Saturday, February 11, 2017

And Then, Of Course, There's Dan

A recent post by Dan, called "Resist", drifted somehow to a tangential conversation (I used the word loosely) on abortion.  This discussion (I use the word loosely) was a good presentation of the routinely disingenuous style of discourse we've long come to expect (and are never disappointed in doing so) when engaging Dan on most any topic. 

The off-topic debate focused on the definitive point of contention regarding the abortion issue:  is a human fetus (or embryo or zygote or whatever) "fully" human and therefore equally worthy of having its young life protected in the same manner as anyone who has been fortunate to have been allowed to exit the womb without being killed by its mother?  Somehow, Dan just doesn't know the answer to that question.  He believes...scratch that...claims that there is no way we can know...that science cannot tell us when one is actually endowed by its Creator with the right to life as it moves from conception onward.  It is for this reason that while he claims that he would not have an abortion were he a pregnant woman, he cannot bring himself to support denying other women who seek this heinous option when dealing with a pregnancy that in over 90% of the cases (if not higher) where that option is considered, the woman willingly engaged in the act that, by nature, is designed to bring about new life.

Now, it would be bad enough to pretend this was a legitimate position to hold, considering the stakes.  It isn't as if the issue is no more weighty than eating red meat (I don't eat red meat, but I wouldn't deny others the right to eat it---I don't mean me.  I love red meat!).  It's far closer in reality to allowing others the right to hire assassins.  (I would never hire an assassin(abortion doctor) to kill another person(unborn human being), but I won't deny anyone else the right to do so(hire a doctor to kill their own child). (By the way, Dan, that's what an analogy looks like.)

In this debate, he puts forth a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary to support his position that the fetus might not be fully human.  From his comments, I reproduce what he put forth as that Oxford definition:

"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

Using Dan's own peculiar and deceptive argument, one could say, "Oxford isn't saying anything with regard to whether a human fetus is or isn't included in the definition of a Human Being."  A more honest response was what I put to him following this attempt to pretend a human fetus isn't.   It simply compares adult or child humans with the closest animal equivalent.  (And it doesn't use the expression "fully human" in any event)  I would suspect that were Oxford to consider other stages of development beyond merely adult and child, it would include the human fetus, embryo or zygote as additional stages of human development, and thus all Human Beings.  As it stands, the Oxford definition is poor evidence in support of Dan's premise. 

Dan also uses one of his extremely poor attempts at analogy by illustrating his point with regards to an apple pie before and after it comes out of the oven.  Before, it is merely a mix of ingredients and isn't a pie until it is done baking.  This analogy is absurd because a child unborn is not a "mix of ingredients" any less so than any other fully development human being.  Unlike a pie, a person is constantly developing, with "ingredients" dying and being replenished to one degree or another throughout that person's entire existence.  Hair continues to grow.  Cells are replaced.  Damaged parts are as restored.  More importantly, when the child emerges from the oven (Momma's womb), it is not "fully baked" as it were, but still developing for a good 18 years or more.  The pie isn't fully formed until it is done baking.  The child in the womb is fully formed at whatever stage of development it happens to be at.  Again, the distinction is between fully human and a fully developed human being.  Dan conflates the two without any evidence in support of the argument that his arbitrary line of demarcation is worthy of respect by honest people of character and virtue. 

Then comes the punchline.  After all these and other arguments defending the unborn...arguments that actually relate to available scientific facts and data that undergird our pro-life position, Dan then goes on to suggest that our arguments have led him to reverse his belief that abortion is immoral.  That is, he no longer believes it is because of our arguments that fully support the premise that it is!  It takes a lot of gall to put forth such an absurd notion.  The truth that is more likely is that he couldn't find a way to actually justify his support for abortion for any reason.  His former claim that he would not have one himself were hollow at best, if not an outright lie.

I have to think that his defense of infanticide is similar to his defense of homosexuality.  He knows people who have had abortions and, by golly, they're just such nice people and wonderful, loving Christians.  This is, for Dan, what passes for "embracing grace".  While actual Christians try to appeal to the sexually immoral, with love and understanding, to seek forgiveness of God for their immorality and repent of it, Dan chooses instead to enable it.  That's not a Christian response to immoral behavior.  It is complicity...aiding and abetting.  He may as well be aborting those defenseless children himself. 

Sunday, February 05, 2017

From The Sad, Pathetic Little "Man"

As the title of this post implies, the topic is compelled by a nonsensical question posed by feo.  Before I get to it, there are two other statements he made on which I wish to comment.  Don't bother trying to find them, I've been deleting his comments due to restrictions placed upon him due to his ongoing hateful behavior.  But these comments and the questions I thought were worth saving until I had the time to compose a post about them that will demonstrate once again how foolish he insists on being.  Let's begin:

"In christian theology marriage is a sacrament of the presence of God in the love two people have for each other."

Remember, this is a guy who brags about his vast knowledge and understanding of the Christian faith and his overall intellectual superiority.  The above may be an example merely of hasty composition, but it's really not much of a definition.  That is, it wouldn't pass the editor's approval due to it's sloppiness and lack of precision.  Here's a far better definition:

In Christian theology, the sacrament of marriage is the union of one man and one woman who, in the sight of God and for His glory, vow to love, honor and serve each other faithfully, forsaking all others, until death parts them.

That's far more accurate a representation of what a Christian marriage is.   Indeed, that's what is actually is in fact.

"I like rubbing your nose in who you are given that you (sic)  spine bends that far back."

Since the first time he's darkened this blog by his arrogant and condescending presence, as if he's ever presented reason to justify such attitudes, he has either failed to understand who I am, or, more likely, lacks the honesty to acknowledge who I am.  For example, despite repeated requests for evidence to support the charge, he likes to think I'm racist.  I've no doubt that's just his self-loathing white guilt talking and I pray that when he gets the psychological counseling he so desperately needs then that issue will be addressed as well as all the others.

As to spine, I'm not sure exactly what he means there.  But he hasn't demonstrated he has the spine to engage in honest discourse without the nasty, hateful pettiness.  He likely is referring to his charge that I dodge his accusations or something to that effect.  An absurd charge to say the least.  It's a defensive tactic when faced with that which his "intellect" fails to provide a legitimate and compelling response.  I'd actually have to be an incredible coward to run from the lame and infantile rhetoric and accusations he constantly puts forth.  I mean, it's not like he offers up anything that I'd consider a real stumper.  And the question (more of a demand, really) to which I referred is a good example:

"Try to explain to me how baking a cake for a gay wedding supports gay marriage but voting for a racist isn't supporting racism."

No "trying" required, first of all. 

To provide anything for the celebration of sexual immorality, which he refers to as "a 'gay' wedding", is to take part in the celebration.  That's obvious.  It doesn't matter whether one provides a product or service for free or if one charges for doing so.  It is taking part in the celebration either way.  Certainly, one's participation ends once the product or service is delivered, but taking part it is nonetheless.  Promoters of sexual immorality like to pretend that isn't the case, but the whole purpose of the product or service being requested is to celebrate that immoral and depraved union.  To provide that product or service acknowledges that the union of two of the same sex can actually be a marriage.  Such acknowledgement is support for the notion.  As such a union cannot be a marriage, to acknowledge the union of a same-sex couple is to affirm that it can.  That's called support for the notion.  "You are charged with supporting the revolution against our president!"  "No!  I just provided the guns!"  That dog, as they say, just won't hunt.

The question seeks to prove that I support a racist.  There are two problems with this:

1.  Trump isn't a racist and there's no evidence, hard or otherwise, that proves he is.  There is evidence he is not.  For instance:

http://ipatriot.com/proof-donald-trump-no-racist/

Of course to sad and pathetic self-loathing people suffering from white guilt, if you're white, you're racist.  That's feo.

2.  But let's assume that I voted for an actual racist, just for the sake of argument.  Does that mean that I support racism?  It certainly would be if I was a racist as well, and voted for the person because the person's a racist.  But might there be legitimate reasons why one might vote for a racist?   Of course.  It's the lesser of two evils dynamic, just like it was in reality with the choice between Trump and Clinton:  the desire to prevent a far worse candidate from winning.  I don't have to like a person personally in order to vote for that person, particularly if I think that person, despite that person's faults, is unquestionably a better choice than the other person, or said another way, that the other person is far worse and needs to never win an election ever.

What's more, a racist (or any other foul person) who is a conservative, or simply favors most of the same things I favor, would be the better choice over the other person whose positions I totally oppose.  And that's another point of relevance.  Trump is not a free trade guy.  I am.  But does my vote for him mean I support protectionism?  In politics, as in love, it's next to impossible to find a perfect fit in an off the rack world.

Of course, it would be hard to find a conservative who is a racist.  Racists are almost always leftists who vote Democrat...the party of racists.  feo's a racist.  He hates his own race.  By his logic, allowing him to comment here means I support racism.  But I clearly don't support anything about a sad and pathetic little "man" like feo, except his visiting here to engage in discourse in a respectful and courteous manner regardless of who attacks him personally...because he'll be deleted if he doesn't.  He's earned that special status.

So that should answer his question quite completely.  Let's see if he's smart enough and honest enough to acknowledge that it has been answered, and answered in a manner that can no longer allow him to pretend I've supported racism by voting for Trump.  Don't anybody hold their breath.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

A Sad, Pathetic Little "Man"

Just a short note:  feo is not banned from this blog.  That's the first thing that needs to be said.   I am more than willing to engage with those of disparate positions and opinions and to provide the opportunity for such to fully present them.  That's never been a problem for me.  I welcome it more than agreement with the like-minded.

But feo isn't willing to engage.  From his first visit to this blog, he's done little more than assert, condescend, insult and attack, all without a shred of supporting evidence.  This is a guy who claims a vast educational background including seminary training.  His demeanor, prideful, arrogant and as I said, condescending, belies any claims of Christian devotion.  And like Dan, his support for sexual immorality and the murder of innocents also suggests otherwise.  As such, he has long since worn out his welcome as if his only goal is to be banned outright and with extreme prejudice.

But feo doesn't get to call the shots here.  Instead, he now has very strict guidelines for maintaining his welcome.  From this point forward, be it commenting on this post, or any future or past post, he is now required to be the kindest, most gracious and humble visitor to this blog.  No insults, no condescension, no arrogance, no profane or obscene talk or words of any kind.  The standards his ongoing, unrepentant behavior has invited has put him in a very special and unique category.  He must maintain these high standards even in the face of direct and purposeful attack and provocation directed at him by absolutely anyone else.  Any comment he posts that is in breach of these standards will result in the deletion of the comment as soon as I read it.

To all others, know that should you respond to a comment by feo that is anything less than saintly in tone, it may appear to be speaking to no one after feo's comment is deleted.  I may even delete your response as well, just for the sake of clarity.

feo needs to believe that I delete his comments because I'm afraid of the "facts" he presents, even though he doesn't post facts, or what he posts has no relevance to the topic.  And that's another standard he must uphold.  He is not free to commandeer a thread as he tries to do with too much frequency.  He is free to request that I cover a topic, but he is not free to go off on tangents or to attempt to start a new discussion unrelated to the topic at hand. 

I've always maintained that it isn't so much name-calling that's a problem in today's culture.  It's the unjustified name-calling.  That is, as an example, feo constantly calling me a racist without ever...EVER having offered even one bit of evidence in support of the charge.  Opposing, say, affirmative action policy, Barack Obama's presidency or rioting by blacks after a black thug is killed while committing a crime, is not evidence of racism in the least.  BUT, feo is allowed to say, in the nicest way possible (as judged by me), "I think your position is racist, and here's why..." which is likely to begin a legitimate back and forth (until he reverts to his usual prideful and hateful ways). 

As I type this, feo may well be posting his usual hateful drivel.  Those comments are not long for this blog.  I'm suggesting there will never again be a comment of feo's that does not get deleted, because he doesn't have the character to act as if he actually has the character of a Christian.   If anyone wants to start a pool, let me know here.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Obama Made Us Safer? Uh...

In a recent discussion from not too long ago, Dan assured us that Barry Obumble has made us safer.   While that's a laughable suggestion on its face, given the rise in terrorist activity here and abroad, I just saw this article that proves just how ludicrous the claim is.  While the article speaks specifically about the Democratic-led city of Chicago (led by former Obama co-hort Rahm Emanuel), it contains this gem as well:

"According to this FBI report, violent crime in the U.S. increased a little more than five percent the first half of last year." (2016)

Chicago, and two suburban cities, Elgin and Joliet, saw much larger increases in violent crime. 

The claim, therefore, that Obama somehow made us safer is not supported by law enforcement.

What's more, despite Obama's claim that no terrorist organization has attacked our nation during his administration, that's a hollow victory to say the least, given the several so-called "lone wolf" attacks, such as the Boston Marathon Bombers, the San Bernardino shootings and various other examples of islamist inspired murders. 

Chicago just hosted Obama's farewell address before adoring chumps to whom he could say anything and be believed as if he spoke the truth.  This article provides us with this morsel for our consumption:

"A few hours prior to the event and while people were arriving there was a carjacking and holdup involving a gun not too far from the venue."

and...

And several miles from the Obamas' Chicago home, police reported two bodies found in a vacant South Side building."

Yeah.  He's made us so much safer.  I don't know how a 5% rise in violent crime translates into a safer nation. 

 

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Jew Hater Obama and His UN Failure

Recent anti-Israel sentiments by the current administration does not surprise.  Not at all.  The relationship between Obama and Netanyahu has always been contentious, to say the least.  But now, as he winds down his failed presidency, Obama can't help but engage in more hateful attacks against the only nation in the Middle East worth a damn. 

There is no legitimate excuse for the behavior of our ambassador, which no doubt was the result of administration direction.  To have abstained from voting on this newest anti-Israel resolution is not only a departure from long-standing US policy, but a direct slap in the face of one of our greatest allies.  To pretend that building homes on what is actually Israeli land is the true issue preventing peace in the region is just one more indication of the stupidity and ignorance and deceit of Obama, his administration, the UN and the left in general.  The true obstruction to peace is the hate of the muslim world against Israel, and the Palestinian agenda that aims to destroy them.  This wish is shared by many in the muslim world and Obama has done much to appease it and by doing so, is complicit in all attempts to make that aim a reality.  His Iran deal is further proof.

But one remarkably idiotic statement by his current buffoonish Secretary of State, John Kerry (oh, how happy I am that this crap-for-brains didn't win the presidency in '04) is this one...that Israel can be Jewish or it can be a democracy, but it can't be both. 

Let's set aside the fact that it has been both throughout its brief history.  It is a mostly Jewish state that has democratically elected muslims in its Knesset.   How many Jews are in the governments of any muslim nation?  Might "zero" be to large a guess?  Israel's identity is inextricably tied to its Jewish history, even more so than is American to its Christian roots. 

But what of those muslim nations, particularly those who pretend they are "Palestinians", as if that is a thing?  Are they not entirely muslim while not being anywhere close to democratic (except to the left who aren't bright enough to know what that even means)?  Where is Kerry's, and of course Obama's, admonition that the Pallies and the muslim world in general cease their "death to Israel" attitudes and behaviors in order to move toward a lasting peace?

I'm already on record as ignoring the Palestinian's claims with regard to Israel, pre-1967 borders, right of return and their false claim to be a people that deserve a state of their own.  They deserve rebuke and opposition until such time as they prove that they can accept Israel and regard them as equals...and even then, they are entitled to nothing with regard to land that is rightfully and historically Israel. 

But Israel is worthy of our support and alliance.  This administration has crapped on that relationship for too long and it is just one more reason why the end of the Obama years is a reason for great celebration, both domestically and worldwide. 

UPDATE: 

As I continued to read up on the details surrounding this issue, I came upon various videos and podcasts that explain how the entire claim of a "Palestinian people", as the term is now used in order to create a separate state, is total nonsense and one of the greatest lies perpetrated in human history.   There is no need for a "two-state solution", as there has already been a two-state solution in place for decades.  The following link is to a podcast wherein the history of the region is explained in great detail.  There is nothing within it that can't be researched and verified as it is, as I have mentioned, but one of many from which I could have chosen to make the point.  I may add more later, but it shouldn't be necessary.  Before I post the link, check out this admission:

"The Palestinian people does not exist.  The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity.  In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese.  Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people."

-PLO official Zahir Muhsein, interview with Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977

Here's the link:  https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/conservative-conscience-the-full-history-of-the-palestinian-state-hoax
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people."
— PLO official Zahir Muhsein, interview with Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977 - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/conservative-conscience-the-full-history-of-the-palestinian-state-hoax#sthash.vI5vqoZT.dpuf
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people."
— PLO official Zahir Muhsein, interview with Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977 - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/conservative-conscience-the-full-history-of-the-palestinian-state-hoax#sthash.vI5vqoZT.dpuf
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people."
— PLO official Zahir Muhsein, interview with Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 31, 1977 - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/conservative-conscience-the-full-history-of-the-palestinian-state-hoax#sthash.vI5vqoZT.dpuf

Saturday, December 10, 2016

So Here We Are

OK.  So Trump won.  Now what? 

So far, I see things I like and things I don't like.  His selections for most of his cabinet posts are pretty good, a few not so good, others I have yet to judge one way or another.  I'd love to see him appoint John Bolton as Secretary of State, if for no other reason than to see leftist head's explode like a 4th of July fireworks display (Oooh!  That's the kind I like!)  Though neither of them needed Bolton's help, JB would make Clinton and Kerry look like absolute idiots.  He's not a pushover and he knows foreign affairs far better than either of them.

Not crazy about Trump's moves concerning either Carrier or Boeing.  With Carrier, it is really no different than what lefties do to keep large companies from leaving town.  They offer a deal.  While I like the the company isn't moving to Mexico, I'm hoping it doesn't mean that as president, Donnie will satisfy himself with picking winners and losers like Obama does.  The real goal is to remove the reasons that compel them to leave.  That means getting together with Congress to lower corporate tax rates and ease regulations everywhere it makes sense to do so.  That's about all a president can do or should do. 

From there, one must hope that there are unemployed people who will choose to work for any of these corporations that stay or return.  I recently heard that there are about half a million manufacturing jobs available right now that go unfilled.  These are good paying, skilled positions.  How many are offering on the job training, I don't know.  To what extent a president can influence work ethic, I hope Trump can figure out, because many of those who dropped out of the job market don't really wish to return at this point.  And the young aren't quite of the same cut as workers of previous generations, so remaining and returning companies are only part of the solution to unemployment.  But Trump has campaigned on making it easier for companies to stay and thrive, so let's hope he can have success on his end of the bargain.

Boeing is a different deal.  And it's a deal between them and the those who ordered their talents in developing a new fleet for AirForceOne planes.  They aren't even contracted to build anything yet.  I just don't think it's as simple as saying "that's too much dough...forget it".  At the same time, it puts people on notice that Trump is concerned about costs for that which government intends to do.  So that's good.  I just hope he doesn't think he can simply oppose something superficially and expect that his will be done.

Over at Dan's, he worries about Trump's truthfulness.  Remarks Trump made about landslide wins and millions of illegal votes have provoked Dan's concern.  I have trouble with Trump's liberal use of hyperbole, but mostly because of reactions to such as in the case of Dan.  When Trump doesn't weigh his words, he'll have to waste time clarifying or walking back from them.  That's just the type of crap the left loves, since it's easier than actually coming up with solutions to problems that actually make sense.

But worse, Dan's concern is ludicrous given the deceit of the opposing party leaders.  "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."  "Benghazi was the result of a video."  "I was pinned down by sniper fire in Bosnia."  and a host of other crap sandwiches served up by Obama, Clinton and others in the Democratic party.  They live on that stuff, draw in voter support by such stuff and have no shame in continually perpetuating such stuff.  But should Trump exaggerate....OH.  MY.  GOSH!!!  Can't have that, can we?

The bottom line, though, is that I am still filled with trepidation with Trump's victory, while still greatly relieved by it.  But I think he's off to a fairly good start, even if not a perfect one.  We'll see. 

Friday, September 23, 2016

The Kids Are Alright

Over at Dan Trabue's blog, he often (almost always) posts that which provokes a response from me.  Now and then (almost always) he rebukes me for my observations, conclusions and perspectives on whatever topic, issue or report compels them.  Kinda goofy considering there's a place at the end inviting comments.

But this time, as his recent posts here and here  involve family, specifically his kids, I thought it best I post my wonderment here instead of there.

Now, first of all, I want to reiterate what a wonderful thing I believe it to be that his kids popped for the trip for the family to take that marvelous vacation.  I'm truly envious of him as well as very much happy for him.  How very cool indeed!

Now here's the "but"....

How is this remarkable good fortune not an example of "over-consumerism" against which Dan so often preaches?  Did he not make his position on the subject well known to his kids?  Did they ignore his teachings about simple living?  Was he informed of their plans before the arrangements were set so that he could gently reject their plans, encouraging them to instead make a donation to the poor in his name as a better use of the money so that Dan would not have to bear the shame of having more than so many unfortunates?

I only mean this with just a tad bit of snark.  After all, it isn't like such an expenditure wouldn't fall within the boundaries of opulence and hyper-consumption.  It's neither a need nor a simple pleasure to take such a trip.  I personally have no problem with enjoying the fruits of one's labor to experience as much of the world God created as money allows.  That would be nice stuff of all kinds, including Lamborghinis, large estates, a fine wardrobe, fine dining and of course, European vacations (if not a second or third residence there).

But not Dan.  He doesn't believe we're to have more than we need.  And that's the problem here, because who needs to go to Europe for a vacation?   Did I say how cool I think it is that he got to go, and to go courtesy of his kids?  Way cool!  Good for him.  But by his own beliefs, shouldn't he be ashamed?