believe. I lost track of your febrile replies in this post...this really has gotten under your skin.
Relax, licenses for gay marriage will be issued in Rowan County, Kentucky irrespective of what Mrs. Davis, a Democrat< does or does not do.
Jesus also never said anything about abortion, but that is the destruction of a life not your own- a sin, he said nothing about pedophiles abusing children but that is destruction of the innocence of a child- a sin. He said nothing about polluting the world in which we live and that is destruction of His creation, a sin. The plain truth is that homosexuals will never be satisfied with the tolerance society has given them, even to the farce of the SCOTUS decision equating sodomy with Marriage, because they can't quiet their conscience every time someone states the truth-sodomy is sin. And no matter how many laws are passed to give them whatever they clamor for, the one law that will never change is God's law.
One thing that’s easy for us to forget in this 21st century is that Jesus’ primary ministry was with people who were already very familiar with the Law and generally obedient to it.
That’s a really important point. Because rather than assuming that Jesus’ silence about some aspect of Old Testament moral law (as opposed to the civil or ceremonial ones) negates it, we should assume that His silence confirms it.
The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), for example, shows how Jesus challenged some of the prevailing religious thoughts of His day. Wouldn’t it have been easy to include homosexuality in this discussion, if His audience’s thinking needed to be realigned with God’s heart?
Perhaps it would’ve sounded something like this: “You have heard it said, ‘You shall not lie with a man as with a woman. It is an abomination.’ I say to you, affectionate feelings are to be celebrated, no matter the genders of the parties involved.”
But this never happened. The natural implication of which is that Jesus was in agreement that homosexual practice is an abomination.
Nevermind - Matthew 19:4-6 is what Jesus said. But you're a deceitful atheist.
[-4] September 2, 2015 at 1:33pm
I was hoping they would get together to feed the poor or visit sick children. Instead they sang at a movie, how very Christian
That's your job as a tolerant, compassionate prog isn't it?
Tell us how you did at the soup kitchen.
Pretty sure the charity dollars were intended for the homeless, not for people who's lights are on but nobody is home
Not INSTEAD. Probably AS WELL. Or do they have to do it 24/7 for it to count?
while feeding the hungry is important, feeding the soul is Eternal....consider this perhaps, how many people will see this and feel His call again? How many will even go so far as to bend their knees and Praise Him because of this outward expression of His Awesome Presence among us? How many may rededicate or accept Jesus as Lord and Savior? Only He knows, but I can tell you that instead of the narcissism usually exhibited by the FB generation, this is The Way....
Martha honey….Thou doth protest and worry too much. Maybe they chose to do the better thing at the time. Not your call though Nevermind! Getting a 50 second glimpse of someone’s day doesn’t make you an expert on how they spent their remaining 23 hours 59 minutes and 10 seconds. Too many of us go for the gavel instead of a spade or just a helping hand. Thanks for the reminder that we can all do something more to help others.
[-1] August 31, 2015 at 10:20am
This is the same guy that said ” say your prayers, train hard and take vitamins” while he was jacked up on steroids. I don’t believe a word this guy says, he is sorry he is out of a job but not for his years of deception . His character is that of a lair.
[-3] August 13, 2015 at 4:06pm
White Militia at Bundy Ranch= peace loving patriots exercising their 2nd amendment rights
Black Panthers in front of jail= Thugs and criminals
But the right isn’t racist, sure
[-2] August 13, 2015 at 1:24pm
Nope it was a protester named Eric Parker, there is even a youtube interview with him
There are tons of differences beyond race. Some however, are so blinded by race that skin color is all they can see and is the end all and be all of all that occurs. The NBPP probably doesn’t have anyone that can hit something beyond 50 yards. My guess is they prefer the spray and pray method of marksmanship.
You mean the Leo had sniper rifles pointed at the bundy crew....
[-1] August 12, 2015 at 9:43am
Yes the draft dodger is soo tough! Give me a break. He more than likely hasn’t been in a fight in his entire life and would break his thumb throwing a punch.
Its always the draft dodgers that talk tough like Trump and Nugent. But given the chance to walk the walk they figured out any way they could to avoid service.
I am sure he is a hero to many of the couch rambos here on the blaze
the Donald might be our next Andrew Jackson with his attitude. Exactly what we need.
And by the way for a potato I have – ten- confirmed kills…
[-1] August 10, 2015 at 12:28pm
Such a well thought out response . I just find it odd that most on the blaze supported Bundy and the militias with weapons drawn at LEO but are opposed to this, perhaps the color of skin and lack of firearms pointed at LEO is why you disagree
[-2] August 10, 2015 at 11:43am
Maybe they shoudve put on camo and pointed a sniper rifle at LEO like he Bundy’s you folk supported.
Try commenting before you take your first "wake and bake" bong rip. Your sentences should come out clearer.
[-3] August 4, 2015 at 4:10pm
In 1999 Operation Rescue West was changed to Operation Rescue when leadership changed for Jeff White to Troy Newman. I read the article and it is the same oginization but dropped West from name and moved. Operation save America is flip benham and he sued newman over the name.
So yes I read the article and it is the same group she was speaking of and he couldn’t be honest
[-14] August 4, 2015 at 3:16pm
So the right said Obama was a terrorist due to him sitting on a board with Bill Ayers . Troy Newman is on the board of this guys operation and there is no connection? Spare me. These are hit job BS videos and this guy wants to distance himself froma whack job anti abortion guy on his own board and comments here seem to give him a pass.
Why is it ok for him to sit on a board with a violent anti abortion whack job and claim no connection but if its Obama and Bill Ayers Obama is a terrorist?
I love this site. I get to see the rights hypocrisy in slow motion
"These are hit job BS videos." It is sad to see these videos are nothing but a comedy to you. I am sure you get a belly laugh out of watching little babies murdered and their organs sold off for profiteering. Sick...sick...sick individual you are.
I'm surprised that after all you seen, this is what you get out of it? You are one stupid a-hole.
Did you not even read the article?! "Mediaite noted that Camerota possibly confused Operation Rescue with Operation Save America — formally called Operation Rescue West — which is a more radical organization and not run by Newman." Newman is NOT the "whack job anti abortion guy" at all - stupid is as stupid does. Time to turn off your pc, take your meds and get some rest. Sheeesh!
The right's hypocrisy in slow motion? Wow, take a look at the hypocritical, unsustainable pie in the sky, unnatural crap you support. Pot calling the kettle black seems appropriate.
What in the hell are you even talking about? Blowing up police stations is now the same as exposing an organ harvesting operation via undercover video? What is wrong with you?
August 3, 2015 at 11:35am
The guy initiated conversation with a girl in a bikini. The boyfriend initiated violence by throwing the 1st punch to that guy and therefore instigated the fight
. You folks on the blaze love the 1st amendment and say we don’t have a right to be offended. So no matter what was said the black guy had freedom to say it, the white guy didn’t like it and started a violent confrontation that ended with his girl messed up. Had the white guy just got in his car and left she would be fine but he wanted to be violent and put her in danger.
[-1] August 3, 2015 at 10:09am
The girl was alone in the car and the black guy, using his 1st amendment rights , tried to hit to it on her. Boyfriend comes out of gas station and throws 1st punch no good reason and wrote a check his butt couldn’t cash. I feel bad for the girl but had her boyfriend not initiated violence they would’ve went home just fine
But like many right wing sites you need to make a black person a thug or scary. Dylan Roof would love it here
I don't know what was said but clearly this group initiated the confrontation regardless if it is protected by the 1st ammentment plus used the deadly weapon that shattered the girls face. The boyfriend would be and should be charged if he as you say instigated this.
"they would’ve went home just fine." Thanks for your confident assurance. And I think it's they woulda goed.
Seems you can equivocate anything! What do you think of all that "polar bear" hunting, you know, "the knock-out game"?
No I do not and I don't think most people here thing Black people are "thugs and scary". Just the Black people on the Democratic plantation. Dylan Roof would not be welcome here. You confuse killing the innocent Blacks with Blacks that kill anyone and anything! Including mostly other Blacks.
 July 29, 2015 at 4:40pm
So when Bundy is breaking the law most on he blaze hated the jack booted thug cops and Bundy was hero for conservatives for sticking it to the man. When a black guy is shot in the face after being pulled over for a license plate he is a thug and should just obey the officer? Why weren’t most on the blaze commenting that Bundy should’ve just obeyed?