User Profile: SteveinSC


Member Since: December 17, 2012

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

  • February 7, 2014 at 8:56am

    I apologize rose-ellen. You do certainly have a handle on what has happened in the Middle East. However, your conclusions are simply wrong. I’m unsure as to why. I suspect that you’ve bought into the dhimmitude of the ME Christians. Permanent second class citizens suffering from almost 1400 years of the Stokholm Syndrome such that you’ve decided that the percecutors have a valid point. As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: The “Palestinian Refugees” left Israel voluntarily at the behest of the surrounding Arab nations so they wouldn’t be in the way while the Arabs annihilated the Jews. Unfortunately for the “Palestinians” it did not work out that way. The Israelis didn’t let them back in after the war and their loving Arab neighbors largely refused to take them in. So they became permanent “refugees.” The “Palestinians” who remained in Israel are full citizens of the country. They vote. They have political parties. They are not treated badly. Their brothers out in Gaza and the West Bak live in poverty in comparison thnks to the likes of Arafat and his successors who got rich off of aid money that never seemed to make it the people the claimed to be working for. Arafat was of course and Egyptian and not a “Palestinian” as there is no such thing and never has been. They are all people from the surounding countries. As for suppressing Muslim Funadamentalists by torture and imprisionment, etc. You fight fire with fire.

  • February 6, 2014 at 1:18pm

    You seem to have zero understanding of Christians in the Middle East. They do not back dictators. Dictators like Mobarek, Assad, Saddam, etc. were secular leaders. They spent much of their time suppressing Muslim Fundamentalists in their countries. They viewed the relatively apolitical Christians in their nations as more or less benign folks and protected them from the Muslim Fundamentalists who would overthrow the regime and – without provocation – attack the Christian minorities. Christians in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc. live with their heads down. They don’t do anything to call attention to themselves unnecessarily. They are second class citizens always on the verge of annihilation. The slightest misstep can produce riots and attacks and homes and businesses destroyed. The thing is all those countries were once totally Christian before the Muslims invaded them in hte 7th, 8th and 9th centuries. Who was being violent and militant them? Let me just say this: If we continue down the road we’re on, much of the Western world will be overrun by the Muslims and a new Dark Age will descend on us all. Your cultural relativism is absurd. Western Civilization, which was built upon a foundation of Christianity is the light of the world, the shining city on a hill, while Islam is a deep, dark pit. Objective history bears this out. Which would you rather, a culture based on Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount or one based on the values of a 7th Century Arab bandit?

    Responses (4) +
  • October 1, 2013 at 2:00pm

    I think she meant “…grandmother at sewing club…”

  • October 1, 2013 at 1:58pm

    There aren’t many players of any color that can outthink Manning. There really isn’t any call for the racist comment.

  • October 1, 2013 at 1:56pm

    No, it’s just that Liberals have no sense of humor.

  • July 31, 2013 at 1:29pm

    Actually, Americans stopped supporting Small, Incompetent Government in favor of Large, Incompetent Government.

  • July 29, 2013 at 12:47pm

    Everytime the race hustlers discuss this trial, they immediately start talking about social justice and correcting past wrongs and a culture of bias and racism, etc., etc. One has to wonder how long it will be before a prosecuter will ask a defendant on the witness stand, “Is it true that your great-great-grandfather owned slaves?” Or maybe, “Is it true that you have never donated any money to the United Negr0 College Fund?” After all if we’re going to drag “The History of Race in America” into every trial that involves a Black person and someone of another race, then no one will ever get EQUAL justice again. The defendant can only be guilty of what he or she has personally done. I’m not guilty of slavery or Jim Crow or Separate But Equal, and I shouldn’t have to answer for those things. Unfortunately, the Black Liberation Theology practiced by Obama, Holder, Sharpton and Jackson says that all White people are guilty of what all past White people may have done to a Black person. Just saying you believe it was wrong and that you’re sorry it happened isn’t enough. When you say that, they hold out their hands for payment.

  • July 26, 2013 at 2:44pm

    Context is very important in this matter. The Deut. 22:13-29 passage covers many scenarios realted to rape and infidelity. The scenario being argued over is:
    28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
    I always felt that the situation descibed – when compared to the verses above it – implied that the woman consented to the sexual encounter because in the previous verses the use of force is explicitly mentioned whereas it isn’t here. In this particular case, they both are being forced to marry each other because they had sex outside of marriage and got caught. Of course, as the rabbi above pointed out, she could opt out. The phrase, “and lay hold on her,” is somewhat problematic to this view as it could imply force, whereas verse 25 actually uses the word force. I’m not sure of the exactness of the translation of the Hebrew to English. Maybe someone else could elucidate.

  • June 18, 2013 at 1:11pm

    The first thing you have to remember is that the Bible is not about the US. It’s about God’s plan for the salvation of mankind through Jesus Christ. A major player in that plan is God’s chosen people, the Children of Israel. The Bible discusses, in-depth, the history of the relationship between God and Israel. What the US does or doesn’t do is of little relevance to this story except maybe very peripherally. I believe we, as a nation, will be judged based on how we treat the nation of Israel as well as how we as a nation – just like Israel – stay faithful to God. The US seems to prosper when we are close to and positively support Israel (our economy soared from the time we recognized Israel as a nation in 1948 until the late 1990s when we began to side with Israel’s enemies and to pressure Israel to divide up their land. Now, I know people will say that our economy rises and falls based on our own decisions – and that’s true – but God allows some people to be listened to more sometimes and less at others. Is it coincidental that the same folks that cause trouble for Israel, also advocate policies that damage our economy? The more we allow them to be ascendant here, the more we suffer. We should support Israel, but I don’t believe we will for much longer. An,d our poor decision to support Israel’s enemies in Libya, Egypt and now Syria may ultimately be our undoing.

  • June 2, 2013 at 1:15pm

    I listen to Rush’s show virtually every day. I don’t always agree with him, but I have to say, he has never said anything hateful about or to women. He says things all the time that are hateful to Liberals – like the Truth. I was listening to him the day he first discussed the Fluke woman. There was no vitriol and no hate for this woman or women. He only asked what one would call a woman who expected someone to pay for her to have sex. After all, that was what this shameless woman was testifying about – the gov’t should pay for her birth control with our tax dollars so that she could have sex with men she wasn’t married to without being “punished with a baby” (to use the president’s phrase). Rush said you’d call such a woman a slut. He never said “Sandra Fluke is a slut.” Back in the good old days, or what the Liberals call Hell, a woman who had sex with someone she wasn’t married to was called a slut, tramp, whore, trollop or any of several other such names. Most women worked hard – at least publicly – to maintain a good reputation. Now they testify before Congress about how they need someone to pay for them to have consequence-free sex. Things have sure changed. No one could honestly argue that it’s for the better.

    BTW, of the 26,000 recent sexual assaults in the military, 14,000 were assaulted men (about 1.4%). So, who’s actually doing the raping? Could it be the increase in homosexuals admitted to the ranks? Certainly Rush doesn’t advoc

  • June 2, 2013 at 10:39am

    I’ve always believed that two adults should have what they want when it comes to personal relationships. If you are attracted to someone of another race and they’re good to you, so be it. Not my business. It’s a personal matter and should be left as such. But, that’s where I have problems with the social engineering that goes on in the media. I don’t think the media should actively promote interracial or homosexual or polyamory or any other type of relationship to the exclusion of the mainstream. Though these relationships certainly exist, they are far from the norm. Yet the media – in movies, TV shows and commercials – bombard us continually with these images. It smacks of brainwashing. Sometimes, it almost seems like there are only interracial, homosexual or polyamory relationships in movies, TV shows or in commercials. There’s at least one such thing going on in virtually every show. Now, I’ve known many people involved in interracial relationships – even been in a couple myself – and I found that your interests, faith, values and goals are far more important than the color of your skin. I don’t think people should be hating on others for being involved in a relationship that makes them happy if it doesn’t hurt others. But, the media should not be pushing it on us. As for the actual commercial, I just figured that Cheerios cast the cute little girl (who is biracial) first which left them with no real choice but to create a biracial family for the comme

    Responses (4) +
  • May 22, 2013 at 12:16pm

    Actually, knowing our PC gov’t, this may be as easy as leaving a female FBI agent alone to question the suspect who, MMA or not, thinks he can intimidate or attack the agent and she had to shoot him. The article says the agent felt threatened and had to defend themselves. They don’t ever state the gender of the agent. I’ve heard that female police officers shoot suspects more often than their male counterparts because they can’t physically deal with a large male perp. I’m not trying to slight female FBI agents or police officers, but there are times they should not be left on their own. The same would be true for a smaller male agent or officer being left to guard or interrogate a larger or beligerant suspect. If there is a conspiracy, it may be no more than covering for their own stupidity.

  • May 15, 2013 at 1:08pm


    Oh, Bruce can see evil all right. It’s just that his definition of evil is not the same as yours or mine.

    Isaiah 5:20 “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

  • May 15, 2013 at 1:01pm

    Thanks for the sound advice. You never know what situation may arise. Gotta stay loose and aware. Trust your instincts. If it feels bad, get the hell out. No shame in living to fight another day. These poor folks ended up in a situation they probably never saw coming until the opening move in the confrontation. Then, it’s too late. A concealed weapon, properly employed, would have been useful.

  • May 13, 2013 at 12:46pm

    Regardless of Leftist assertions to the contrary, the US was founded on Christian principles by Christians, It is the atheists and secular humanists who have shown up in the last few decades and have quite successfully wrested control of our education system, the media, the government and the popular culture from Christians, not Christians who have lately begun to put their noses into these things. Christians were largely silent on most of these matters in the past because there was no radical departure from Christian norms of behavior. Now that is no longer true and Christians have “suddenly” become vocal on matters they never had to speak on before because they now see the changes (not for the better) taking hold of society. So Christians have to be silenced in the Left’s estimation. This book will aid in that purpose.

  • May 13, 2013 at 12:44pm

    Today, Christians are being persecuted everywhere that there is a Muslim majority in power. That persecution may be minor in some instances and vicious in others, but it is widespread and persistent in those countries.
    In the US Christians are being persecuted at the nuisance level at the moment by the government and the media. This persecution is of the Alinsky variety – isolate, ridicule, discredit, disenfranchise, etc. This is the same pattern used against Jews in Nazi Germany in the 1930s at the onset of the Holocaust. Is it any wonder that US Christians feel uneasy about it? This book will allow the Left to say, “There go those Christians again – always lying and exaggerating about how they’re being persecuted. We all know it isn’t really true.” This is often the aim of such revisionist history. Readers should take care to review the sources used to produce a work that is a radical departure from accepted historical accounts. An example is the Leftist historian, Michael Bellesiles, who used bogus data to write his history of gun ownership in America that showed that Americans historically owned very few guns when at one time virtually everyone owned guns. History should not be used for political ends. “The Truth has no agenda.”

  • May 13, 2013 at 12:14pm

    As the author says, Christians were persecuted from time to time in the Roman Empire. Different Roman emperors viewed Christians differently on the threat scale, so to speak. But, when they were persecuted, it was often massive in scale. From our historical point of view, numbers get muddled, dates get confused, names and places get forgotten or changed. It’s just the way 2000-year-old stories are. Ancient history is difficult to unravel on a good day. Then you have the problem of people underreporting to hide their guilt or over reporting to make their opponents look worse. It’s like Custer’s Last Stand. The Sioux and Cheyenne accounts of the battle paint a picture of brave 7th Cav soldiers fighting to the last man. Such a tale – one of overcoming a valiant foe – served their own egos and gained them points with the US government. Modern archeology tells a somewhat different story with many of Custer’s men panicking and running for their lives to be killed piecemeal rather than a valiant “last stand” as such. So, some revision is possible from the original stories and is even to be expected. But to imply that it is, by and large, untrue that Romans persecuted Christians would be to do an injustice to the people who did actually suffer and die for their faith. BTW it was a prosecutable offense to not take part in the imperial god cult under some emperors in the Roman Empire, so prosecution vs. persecution is a little hard to sort out sometimes.

    Responses (2) +
  • May 1, 2013 at 2:20pm

    Hey! Hey! Hey! Watch what you’re saying…

  • April 26, 2013 at 11:59am

    But, you see, “Common sense is so uncommon that it appears to be a super power.” You apparently have common sense while most of your peers, and virtually all Liberals in general, don’t. So you were able to process your experience from the real world and LEARN the Truth. People with Liberal education but no common sense only become bitter as they wonder why their education doesn’t work in the real world. They see the real world as the problem because it doesn’t correlate with what they KNOW to be true.

  • April 26, 2013 at 11:41am

    That is pretty much the case from what I’ve heard. Muslims believe that a man is powerless when confronted by a beautiful woman. They believe that he will turn his back on his country, his family or his religion for a woman. Therefore Muslim men must be protected from women at all times, and women must be kept in their place to maintain order.

    I’ve also read, but can’t say for sure since I don’t speak Arabic, that the Arabic word for “public disturbance” and “beautiful woman” are the same.