Out having a taco . . .


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Postby TrakFan » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:40 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I recently heard neocon Frank Gaffney say that American Exceptionalism entitled the U.S. military to a pass on the Geneva Convention rules regarding torture.


I'm too lazy to do the research, but I wonder how many confirmed neocons/hawks/etc actually served in the military (combat)?
TrakFan
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Colorado Springs

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:57 am

Cooter Brown wrote:My wife and I were trying to figure out our daughter's heritage. The best we could come up with was:
Persian 25%
Swedish 13%
Irish 13%
French 13%
Spanish 13%
German 13%
English 6%
Czech 6%.

Excellent! if more people could realize how 'multi-cultural' they really are, many of today's xenophobia problems would just go away.

I'll guess my kids are:

Welsh 25%
Dutch 25%
English 25%
Scottish 20%
Irish 4%
Cherokee 1%

But my son boosted his kids' Irish content by marrying an Irish red-head by the name of Pink, and my daughter upped the Scottish with a lad from clan McLeod!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:13 am

SQUACKEE wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I recently heard neocon Frank Gaffney say that American Exceptionalism entitled the U.S. military to a pass on the Geneva Convention rules regarding torture.


This justification is really ugly but it does make me wonder how Al Qaeda justifies beheading its prisoners?

Come on SQUACKEE, no one here is trying to justify the beheading of prisoners. Even bin Laden's right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, wrote a letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which was intercepted by the CIA, in which he condemned the beheading of Nick Berg, and told him to stop "slaughtering the hostages".
Among the things which the feelings of the Muslim populace who love and support you will never find palatable - also- are the scenes of slaughtering the hostages. You shouldn't be deceived by the praise of some of the zealous young men and their description of you as the shaykh of the slaughterers, etc. They do not express the general view of the admirer and the supporter of the resistance in Iraq, and of you in particular by the favor and blessing of God.

And your response, while true, might be: Why shouldn't we sow terror in the hearts of the Crusaders and their helpers? And isn't the destruction of the villages and the cities on the heads of their inhabitants more cruel than slaughtering? And aren't the cluster bombs and the seven ton bombs and the depleted uranium bombs crueler than slaughtering? And isn't killing by torture crueler than slaughtering? And isn't violating the honor of men and women more painful and more destructive than slaughtering?

All of these questions and more might be asked, and you are justified. However this does not change the reality at all, which is that the general opinion of our supporter does not comprehend that.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:19 am

Marlow wrote:But my son boosted his kids' Irish content by marrying an Irish red-head by the name of Pink, and my daughter upped the Scottish with a lad from clan McLeod!

Are your in-laws also Protestant?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:35 am

Marlow wrote:
Cooter Brown wrote:My wife and I were trying to figure out our daughter's heritage. The best we could come up with was:
Persian 25%
Swedish 13%
Irish 13%
French 13%
Spanish 13%
German 13%
English 6%
Czech 6%.

Excellent! if more people could realize how 'multi-cultural' they really are, many of today's xenophobia problems would just go away.

I'll guess my kids are:

Welsh 25%
Dutch 25%
English 25%
Scottish 20%
Irish 4%
Cherokee 1%

But my son boosted his kids' Irish content by marrying an Irish red-head by the name of Pink, and my daughter upped the Scottish with a lad from clan McLeod!


Supposed breakdown of my grandchildren (assuming all greatgrandmothers and beyond being good girls).

1/8 English (probably Anglican)
1/16 French (probably Catholic)
1/16 Austrian/German (unknown religion)
1/4 Tunisian Arab (Moslem)
1/4 Central European Jewish
1/8 Hungarian (Catholic) - this would be actually 2/16, coming from different greatgrandmothers
1/16 Ruthenian (Ukrainian Eastern Rites)
1/16 Slovak (Greek Orthodox)
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:39 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Are your in-laws also Protestant?

My MiL is Dutch descent and FiL Scottish descent, as am I. I have no evidence (back to the 1400s, where my genealogical investigations have taken me) that any of us (with the possible exception of my wife's Cherokee GGGGGGM :wink: ) have been anything except Protestant, making me an ur-WASP.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby IanS_Liv » Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:36 pm

You had relatives in the 1400s who were Protestant? Now that IS impressive! :wink:
IanS_Liv
 
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:36 pm

Postby lonewolf » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:34 pm

Marlows ancestors, as to be expected, were on the cutting edge. The first Papal Bull condeming Protestantism was issued in 1402 and Jan Hus, the most prominent offender was burned at the stake for heresy in 1415.
(No, I was not there. I knew about the roots of the Reformation but, honest confession, had to look up the dates)
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:18 pm

IanS_Liv wrote:You had relatives in the 1400s who were Protestant? Now that IS impressive! :wink:

Uh . . . teensy hypebole! :oops: :D

Didn't the Reformation start in 1517 with ML's theses?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Pego » Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:10 pm

Marlow wrote:
IanS_Liv wrote:You had relatives in the 1400s who were Protestant? Now that IS impressive! :wink:

Uh . . . teensy hypebole! :oops: :D

Didn't the Reformation start in 1517 with ML's theses?


The roots started with Wycliffe in the 14th century already, followed by Hus in the early 15th.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby lonewolf » Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:52 pm

Am I correct, Pego, that this was in your ancestral stomping grounds?
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:25 pm

Pego wrote:The roots started with Wycliffe in the 14th century already, followed by Hus in the early 15th.

I knew Wycliffe attempted to reform the Catholic church as an arch dissident to Papal secular power (and I just just checked that in wiki), but I didn't know he was anything but a precursor to what we now call the Reformation and Protestantism. Perhaps it's just a matter of semantics, as I really have little understanding of him beyond what I just said. I'll read the whole wiki thing later and get smarter! :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21082
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Pego » Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:09 am

lonewolf wrote:Am I correct, Pego, that this was in your ancestral stomping grounds?


Yep. Husite (Hus and the wars of his followers called Husites against the Holy Roman Empire after his execution in Constance in 1415) period was covered in a great detail in my high school history curriculum. Their church, called Českobratská Cirkev (Church of Czech Brothers) is still in existence now.

With Marlow, we are saying the same thing, I called it "roots", he "precursor". If there is a difference, it's not much.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests