The Black Republican

There seems to be this ongoing notion that if one person does something that offends or causes another discomfort and it's not their intention that there's "no problem".

If I rush thru a door and accidentally hit someone in the face causing them pain I need not apologize for my actions because I didn't mean to do it?

The images of Native Americans that adorn things like state seals or college and professional sports team's uniforms offend those people. In light of their history it's not hard to understand why.

Comparing the heinous crimes America has committed against my children's ancestors to some household accident is atrocious and offensive. I'm sure by your callous disregard for their feelings you clearly intended to hurt that noble and peaceful indigenous person. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The point I was making about MY children’s ancestors was about their feelings regarding the use of images by the pale faces.

You seem to always miss the point.

And it is you that should feel ashamed.

I'm Catholic, so I'm always ashamed - of MY sins. I'm not the slightest bit ashamed of the sins of ancestors, most of whom were too busy committing sins against Tony Blair's ancestors to be guilty of doing anything to the ancestors of today's Americans. I'm not "missing the point", I'm flaunting my disdain for it in your face.

So being a Catholic is a sin? Or are you ashamed of being Catholic? OR both? With all that has been going on in the Catholic church I would be ashamed also.

OK MidLifeMan... you are either being purposely misleading, obtuse and insulting, or you are an absolute idiot incapable of reading or comprehending basic English. Chris stated, rather clearly IMHO, that he is ashamed of his own sins (as we all should be of our own) not, as you incorrectly state, "of being Catholic." Your attempt to mislead and mischaracterize Chris' words in that manner, and then use that mischaracterization to denigrate all Catholics, is not only disgraceful but smacks of anti-Catholic bigotry. The only good thing about your comment is that it serves an excellent illustration of the despicable methods you and people like you employ to advance your arguments (and agenda):

• Take a perfectly acceptable and logical statement by someone.
• Rephrase that statement to have completely differently meaning than what the original author or speaker intended.
• Indite, impugn and malign that person (and all who may agree with him/her) on the rephrased, misleading, and mischaracterized version you put forward.

The Bill Bennett kerfuffel, and your comments on this website regarding the same, are the most recent example of how you and others - with the help of your willing accomplices in the MSM - use exactly that formula. And not only do you feel no shame in using such tactics, you don't even see a reason why you should!

When you first started commenting here I thought that you were a person who, even though I happened to disagree with most of what you said, was thoughtful and capable of reasoned and logical debate. Several of your subsequent posts made me doubt that assessment, but this last comment has not only removed all doubt, but has also shown me your true nature. People like you - people willing to say anything or use any means to reach the ends they want - are a detriment to civil and reasoned political discourse in this country and serve no useful purpose. And in case you have yet to get the point: We do not suffer bigots here, sir, nor are we inclined to give anyone a forum to advance their version of religious, racial, sexist, or any other kind of bigotry. Take your anti-Catholic bigotry and religious intolerance elsewhere.

Wow. You know, Chris... I first met you when you defended my honour of being a Catholic right after Pope JPII died. Some guy told a joke, kinda funny- way offensive all the same. You told him he wouldn't know a Catholic if he saw one.

I think it's a great ploy we used at the Tea Party- I remember enacting it in around the 2nd grade. A Catholic girl playing an newfound American-playing an Indian.

I've got Indian in me; somewhere- i'm not offended because it depicts not an Indian, but ingenuity. We won, we are America and the Massachusetts quarter is fine.

As for the Church, yeah- it sucks that these priests put themselves before God and are so scummy. So, we scrub, trying to clean house after 40+ yrs and even if the stain exists-we hopefully will get all the smell and scum cleaned out. Giving up is not an option, kinda like Hancock.

Oh, being a Catholic isn't a sin, BTW; but, sin is always present... can you see inside your own eye? I mean no disrespect, either.

Aren’t we a little thin-skinned?

Insulting? Maybe I was a little. I was going for facetious. If you’re offended I apologize.

See. That wasn’t so hard for me, because, as I stated originally, it doesn’t matter that what I said was not "intended" to offend.

That was my point to which I received a sarcastic response, that in my view:

• Took a perfectly acceptable and logical statement by someone.


• Rephrased that statement to have completely differently meaning than what the original author or speaker intended.


• Indicted, impugned and maligned that person (and all who may agree with him/her) on the rephrased, misleading, and mischaracterized version you put forward

So the question is are you really blind to this or do you just choose to ignore it? And it is sadly ironic that you can speak of "civil" discourse but be insulting and belittling in your response.

You have a blessed day.

MLM: I stated, rather clearly I thought, that "you are either being purposely misleading, obtuse and insulting, or you are an absolute idiot incapable of reading or comprehending basic English."

That being the case, if your comment was intentionally made to be anti-Catholic and religiously intolerant, then I apologize for the "absolute idiot incapable of reading or comprehending basic English" part. If , however, you did not intend your comment to be anti-Catholic and religiously intolerant (which you seem to imply), then I apologize for the "being purposely misleading, obtuse and insulting" part.

Choose whichever option makes you feel better.

Aren’t we a little thin-skinned?

You might have been able to make that claim if the Catholic had answered you, but as it was you managed to be so crude you even offended a Lutheran.