Wednesday, November 08, 2017

Are The Democrats Embarrassed, Yet?

The title of this post is in direct response to Dan's post Is The GOP Embarrassed, Yet?.  In it, he refers to both Donald Trump and former judge Roy Moore, who just won a primary election in Alabama for the senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions.  Dan spews his usual hateful vitriol against Trump and provides the same for Moore.  He hates Moore because Moore is an actual Christian who knows and understands both Scripture and the U.S. Constitution as they were intended to be known and understood.  Doing so makes him vile and reprehensible in Dan's world.

And of course, Trump's evil personified as well as mentally unfit for office, because Dan saw a book by a couple dozen shrinks of unknown political persuasion who said so.  (Of course, saying homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so is delusional.)

But here's the thing.  I am embarrassed that the GOP couldn't promote a solid conservative properly to avoid the ascendancy of Donald Trump.  It had an excellent alternative in Ted Cruz, but he wasn't establishment enough.  That's embarrassing.  The GOP wanted someone more McCain-like, because that worked out so well with McCain.  It never understood that McCain didn't stand a chance until he selected Sarah Palin as his running mate.  But she, too, isn't establishment enough to garner the support of a Mitch McConnell.

So it's embarrassing that a party with control, of all three of the movers and shakers, the House, Senate and presidency, can't get something as asinine and destructive as the Affordable Care Act repealed outright, or even replaced.  Indeed, it's embarrassing to me personally that the GOP wouldn't even try to make the case that total repeal alone was not only justified, but beneficial.  They allowed the lying left to insist that people will die and let them do it without response.  No.  They clearly didn't want ACA repealed, even though they had the votes to do it in 2015, lacking only the president's signature to make it so.  Having obtained that, they bailed on the idea in favor of ACA-light.  That's embarrassing.

And it's embarrassing that the GOP can't cobble together enough of the plethora of facts on any of the social issues of the day and produce a compelling argument for the sake of righteousness and the soul and character of our nation.  One would think it would be a relatively easy task given the indisputable nature of the facts that support conservative notions of virtue and morality.   But the GOP is too spineless in the face of BS allegations of racism, discrimination, misogyny and a host of other lies used by the left to appeal to the emotion, rather than to whatever mind exists in the heads of Dem voters.


But here's the thing.  Embarrassment only afflicts those who have a conscience.  For those who feel no shame, who reject the concept of guilt, except where it can be used to force compliance by those with said conscience, there is no embarrassment.  Yet there is plenty for which the left in general, and the Democratic Party and its supporters should feel great shame.  I'll be posting on that incredibly long list soon, though I doubt I'll be able to take the time and space for a complete list.  It'll just be too long.  A complete list is unnecessary to make the point.  Stay tuned.
 


370 comments:

1 – 200 of 370   Newer›   Newest»
Eternity Matters said...

Oh, it is embarrassing how awfully the R's have performed with the Presidency, House and Senate. So many RINOs voted for ACA repeal when it couldn't happen failed to when it could. Sick. That's one example of many.

But are Dems proud of their child killing? And perversion pushing? And rampant corruption? Oops - bad questions -- of course they are!

Feodor said...

Bigotry, racism, and misogyny are disqualified in this country. Because we love Jesus, the living One. Not a leather bound, red ink, translated reproduction from a publishing manufacturer. ������

“A mayor in Ohio who left the Democratic Party last year to endorse Donald Trump for president has gone down in defeat.... But even though Brook Park is overwhelmingly white — the 2010 census showed the town of 19,000 people was 92 percent white — Coyne only received 38 percent of the vote on Tuesday.“

“Democrat Danica Roem defeated Virginia Del. Bob Marshall (R) on Tuesday, becoming the first openly transgender state lawmaker in Virginia. The outcome was that much sweeter because Marshall co-sponsored a 2006 Virginia constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that prompted LGBTQ activists to dub him “Bigot Bob.”

“Andrea Jenkins won a seat on the Minneapolis City Council, becoming the first openly transgender African American woman ever elected to public office in the U.S.”

“The first black mayor in the entire history of Montana, Wilmot Collins, who arrived in the US as a refugee from civil war in Liberia, was elected Mayor in Helena, Montana. PROGRESS! He has been an outspoken voice on Trump’s immigration bans and his election was a repudiation of Trump as well.”

“Voters in St. Paul have elected the city's first African-American mayor. Former City Council member Melvin Carter beat a field of 10 candidates Tuesday according to unofficial election returns. The 38-year-old Carter is executive director of Gov. Mark Dayton's Children's Cabinet. He campaigned on reducing educational and employment disparities and improving police-community relations.”

“Maine residents on Election Day voted to extend Medicaid coverage to an estimated 70,000 of their neighbors by overwhelmingly approving a ballot initiative 59 percent to 41 percent...”

Feodor said...

Meanwhile, “The House Republican tax reform plan would add $1.7 trillion to the U.S. national debt over the next decade, according to a preliminary debt calculation by the Congressional Budget Office, exceeding the limits Republicans agreed to for their reconciliation bill.”

Craig said...

No, they’re not.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Art and Neil, you sum it up perfectly! RINOS have killed the Republican Party. I'm sick of their capitulating to the immoral, perverted socialists called Democrats.

Feodor said...

Get ready to puke your wicked guts out, Glenn, because your neighbors are at the come to Jesus meeting on decency and love. Which, as Tuesday shows, is the blue colored tent.

Marshal Art said...

That's funny. The Dems removed God from the party platform and feo thinks they're holding a "come to Jesus" meeting in their tent. What a loon!

Feodor said...

No, son. Jefferson removed the requirement for it in the Constitution. Though, we all know how you would like a Christian sharia regime.

Marshal Art said...

No, boy. There's no requirement that recognition or mention of God NOT be in a party platform. And while fools like you pretend guns are the problem, the truth is rejection of God plays a greater role in man's inhumanity to man. Though we all know how you'd love a godless society.

Feodor said...

You liar. Jefferson removed the requirement of faith from barring participation in the political life of America. You love twisting things like Satan, child.

Marshal Art said...

Lying is YOUR thing, false priest. Jefferson did not remove religion from political life. Barring a litmus test is not the same thing. While a candidate doesn't have to be religious, he's also not required to be anti-/non-religious or atheist. Recognizing God or the influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the founding of this nation is NOT something that Jefferson would agree must be barred from a political party's platform. As such recognition fails to equate to establishing a religion, there's no reason or justification for denying a party's recognition.

But the Dems howled at the prospect of including the mention of God in their platform. All the better to promote their secular, humanist and immoral agenda.

Feodor said...

Jefferson removed the requirement. My words. Like your phrase, litmus test. Which you obviously twisted in an attempt to lie. You are a
souless babe of Satan.

Marshal Art said...

I twisted nothing, false priest. I corrected and clarified your woeful lack of understanding with regard to religion in politics.

Feodor said...

And we know how your evangelicals use God: to justify Roy Moore’s sexual assault on a 14 year old girl.

“Take the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist,” Ziegler said choosing his words carefully before invoking Christ. “Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus. There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here,” Ziegler concluded. “Maybe just a little bit unusual.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alabama-state-auditor-defends-roy-moore-against-sexual-allegations-invokes-mary-and-joseph/article/2640217

Anonymous said...

Again, why wouldn't the GOP be embarrassed? Dayum!

Dan

Craig said...

Yeah,the dude in AL is pretty nutty and should probably just fade away. But I don’t see why I should personally be embarrassed by him.

Feodor said...

Not by him. By his nomination. By the defense in support of him. You shouldn’t be embarasssrd by Trump, either. You should be embarrassed by his victory in the GOP, and by his occupation in the White House.

Both cases speak to the sellout of souls on the right. Your massive collective hypocrisy. Your denial of decency. Your embrace of brutalizing rhetoric and policy.

And your refusal to admit and disown the political life of all ya’ll reaches extraordinary heights of despicable behavior.

Craig said...

I guess I live in a world where I’m not clear how I somehow bear responsibility for something I had nothing to do with.

On the other hand ones inability to answer a simple question is no one else’s responsibility.

Feodor said...

Yes. Dan and I are well aware of how your personal positions are absolutely disconnected to any integrated moral life.

Anonymous said...

If the Democrats elected a Trump, a Moore, I would be devastated and fighting tooth and nail - even harder than I am against the GOP Trump - at calling out the Dems for their hypocrisy and sick pandering to racists and sexists and perverts. I mean, these men are women and child abusers (it appears) and you have idiots in Alabama saying, "Well, it's sorta like Mary and Joseph!"

That makes me seriously want to vomit. And I'm not a GOP/conservative, but that an American would defend these two seriously unfit, seriously dangerous, seriously un-American (our better ideals) and un-Christian perverts is just nauseating.

You can bet that I wouldn't stand for it if it were Dems defending them.

~Dan

Marshal Art said...

We're being criticized and condescended to by two pathetic frauds who support the Democrats, socialists, sexually immoral, baby killers, BLM/Antifa, race-baiters, a host of other bad behaviors, the Clintons, Obama, Weiner, Frank, Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin and host of other morally bankrupt politicians. As I said, they aren't embarrassed by this because they, too, are morally corrupt and devoid of shame. Where those such as Craig, Glenn and I are indeed embarrassed by the leftist behaviors of those who should know better (the GOP in particular), feo and Dan feel no shame or embarrassment whatsoever, especially since they agree with the immoral policies of the leftists they support.

Dan Trabue said...

Yeah, that Obama was a monster. Just look at all the scandals he had. More than any president ever! Oh wait, no, that's not right. Obama was a straight arrow with a lovely, respectable, model family with nary a serious scandal tied to him. Now, I didn't agree with him on many things, but the man is a model of respectability. YOU should be so respectable.

It's really hard to take Trump defenders seriously when they criticize Obama. It's sorta like the pot calling the pristine snow black. If the pot was an ignorant racist-supporting, stupid-as-shit pervert.

Craig said...

I’m pretty sure Dan just got on his high horse about how we should not treat a group negatively based on the actions of a few people. I guess that lasted about as long as it took for him to go back to the broad brush he’s so fond of.

Of course, both of the members of the peanut gallery are basing their all of this vitriol on their perceptions, not on reality. It’s hard for them to realize that pointing out specious arguments where they are made, and supporting something are not synonymous.

Finally, P-BO gets elevated to “pristine snow” (I guess Dan thinks it’s good to be “snow”), is sainthood next? Perhaps messiah?

But at least he got in some good old fashioned slanders in your character. All done in the loving name of “jesus”.

Anonymous said...

It is demonstrable that, in comparison to all the president's around him (going back to Jimmy Carter), Obama's administration and family were remarkably scandal free. Deny the data and reality if you wish.

It probably makes you feel better to try to pretend that Obama was as messed up as Reagan, Bush, Bush and this disaster in the Whitehouse now, but the data doesn't support that sort of delusion.

Dan
Dan

Craig said...

Clearly you didn’t read what I actually wrote. Please try that and then comment again if you’d like.

I think you’ve confused my disagreement with your “pristine snow” comment with my comparison of P-BO to other presidents. I’m simply pointing out the fact that his administration wasn’t quite as “pristine” and “snowy” white as you’d like it to be.

But if it helps you to think so, go right ahead.

Dan Trabue said...

Clearly you didn't read what I actually wrote or have said in the past.

And again, the data does not support you.

Look at the arrests and criminal charges in the Reagan/Reagan/Bush/Trump years! Look at them in the Obama years.

I'm just looking at the data, maybe that's what's throwing you off...?

As I've said in the past, I have problems with many policies of Obama. That he continued Bush's Guantanamo and drone bombing mistakes make it clear that he was not a perfect president and that he did things I disagreed with strongly. So, no sainthood from me. That I acknowledge how amazing clean he was compared to your guys or even Clinton is not in any way nominating him for sainthood or messiah.

But compared to the other recent presidents and Obama, he was a very clean, above board, scandal-free president.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

I’m pretty sure Dan just got on his high horse about how we should not treat a group negatively based on the actions of a few people.

Indeed, we shouldn't. And I'm not.

The problem for your side is that fully ONE THIRD of the US still supports Trump and half of Alabama, for instance, supports Moore (a huge number of them, EVEN IF it's true that he tried dating young teenagers when in his 30s!) is not a few people.

We are not talking about a few isolated outsiders. There is quite clearly a large swath of conservatives who come too close to fitting in with the Deplorables, defending perverts, child abusers, sexists, racists and other awful people.

And again, IF huge swaths of Democrats were voting for someone similar, you can bet I'd be campaigning hard against the Dems and those who defend him. You all are not. You're either semi-defending the Trumpish ones (as Marshall often is and you sometimes are) or you're not actively working against them. Hell, you haven't posted a single post against either Trump or Moore. That would not be the case for me if they were running as Dems.

That's the difference between me/Feo and you all. We'd have the integrity to speak out against monsters. For you, not being actively supportive of them is sufficient. You and I are different in that regards.

Dan Trabue said...

In other words, I'm not treating you and others like you negatively based on the actions of A FEW PEOPLE.

I'm saying, "What in the hell is wrong with the 'good conservatives' who are not actively standing up and speaking out against these LARGE NUMBERS of conservatives who are supporting these truly awful and unfit candidates?!"

The point being, lest you fail to get it, is that we're not blaming you for the actions of a few people, we're saying why are you not speaking out more loudly against these large numbers of people? That isn't treating you or "the group" of you all negatively. It's a call for action from you all, collectively.

Do you think a call for action is equal to "negative treatment..."? I thought you all were against the snowflakes, not part of them.

Marshal Art said...

Briefly, because I don't have the time at present as I ready for work:

As Dan is wont to do, he chooses to define as narrowly as possibly what constitutes a scandal so as to better his argument with regard to Obama and his administration. At the same time, he is more than willing to denigrate other admins based upon the actions of a hostile political opposition. His view of Reagan is the perfect example. No amount of objective review of any of these mentioned admins will change his view, because he's as dishonest as feo.

Feodor said...

There goes Marshall, trained in white supremacy thinking: deny facts, ignore laws and judges like he ignores scientists.

Kin to thinking Mary and Joseph justifies sexually assaulting 14 year old girls (“them’s lies from a Yankee paper”).

Dan Trabue said...

As a point of fact, demonstrated by verifiable reality, Reagan and his people committed war crimes, planting bombs in the harbor in Nicaragua, supported terrorists in Latin America, etc. They were convicted of it. No amount of pointing to the facts will cause Marshall to release his fealty to this party/conservatives. Marshall and his ilk simple aren't embarrassed by war crimes, nor by perversions (when it's from conservatives), nor by racist rallies.

"Don't let reality get in the way of my opinion!" eh, Marshall?

There's nothing dishonest in my pointing to reality.

Craig said...

Dan, whether if not P-BO’s administration had more or less scandals relative to other administrations doesn’t justify your “pristine white” characterization. But, never let what I said get in the way of a good tantrum.

So, you agree that the whole shouldn’t be blamed for the actions of the part, then proceed to blame the entire GOP for the actions of a minority. Impressive job of contradicting yourself so quickly. It usually takes longer.

Dan Trabue said...

sigh. It's figurative speech. Think about it, man. Do you really think I think that Obama is a saint? Or any politician?

Man, you guys have trouble with figurative language. Maybe you should just pause any time you find something that seems troubling if you take it literally and think, "Hm. Maybe he's using that figuratively. Maybe I'm not understanding his meaning. Maybe I should respectfully ask for clarification..."

Hint: Given your history of misunderstanding, it's a safe bet you're misunderstanding.

But yes, given the level of DEEP and serious scandals of the GOP presidents (War crimes, supporting terrorists, ignoring our laws to do so, profiteering, etc, etc!) versus the Democrat ones (lying about a blow job. Messed up her emails. Geez.), and given that the GOP scandals have involved actual crimes where people have been and ARE still being arrested, versus, um, whatever it is your fevered mind imagines Obama has done (what, lied about being born in Kenya??), yes, the figurative language of "pristine white" seems reasonably justified. But if you disagree, okay, disagree. It's figurative language, not a precise measured judgment.

And yes, I blame the GOP for nominating then electing a perverted liar who is wholly unfit for office. Why? Because they, collectively, as the ones who elected him. If it wasn't for the GOP, would he be in office today? Who would you like me to hold accountable?

And, I repeat:

IF huge swaths of Democrats were voting for someone similar, you can bet I'd be campaigning hard against the Dems and those who defend him. You all are not. You're either semi-defending the Trumpish ones (as Marshall often is and you sometimes are) or you're not actively working against them. Hell, you haven't posted a single post against either Trump or Moore. That would not be the case for me if they were running as Dems.

And that's the difference between me and you.

Can you at least acknowledge that reality?

Anonymous said...

Can anyone here on the conservative side point to a run of the mill conservative blogger who has strongly criticized Trump, Moore and/or their supporters? Because it seems no matter how perverse, how ill-informed or how un-American or un-Christian these two act, there is no condemnation. No, "That's enough!"

I realize that a few brave conservatives have done so and done so strongly. Retiring representatives, for instance or a few conservative Christians like Russell Moore (who were then roundly repudiated by his fellow conservative Baptists), but the mainstream conservative blogosphere seems eerily quiet.

Was Trump right that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and retain his more rabid supporters?

~Dan

Craig said...

Can I acknowledge the reality that you frequently choose to say things and then make excuses for them.

Can I recognize the reality that you are claiming that you would do something, but haven’t, yes.

I’d start with Matt Walsh.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, I'm pointing out the reality that Trump is a scum pervert piece of shit idiot who is unfit for office and the reality that I would say that even if he ran as a Democrat. That is reality. I don't give a damn if you believe it or not, it's reality.

And I'm pointing out the reality that you have not said jack shit negative about him in any serious manner on your blog. Nor have you made sweeping calls for serious change of direction in the GOP on your blog. That, too, is reality.

Can you recognize that reality? That is my question to you.

It appears the answer is no.

Feodor said...

Craig doesn’t have the balls to say where he stands. He lays back like a middle schooler on the bleachers pointing his finger in criticism.

Because 1) he doesn’t have the guts to get in the game and 2) he knows that his - hidden - political behavior is indefensible.

Anonymous said...

I am intrigued, though Craig... WHO is Matt Walsh and what does he have to do with anything? A useful distraction so you can keep ignoring the monsters in your house?

It also strikes me that you are completely able to take a strong stand against two little bloggers who you disagree with. Hell, you've written about my poor little pissant self at your blog multiple times.

But not the first post against Trump.

Hm.

Dan

Marshal Art said...

I totally agree with Dan. He's an absolute pissant. If only feo could be as honest about his own self. If only feo could rise to pissant level himself...a lofty height for feo indeed.

In the meantime, just as Dan isn't satisfied with just a single verse in Scripture, he is no more content with a single statement against the character of Trump. Both Craig and myself have both spoken against Trump, but Dan and his bleeding hemorrhoid, feo, won't be happy unless we call for Trump to be drawn and quartered. In the meantime, they eagerly support the continuing murder of the unborn and all manner of sexual perversion. It's what we've come to expect.

Craig said...

I’ve said negative things about Trump at various blogs as well as at mine.

Matt Walsh is the answer to your question asking for conservative bloggers who have spoken against Trump.

If you call answering your questions a distraction, then I guess it is.

At least you’re right about you being a pissant, so that’s one thing.

I’ve said this multiple times, I didn’t support Trump, didn’t vote for Trump and have given my reasons why. Just because I don’t obsess with expletive laden vitriol and turn ever single comment thread into an anti Trump screed, doesn’t mean I support him.



Craig said...

Now Feo has some insight into my “hidden” political behavior. Omniscience must be such a burden. But then, so is answering one simple question.

One more thing Feo and Dan have in common.

Craig said...

Dan,

Your use of figurative language isn’t the problem, it’s when said language is used poorly or isn’t an accurate characterization that I have a problem.

In this particular case, had you simply said that the P-BO administration had fewer (or significantly fewer) scandals there would have been no problem. You chose to use language that suggested that P-BO’s administration was “pristine”, which indicates that you are saying scandal free.

So use all the figurative language you want, just try to use it appropriately.

Anonymous said...

Re Craig's... "Just because I don't obsess with expletive-laden vitriol...doesn't mean I support him..."

No one is asking you to obsess.

No one is asking for expletives.

No one is asking for vitriol.

Look at our words. None of that is what we've said we're looking for.

What we are looking for is at least one post. One single post. ONE time where you create a post where you denounce the man, Trump (Moore, Etc) as unfit for office... Where you chastise the huge swath of conservatives who support the man for supporting him when he is so clearly unfit.

One post... is that asking too much? No, not if you actually opposed the man.

The thing is you do not appear to actually oppose him... you just are vaguely uncomfortable with him and that is the problem.

All it takes for evil to win and all that.

Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The real scandal in the Alabama Senate Race

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/the_real_scandal_in_the_alabama_senate_race.html

Something neither Feo or Dan will admit.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Another excellent article, this one defending Moore.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/in_defense_of_judge_roy_moore.html

Funny, isn't it, how these charges just happened to surface at this particular time? And the Republicans are useless cowards abandoning him just because someone makes unproven claims against him.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Only the LEFTISTS jump to conclusions assuming the veracity of a LEFTIST publication when they desperately need to win an election. And only cowards join the LEFTISTS in abandoning someone who is the victim of a smear campaign.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/11/stuff_and_nonsense_clarity_on_judge_roy_moore_.html

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Something else for Feo and Trabue to read before going off half-cocked about Moore. Oh, wait, facts mean nothing to the LEFT.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/11/roy_moores_wild_oats.html

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Wait, don't both Feo and Trabue claim to be top-notch Christians? So, are Christians supposed to accept claims against someone's character without hearing all the evidence? Yes they are, but neither of these false teachers care about such things. They always attack anyone who isn't a LEFTIST, all the while ignoring the tons of factual evidence exposing the LEFT for the perverse, baby-killing racists that they are.

Dan Trabue said...

The real scandal in the Alabama Senate Race

Hm. So, Glenn points to the reality that the Democrat supports reasonable democrat positions - even if Glenn disagrees, with them, egad! - do you really think that is scandalous? What's next? That Moore supports GOP positions?

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word, Glenn.

On the other hand, even MITCH MCCONNELL believes the women who've charged Moore are telling the truth! I have to tell you, that surprises the hell out of me! But there it is, he believes them, and I think he's right to do so.

On yet the other hand, Moore crazily lashes out saying that the Democrats are behind these several women who've made these claims, a vast Left Wing political and media conspiracy!! Fine. Where is the evidence for such an astounding claim?

What's that? There IS NO EVIDENCE?! He's just making an entirely unsupported claim?

Why, there, too, is an actual scandal (as opposed to Democrats who believe in Democrat planks!)

As to hearing "all the evidence," of course, I support that. And the evidence is that multiple women who do not appear to know each other have come forward to make these charges. That's the evidence. Add to that, several of Moore's colleagues from back in the day say it was a known thing that he dated/tried to date teenage girls. That's the evidence.

On the flip side, Moore says it's all a lie, part of a vast left wing conspiracy. With no evidence to support this crazed claim.

His supporters say even if it is true, it's just like Mary and Joseph, so no real harm done. His supporters say that even if it is true, they will vote for him. One poll says that amongst evangelicals in Alabama, they are now even MORE likely to vote for Moore!

What does the actual evidence say?

Does it matter one single flip to Glenn?

Clarify, Glenn (Marshall, Craig), do you all think it is okay for a 32 year old man to try to date, touch, kiss a 17, 16, 14 year old girl? If you knew that was true of Moore, would you still support him?

Take a stand, men. Be men.

Craig said...

I’ve denounced Trump in various comments across various blogs. I think my views on Trump are out there.

The problem you have, I think, is that I posted on my view of Trumps moral/ethical issues long before this more recent stuff. Wouldn’t if follow that if I found his morals lacking for divorces and affairs, that I wouldn’t be any more excited now.

Anonymous said...

So, taking a stand with ONE single post on your blog IS asking too much?

Got you. Which is to say, I understand you and where you stand. You're vaguely dissatisfied with Trump, but not enough to take any real stand.

Indeed, I understand.

Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Yeah, those Demokrat policies are really reasonable, aren't they: Abortion, same-sex fake marriage, fake transgenderism, socialism of all sorts. What I find interesting is how the LEFT (Trabue and Feo included) promote sexual anarchy while at the same time decrying someone charge with sexual anarchy!

Oh, so Mitch McConnell believes the yarns? So that makes the lies true? Did you even read the evidence against the claims? of course not.

The "evidence" is that he POSSIBLY dated WOMEN who have been dug up the WAPO and the DNC who claim he sexually harassed them when he was 35+ years younger and unmarried. "Harassment" is not assault or rape, and actually covers so many things that it is nebulous, and who really cares if some man sexually harassed a few women 35+ years ago. The "evidence" about the 14-yr-old is falling apart and very strangely suspicious, which you would have noted had you actually read any factual information.

I have no idea what "supporter" would say anything like "Mary and Joseph" (context please).

There is no evidence that what these women say is true, and you say there is no evidence what Moore says is true. His claim seems to be the more credible one.

Oh, and for the record, any young lady who is beyond puberty is a "young woman," not a "girl." And if you had actually looked at the facts, 16 and 17 would have been legal age of consent at the time. And the case about the 14 is still extremely doubtful as to what took place -- if anything. FACTS, not emotions.


Oh, and one more thing; I don't vote for pastors in political races, I vote for who will do the best job of governing, and could care less about something that wasn't illegal and took place decades ago.

Anonymous said...

Simple question for Craig and Marshall. Are you embarrassed by Glenn's words here and now?

Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Are they supposed to be embarrassed by the facts I presented or by my belief that I'm not voting for a pastor?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

AAAANNNDDDD Matt Walsh again nails the LEFTISTS (like Feo and Trabue) with their hypocrisy on this one!!!
http://www.dailywire.com/news/23496/if-kids-cant-consent-stop-pushing-sex-and-birth-matt-walsh

Feodor said...

If children cannot consent, Glenn, then stop pushing sexual predators on them. You and your evangelical friends encourage panty explorers just because you hold a grudge against 60 million American voters?

You’re sick in the head.

“A group of 53 Alabama pastors has signed onto a letter urging Alabamians to vote for Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore after the allegations of sexual misconduct were leveled against him.

The letter, published on AL.com and posted on Moore's wife's Facebook page, praises the candidate for his "immovable convictions for Biblical principles" and says he suffered "persecution" for his faith by opposing gay marriage as Alabama's chief justice.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/360140-more-than-50-alabama-pastors-sign-letter-supporting-roy-moore

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Feo,

Not one of the young women supposedly with Moore was a child.

Alabama pastors should know better. My understanding was that Moore became a Christian after these supposed incidents occurred, which means he became a new creation. For "pastors" to hold possibly immoral activity against a man that took place prior to conversion (and so far as is reported was at least legal), only show they are not obeying Christ. Do you want to be held accountable now for sins you committed four decades ago? More proof YOU don't know what Christianity is about.

Again, how do these actions, even if true, disqualify him from an office three decades later?

The LEFT put Clinton in office and he had a history of proven RAPE, not just sexual harassment.

OH, it is YOU LEFTISTS who have decided that "children" can consent to everything sexual, and even get abortions. You stinking hypocrite.

Craig said...

I personally don’t think it’s right. However, as unseemly as it is, it’s possible that the age of consent may have been 16 at the time, which doesn’t make things less bad.

Just to clarify, what we have right now are unconfirmed allegations. I believe that Moore should drop out of the race, and deal with the allegations. Even if there ends up being nothing to them, his continuing in the race is bad for everyone.

Of course, if he chooses not to drop out that tells us something about his character (or lack of), doesn’t it.

Craig said...

Dan, do you and Feo share psychic powers? Do they work all the time for both of you or do you have to make arrangements to use them?

In reality, what you need to remember is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You have no real idea what I’m doing or not doing (I separate private from public for a reason), your just choosing to draw a biased conclusion in a way that you feel helps your position. I’ll also say this (which is something I’ve said publicly) I’m not a person who thinks that blog, FB posts, or tweets, are actually engaging in meaningful change. So, by my very nature, I’m unlikely to do something that i don’t see as being effective.

Oh, and your welcome. I’m sure you appreciated the answer to your question and just forgot to mention it.

Craig said...

i tend not to read Glenn’s comments, and since i didn’t write them, didn’t read them, and don’t plan to, I’m not sure why i would be embarrassed by something someone else wrote. You’ve apparently changed your tune and would like to briar brush as many people as possible with someone else’s comments.

Craig said...

Sorry, broad not briar.

Feodor said...

"Not one of the young women supposedly with Moore was a child."

Glenn approves of sexual assault on a 14 year old. As evangelicals and Republicans all seem to be approving or ignoring it.

Glenn is sick in the head.

And should be a moral embarrassment.

But you guys cannot be morally embarrassed.

You've sold your morals for... several reasons.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Craig,

So an innocent person should drop out of the race for a job for which he is more than qualified just because some very suspicious allegations have been made against him? And he has poor character if he doesn't drop out? Even if the charges of sexual harassment were true, how the deuce does that matter almost 40 years later to whether or not he is qualified or whether he should have the job?!?!? Do you want your sins from that long ago preventing you from attaining a job? And what about the Christian faith which says he is a new creation and is forgiven?

Feo
There is no evidence other than a claim that Moore was ever with a 14-yr-old young woman. Nowhere in anything I've ever written has ever given approval for sexual assault on anyone. So quit your false accusations (wait, I forgot, you are a pathological liar). Some lady almost 40 years after the supposed incident took place, making claims right before an election, and totally associated with the DNC, is not proof of anything but collusion with the LEFTISTS trying to get rid of a candidate they can't otherwise beat.

The only one sick in the head here are Feo and Trabue

Feodor said...

And now a 16 year old as well.

But Glenn turns s blind eye to where his party and his “faith” have brought him: using the Bible to justify child sexual abuse.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Still looking for evidence of child sexual abuse with Moore, and still looking for evidence that I have ever approved of or condoned child sexual abuse as the lying Feo suggests.

The real perverts are those who approve of sexual anarchy.

Feodor said...

Six women speaking out in public with 32 witnesses is evidence, Glenn.

You don’t know what the word means.

What you want is the word of a judge or jury evaluating the evidence. That’s called a judgment. And if Mr Moore were in trial that’s what I’d want, too.

But, like Cosby and Weinstein, predators are very good at warding off judgment for a very long time.

Because people like you cover up for them, deny evidence. Thrill to the perversion you cannot name.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The LEFT can assemble a lot of people to say what they want. They even have opponents murdered.

But my point remains. Let's say Moore did indeed sexually harass all these women, and even tried to force them into doing what they didn't want to do. There is no evidence that he has done anything similar in the past 35 years. He never raped anyone, by the way, unlike Bill Clinton did.

Why should what he did 35-40 years ago have anything to do with who he is now? That has been my point all along. Do you want your sins held against you 40 years after the fact? It isn't like he raped or murdered anyone, which would be a lot more serious charge. (Even with the charges against them, it is just "he said" and "she said." Again, you are supposed to be a Christian (all the while proving you aren't) but you have not thought of forgiveness for something the man did as a non-believer. You are a despicable dolt.

All the while you promote sexual anarchy and yet hypocritically want to drive someone into the ground for applying YOUR philosophy of anything-goes-sex.

Feodor said...

I'm going to need someone else to talk to this tortured juvenile narcissist and pervert. He's waaay to much like Trump for me to engage anymore.

"There's no evidence!"

6 women's testimony and 32 witnesses are evidence.

"Oh. The Dems kill people!"

Evidence? Hannity was there?

"Why should what he did 35-40 years ago have anything to do with who he is now?"

Roy Moore "I deny everything. Never happened!"

Not to mention that he will never face trial, nor an impeachment hearing. We removed Weiner before a trial. We rejected John Edwards before a trial. We rejected Biden way back in the day for impeachment and Gary Hart for monkey business.

You, Glenn?

"Well, ok he touched a 14 year old through her panties and kidnapped and fondled a 16 year old. At least he didn't rape anyone."

Sick in the head, Glenn. You are sick in the head.

Craig said...

Glenn,
From a purely political standpoint, yes. No matter whether that allegations are true or not the controversy will more than likely sink his chances to win. Also, if this ends up being true, then having him win and have to resign is worse. To be sure,I'm applying my personal lens here and projecting how I'd handle it. As to the whole "sins of 40 years ago" thing. If he did what he is accused of doing, and went through some sort of repentance/forgiveness/restoration process at that time, that would be one thing. If he did it, and is denying it 40 years later, then he's essentially continuing what he did. Unfortunately we're talking about politics here (and a conservative politician). I posted on this a while back in relation to Trump.

I have to admit that this one sided, being embarrassed by what other people say or do is kind of strange. Why not just let people be responsible for and embarrassed by the things they say or do, instead of trying to shame others into some sort of bizarre responsibility for someone else's words or deeds. Dan seems to agree, until he starts the shaming.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

"Well, ok he touched a 14 year old through her panties and kidnapped and fondled a 16 year old. At least he didn't rape anyone."

No credible evidence, just "he said, she said."

You have a real hang-up about ages, unless you want them to be homosexual or transgender, or have an abortion, then that's okay. You are the pervert, you disgusting P.O.S.

Craig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Feodor said...

And, yet again. I cannot answer to where your humanity is Craig. I’ve looked in a lot of places. It would help if you’d come out of the darkness and help.

Avoiding the stink of Moore isn’t humanity by you. Clearly only calculation. Like separating yourself from perverted Glenn.

Craig said...

What's interesting is that, for the left, the answer is simple. Just win the election, problem solved.

Of course, when one compares the level of vitriol generated by one senate candidate to the virtual silence when it comes to sitting senators peddling influence or millionaire donors and bundlers, is interesting to watch.

Marshal Art said...

First, I don't know why Glenn's comments should be overlooked, unless one is saving time by responding only to the idiocies of people like Dan and feo.

Second, the context of the time and place is ignored in order to smear Moore. While I might not think dating a 16 year old is appropriate, Alabama has different standards that Alabamans are free to change should they agree. Thus far, the age of consent is still 16 (I believe).

Third, I know from first hand experience that some girls as young as 13 can look old enough to buy me beer. (No, small minded Dan and feo...I never approached them for dates. But their appearance fooled me easily.) So the question never asked is whether or not the 14 year old (the only accuser under the age of consent and the one with the worst accusation) informed Moore of her age right off. I'm unaware of whether this occurred.

Fourth, and this is very important. People like Dan and feo are stalwart defenders of all manner of sexual perversion, the murder of the unborn and other corruptions of Christianity. They absolutely NEED stories like this one to distract from their own evil and heresies. They dismiss their own enabling and support while hyping up every hint and allegation of those they oppose, as they pretend to inhabit the moral high ground. It's the epitome of hypocrisy, but so comfortably worn by the both of them.

In the meantime, I don't recall Dan EVER providing a post of the type he now demands of either of us or any other conservative. He claims he's spoken out about Bill Clinton, but I don't recall any such post (perhaps he wasn't blogging during those years). It's enough for us that he's claimed to have opposed him based on his sexually predatory history, but we're not allowed the same. No. We have to lead our own lynch mob against those who have no worse alleged against them than did Clinton, and much farther back in the past than Clinton's.

Finally, Dan and feo continue to whine about Trump being unfit and unqualified, but neither has spent any time speaking to anything else about him but his personal sexual history and his crude manner. Neither has ever spoken to Obama's lack of accomplishments prior to his ascendancy that made him far less worthy of the presidency than Trump's manner. Obama was, and still is, the picture and definition of an empty suit, and neither of these small-minded boys has ever held it against Obama.

Yet they are not embarrassed by that at all...because they have no shame, no conscience, no sense of right or wrong. And definitely no concept of choosing when doing so is of great consequence. They are both frauds of the worst kind. False in every way.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The information about the age of consent, the culture of the south, etc, as Art points out is thoroughly examined in the articles I link to, but neither Feo nor Trabue bother to read factual information about the case; all they do is automatically assume any charge made against a Republic must be true, regardless of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the charges. Unless, of course, the charges are made against THEIR heroes.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

"charge made against a Republican"

Dan Trabue said...

but neither has spent any time speaking to anything else about him but his personal sexual history and his crude manner.

1. He lies like a man with no clue as to what truth is. This is no small thing, no matter how many times you blow it off.

2. He's demonstrated a profound ignorance of basic history and how the nation is run.

3. He's demonstrated a profound indifference to the rule of law.

4. He's demonstrated an anti-American/anti-rational antagonism to the free press.

5. He lied about his promise to show his taxes.

6. He did not divest himself from his fortunes.

well, here, you can read some of the dozens of ways he is unfit for office. As I've talked about many times. Don't let reality kick you in the butt on the way out...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/us-politics/donald-trump-house-democrats-president-impeach-no-confidence-resolution-a7850006.html

Marshall...

He claims he's spoken out about Bill Clinton, but I don't recall any such post

I began blogging in 2005, so no, I did not tackle Clinton's affairs with adult women or any abuses he may have done four years after he left office. I will note, however, that if you go to my blog and type in a search for Bill Clinton, you will see that I did more criticism of Bill Clinton years AFTER he left his post than all THREE of you all have about Trump in the middle of the most dysfunctional and abusive-to-our-system presidency ever.

I DID write letters to the paper (which is what I did before blogging) following the Lewinsky Lie calling for him to step down and criticizing Democrats for not demanding it. Did I call for him to step down based on the unproven allegations of three women whose stories were concerning, but not as believable as the Moore or Trump allegations. For one thing, both Trump and Moore have histories of being sexist pigs, whereas Clinton didn't.

Now, I DO believe that Clinton was clearly a womanizer (again, with adult women, unlike Moore) (and no, you fucking pervert Glenn, children who are 14, 15, 16 or 17 are NOT adults, no how much your feverish mind might want to fantasize about it. Creep.) and shame on him for that. But when it comes down to it, I (and many others) think there is reasonable doubt on the sexual assault allegations.

And I do think that lying to Congress - even about something as flimsy as a consensual blow job with an adult - was clearly wrong and I called for him to resign over those lies.

On the other hand, Trump and Moore lie with impunity, regularly, to everyone, and you all won't hold him accountable. Shame on you. What happened to moral conservatives?

On the other hand and as we have established, many conservatives find the Moore allegations believable. When you present yourself as a sexist creep, it becomes that much more believable to side with women who charge you with misdeeds.

Dan Trabue said...

Feodor...

Like separating yourself from perverted Glenn.

I have to say that I feel like I need to take a shower after reading what Glenn and Marshall write. They make me feel quite literally nauseous. No wonder they won't condemn Trumpmoore... they admire themhim! ("If only I could get away with tickling a pretty young thing!")

If allegations were to arise about Marshall/Glenn, I would not be surprised, either, given their words and attitudes about women.

ugh.

Tell me true, boys, have either of you had sexually inappropriate charges leveled your way ever?

~Dan

Dan Trabue said...

Here's another instance of Glenn's deviance...

He never raped anyone, by the way, unlike Bill Clinton did.

He defends Trumpmoore, in spite of credible allegations that even conservatives find convincing. And yet, he condemns without question B Clinton for less supported charges, stating it as a fact.

Now, it would be one thing if Glenn ALWAYS accepted the word of women who make allegations, but clearly, Glenn only accepts the allegations if they're directed towards liberals, which shows that Glenn doesn't give a shit about the abuse of women, and only uses it to serve political ends.

Craig, you find plenty of time to step up and criticize me and feodor, but can't spend even one word against your allies? That makes you rather like Glenn, in your selective decision to make charges only for partisan ends. Even when the charges against people like me and feodor are that you don't think we're telling the truth or that we're being inconsistent... THAT you find time for. But abusing women, lying to the American people, base incompetency, you remain silent.

"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing"

Demonstrating that they're not really that Good, unfortunately.

And now, seriously, I've got to go shower. These guys are loathesome in their perversity.

Craig said...

Charging me with selective derision, is definitely one of those pot/kettle situations. But, yes for the most part I’ve chosen to address the problems with the position taken by you and Feo and the hypocrisy there in.

Art and i have gone round and round on this multiple times both in public and in private. I’ve also been critical of Glenn, perhaps you noticed my disagreement earlier in this thread. The fact that I’ve mostly chosen to disagree without the vitriol, name calling, and aspersions you and Feo trade in, is just a difference in style.

Dan Trabue said...

No, Craig. Your critiques towards your allies are almost always so milquetoast that I don't usually see them. "oh, guys, gee, maybe I sorta disagree with that a bit, idunno, maybe not, gee, what can I do? I just don't know... mebbe you're sorta wrong fellas..."

For your allies, even when they're defending the worst of perversions.

Not so much for liberals, with whom you're mainly just disagreeing, it's not like we're coming out in defense of child molesters and sexual assailants. Or of regular, stupid liars (ie, those who lie regularly with lies so stupid that it's painful).

What DID you say to Glenn by way of criticism? How does it compare to what you've said to the liberals?

And again, I'd point out that I criticized Bill Clinton - YEARS after his presidency - much more fiercely and more times than you have ever criticized Trump on your blog in the midst of the mudslime of his presidency. So, your concerns that I'm not being harsh enough towards my side don't hold much water.

Feodor said...

“Senate Republican candidate Roy Moore, who has been accused by a woman of sexually assaulting her when she was 16, was banned from an Alabama mall in the 1980s after he targeted young girls for dates, according to a report Monday.”

Anonymous said...

There you go with "facts" and "news reports," Feodor!

~Dan

Feodor said...

“Moore had been banned from the mall, as well as the YMCA, at some point for ‘badgering teen-age girls.’”

Craig said...

I had no idea this was a competition, even less so that the only way to win is to do what Dan demands.

Feodor said...

Craig loves to avoid brutal inhumanities with diversionary snark. Keeps cloaking his inability to face his conscience.

Dan Trabue said...

It certainly appears so.

Dan Trabue said...

And Craig, I'm not asking you to try to "win." I'm looking for you to be rationally consistent, as opposed to blindly partisan.

Dan Trabue said...

But maybe I believe in you more than you do.

Dan Trabue said...

I said... "I'm looking for you to be rationally consistent, as opposed to blindly partisan."

But what I should perhaps have said, given your milquetoast wishy washy half-non-supports, is...

I'm looking for you to be rationally consistent, as opposed to blandly partisan.

Feodor said...

“Roy Moore denied the latest assault allegation launched against him after a woman claimed that he pushed her head into his crotch and tried to take her shirt off when she was 16 years old.

Moore claimed on Monday that he did not even know his latest accuser, Beverly Young Nelson — despite the fact that his signature appears in her high school yearbook.”

Anonymous said...

When Moore finally has to admit, Yes, he knew these women, Yes, he dated teenagers, Yes, he TRIED to date teenagers, Yes, he was banned from the mall for bothering teenaged girls... THEN will everyone (but Perverted Glenn, of course, since he's cool with men dating 14 year old "women...") abandon him/be embarrassed by him and his supporters?

How about when he finally has to say, "Okay, yes, I thrust my face into her crotch...," THEN will Marshall back down and be shame-faced? THEN will Craig be willing to say, "What a creep!"?

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I'm finished with this conversation. Feo and Trabue are pathological liars with all their accusations, they are perverts in the nth degree, they are fake Christians, and just plain horrible people.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Oh, I want to make one final statement:

I NEVER even intimated that it was "cool" for old men to date young women, nor did I ever intimate it was okay to molest or assault women of any age. But that doesn't matter to pathological liars like Feo and Dan.

My only point has been that even if he is guilty, the incidents happened 35-40 years ago and and should have absolutely NO bearing on Moore's qualifications today. I'm sure no one wants their sins from that long ago been used against them today; we all change. Except for perhaps the likes of Feo and Tribue who have apparently always been anti-Christians with perverted ideologies.

Anonymous said...

If a candidate stole a candy bar or smoked a joint 40 years ago, I don't care. But we're talking about a pattern of sexual assault on children and, for normal people (as opposed to Alabama evangelicals and Glenn), that's kind of a big perverted deal.

If you don't like being talked about as perverse, Glenn, maybe you should quit defending perversions.

Dan

Dan Trabue said...

Also curious: When H Weinstein or other liberals were alleged to have sexually harassed or assaulted others, did the peanut gallery here accept those women's stories as probably true, or did you insist upon waiting to find out if they were true or not before being bothered by them?

Lemme guess: Of COURSE you thought it was true.

But you tell me.

Also Glenn, were you ever accused of sexual harassment or worse by any women?

Dan Trabue said...

the likes of Feo and Tribue who have apparently always been anti-Christians with perverted ideologies.

Hm. Interesting.

My "perverted ideology" has led me
to be married faithfully to one woman for going on 33 years now.
to marry a woman who has dedicated her life to helping others, the homeless, homeless veterans, the mentally ill, etc.
to raise two lovely children, the oldest of which, after college, joined the peace corps to help others
and the youngest of which is finishing college and figuring out what career she can embrace to best help others
to work at my church with the homeless and mentally ill
to believe that marriage is a good thing, whether you're gay or straight, and that promoting family is a good thing
to work at my church to join forces and work with marginalized and threatened people such as immigrants
to work to protect and promote a healthy environment
to work in opposition to those who'd harm children

etc.

Not that I'm bragging about me, I'm just a normal progressive human. These are the sorts of things our ideologies lead us to do.

Contrast that against the actually perverse, woman- and girl-grabbing, hedonism-chasing, wealth-seeking Trump and Moore types that you all are defending... it makes me wonder what you all consider perverse?

Craig said...

Re Weinstein and others, I regard the stories as probably true, due to the simple fact that his proclivities were widely known, joked about, and covered up for a number of years.

It’s interesting that I’m the only conservative here who didn’t vote for Trump, hasn’t supported everything he’s done, and has been the most vocal about his flaws and unsuitability for office and simply pointing out the reality that Moore is innocent until proven otherwise makes me partisan. He’ll, I’m the only one on this side arguing that he should get out of the race. But if that makes me partisan.

Marshal Art said...

Have only skimmed the comments here lacking time for in depth perusal. A few points:

1. In a reverse of a point I raised at Dan's blog, he is basing his hatred for Moore (at least as far as the issue on the table) on hearsay evidence. The testimony of a few women who claim some level of erotic relationship with Moore. Dan, however, dismisses the testimonies of the Biblical authors regarding the existence of God as being evidence for His existence. Ironic, no?

2. Dan, in his typical wicked fashion, hypes the accusations of Moore by calling his alleged victims "children". Yet, Bob Menendez is alleged to have engaged in sex with actual children, not teenage girls (appropriately referred to in some areas, including by their teachers, as "young women"). Dan clearly supports and backs Bob Menendez as I haven't seen a post from him where Dan spews all sorts of hatred and vitriol against old Bob.

3. I do not believe Moore should drop from the race if he has done nothing wrong. If HE chooses to do so, that's his business. Until he decides to do so, or if he actually admits to having engaged in actual criminal behavior (dating young women who are over the age of consent does not qualify), he should continue. If he is innocent of criminal behavior, I would suggest he give no more time to answering questions about the allegation, but rather demand something more solid than the word of the accusers.

At this point, I'm sick to death of people waiting for times like this to find the spine to speak against their oppressors. As such, should Moore be innocent but steps away anyhow, it will only encourage lefties to employ this tactic more often, because that's how they roll. Thus, unless he is truly guilty, he should soldier on.

4. I find it absolutely laughable that feo and Dan would ever DARE speak of women chasing men to be perverse while they support, celebrate, enable and defend actual perversity...AND HAVE THE AUDACITY TO SUGGEST THAT GOD WOULD BLESS IT!!!! This goes WAY beyond hypocrisy. They are clearly reprobates. The two examples of fools given over to their sinfulness demonize based on unproven allegations, while praising those who admit to engaging in behavior God has called an abomination. And Dan dares wonder about us! Amazing!

5. feo's still an idiot.

6. As to point 5, the idiot would really help his cause if, rather than merely copy/pasting what is supposed to be some kind of report, citing the source (an actual link is best) would be a good idea. He is no more credible than Dan (less so in his calling as a false priest), and thus he can quote all day and until I have a link to read myself, I choose to believe he made it all up...because he's a liar by trade.

Feodor said...

Once more, it isn’t really about Moore. Or Trump for that matter. They are simply (Glenn, take notice), evidence. And it is also obviously not about being innocent until proven guilty (duh, Craig), as there will never be a trial. It also not merely or solely about putting horrible people in Washington, or even terrific leaders with horrible failings. We’ve had plenty.

It IS partly about asking people who stand for office and the parties who support them to be better than the bad or detrimental examples that we have had in the past, among which Mr Clinton - and Mr Gingrich - surely belong.

But it is mostly about asking ourselves to do a lot better than nominating a confessed sexual assaulter and now one who denies being one - against the word of dozens and against the common knowledge of his town for being barred when a lawyer from cruising for teens at the mall and YMCA. (Notice, Glenn, that in your argument was hat he did a long time ago, you don’t deal with his continued denials. Because you ignore his character, as does anyone who wishes for a hired assassin... which goes to your character.) Craig raises the pointless truism that people are innocent until proven guilty. That’s not a standard for holding the public trust. Though Republicans won’t apply that to Mr Clinton whose cloud while campaigning wasn’t the recorded confession that Mr Trump’s was. Back then, at the time, it was he said/she said. We found out out more later.

And so, the real point is that Republicans of all sorts should have been outraged two years ago by Trump. Republicans should have been outraged by Moore’s candidacy. But most are not. Republicans aren’t even embarrassed by all this. Has Craig admitted to embarrassment under his typical avoidant cloak of saying nothing where he stands and only about where he doesn’t?

And why aren’t most Republicans embarrassed by all this?

This is the most crucial point. And one that damns what you guys have made of faith, of American history, of whiteness, of your own identity as moral people.

If 250,000 people being gunned down in mass or by their own despondent hand, or if the brutalizing culture of angry white policing able to shoot down unarmed Americans with near impunity, isn’t more outrageously worthy of action, or even equally so, to 1,000 killed by terror...

... then, really, what’s a little grab ass under a 14 year old’s skirt?

The Bible approves, after all, is how Republicans think. Without outrage from any of you. Without even embarrassment.

This what makes you partisan, Craig. The absence of humanity.

Even more, this what makes the three of you sick in the head.

Feodor said...

“Vice President Mike Pence’s staged walkout during an NFL game at which players kneeled during the national anthem cost the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department more than $14,000, records show.

Documents obtained by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) show that the cost of the stunt to local police was $14,163.36. Expenses included paying for emergency response and SWAT teams, and were in addition to the $242,500 it cost Pence to fly from Las Vegas, NV, to Indianapolis, IN, and then to Los Angeles, CA, for a fundraiser he attended after the game.“

Marshal Art said...

Just checking in before work. feo assumes Pence walkout was staged because, as with allegations of Trump and Moore sexual abuses, the charge is all the proof he needs. But as regards Pence, even if we learn he did stage it, the message he was sending was one that fools like feo wouldn't embrace even if he had the smarts to understand it. Turning one's back to those who show disrespect to our flag is righteous response, particularly when one considers the incredibly lame and false reasons the players are doing so.

As to the prior feo comment, I'll have to deal with that later.

Anonymous said...

"I'd be fine with a child predator in the Senate so long as it would keep the Democrats from stealing this seat. Child molesters are evil, Democrats are even worse..."

Alabama evangelical, one amongst several who've expressed similar thoughts.

We can see that it was never about family values for the religious right.

~Dan

Marshal Art said...

Dan,

As with feo, I'm calling quotes like the one you just posted, without citation, without link to it's original source, totally made up. Your credibility and honesty is in question due to your history.

With that in mind, we can also reject it as an outlier or someone who poorly articulates his true meaning. I doubt any true evangelical is "fine" with a child predator in office. But it is true that Dems are worse (and here I'm not referring to Bob Menendez), because they support the murder of children...as do you. I'd say that's worse without endorsing either.

It shows incredible gall for someone who supports abortion to pretend they have the moral high ground. Well done.

Craig said...

Dan, I’m glad you’re finally caring about character issues outside of POTUS. I’m curious if it’s just character issues of a sexual nature that concern you or is it all character issues? Does your newfound concern extend beyond just POTUS and the senate? House of Representatives? Governors? State legislators?

I’m thinking that the offering of unsourced quotes and comments is grounds to assumes it’s false until proven otherwise.

Craig said...

What if y’all are wrong? What if these accusations are false? Are y’all confident enough that you’d be prepared to be sued for defamation?

Not saying that it doesn’t look like there’s fire where there’s smoke, just wondering if y’all are even considering the possibility that this isn’t true.

Anonymous said...

1. We must always be cautious about unproven allegations. Just because someone has an accusation against them is not sufficient to call for them to step down.

2. Simultaneously, we must be cautious about not listening to women and especially children if allegations of abuse are levelled. We have a sad history of letting rape and sexual assault and abuse go with no justice. Research shows that is pretty rare for women, children to make these sort of allegations if something has not happened.

3. So, it is a balancing act. In the case of Trump, in the case of Moore, in the case of Weinstein... There appears to be enough reason to take some action.

4. In the case of Miller there are several hints that there's something wrong here as anyone who's been following the case knows. Additionally that Mitch McConnell and other Republicans are calling for him to step down now that raises the suggestion to me that they know something more.

I'm not calling for a conviction based on allegations that are not proven. But asking Moore and Trump to step aside and both of these cases it seems reasonable. as even Mitch McConnell agrees in the case of Moore.

Moore can't sue the whole world because there were allegations deemed believable, knowing what we know.

It's not a perfect solution, but for too long the victims of abusers have been the ones not believed. I'm prepared to side with them for a while.

Dan

Marshal Art said...

1. You've not demonstrated any caution at all with regard to allegations against Moore OR Trump. You've jumped on it like a smack addict on a pile of opium.

2. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/416536/how-common-are-false-rape-charges-really-jason-richwine

As the link above indicates, false rape/abuse charges are more common than some would like to admit. Real numbers are hard to pin down. I think it is also misleading to group women and children together, especially when "child" needs to be defined. A 14 year old isn't a child. A 6 year old is.

3. There is no solid reason to take action in the minds of those who take such charges seriously without regard to political implications.

4. I'm going to assume you mean Moore and not "Miller", unless in my skimming I've missed something. But appealing to the wisdom of Mitch McConnell demonstrates how there's no limits to the how you'll stoop to oppose those who defend Biblical truths about sexual morality and Constitutional understanding with regard to the sexually immoral. Old Mitch has opposed Moore all along, as he has with every right-winger who isn't on board with HIS notion of Republican establishment. He's not credible to many conservatives on that score.

You don't care if the allegations are true or not. You only see this as an excuse to insist that Trump and Moore go away. I prefer that people be convicted of the charges against them before they are encouraged to leave. That's the AMERICAN way.

"Moore can't sue the whole world because there were allegations deemed believable, knowing what we know."

You "know" nothing. Buying into the charges leveled against the man does not indicate knowing more than charges were leveled. Beyond that you're totally ignorant.

No one "sides" for or against accusers like those who hate the accused. Honest people wait to let the situation play out before deciding with whom one takes sides.

Anonymous said...

You've not demonstrated any caution at all with regard to allegations against Moore OR Trump.

I, like many conservatives, have weighed the accusations and found Moore and Trump to be perversely lacking in credibility, given their continued perverse comments AND the number of accusers AND their credibility.

Are you suggesting that these five Moore accusers are making it up, separately out of the blue? Or that they're part of a vast left wing conspiracy, funded and organized by Democrats and the MSM?

Fine, offer some proof, you fucking pervert and pervert defender.

If you can't (and you can't) offer a single shred of proof, back the fuck off, you dirty sick freak. You who, along with Glenn, appear to fantasize about 14 year old "adult" girls. You're sick motherfuckers and you disgust me.

~Dan

Craig said...

While I’ve said Moore should drop out and deal with this situation, I’ve decided that I’m less concerned with one more pervert in the senate, than I am about a “loophole” in our state law that has sex offenders driving school buses.

But that’s just me.

Anonymous said...

You think it's just you?

And you're concerned about perverts in Congress (and the White House?), but can't even comment about it on your blog?

Damn.

Craig said...

I’m concerned about a lot of things I don’t write about at my blog. I know that’s tough for you to wrap your head around.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I get that. It's just the enormity of the problem. If MY party was being dominated by people who were supporting racist, sexist, oppressive sorts like Trump and Moore, I would be talking about it/fighting against it regularly on my blog. Indeed, I HAVE written a lot about it because my faith tradition is being dominated by those sorts.

I guess that's a difference between you and me.

Dan

Feodor said...

[Marshall, look up what's quoted. You have Google don't you? Put in a little effort of your own for a change.}

Craig (and idiot Glenn), you're asking for legal standards. When it comes to holding public office, accumulating allegations of impropriety - and power and public acclaim - are often enough to remove or block a politician. Especially when, now six women and 33 witnessed are giving their testimony to a string of assaults and abuse. Glenn argues that it was long ago. Mr Moore's denials were yesterday, and the day before, and remain today. That's a problem. So Glenn is an idiot. Marshall wants to go to the campus and talk about wrongful accusations where one very young woman, and sometimes man, make accusations from whatever motivation. Obviously doesn't apply. With Weinstein, Spacey, etc., Mr Moore is being faced with mounting numbers of women who are still traumatized from the crimes years ago. So Marshall is an idiot.

And we have so many precedents for taking down politicians on the basis of multiple appearances, circumstances, etc which invariably prove right in the end. Journalists know what they are doing. Weiner. In jail. Hollywood types finished. O'Reilly and Ailes, finished on Fox, but conservatives keep O'Reilly afloat. John Edwards done in before hard evidence. Gary Hart, one photo.

Perhaps you all remember the slight evidence that took down a Senator from Idaho.

"At 1216 hours, [Larry] Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. ... The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his left hand under the stall divider several times, with the palm of his hand facing upward."

Feodor said...

[Marshall, look up what's quoted. You have Google don't you? Put in a little effort of your own for a change.]

And we've seen something like Moore's scenario before.

"GOP Senator, Bob Packwood's political career began to unravel in November 1992, when a Washington Post story detailed claims of sexual abuse and assault from ten women, chiefly former staffers and lobbyists. Publication of the story was delayed until after the 1992 election, as Packwood had denied the allegations and the Post had not gathered enough of the story at the time... Eventually 19 women would come forward.

As the situation developed, Packwood's diary became an issue. Wrangling over whether the diary could be subpoenaed and whether it was protected by the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination ensued. He did divulge 5,000 pages to the Senate Ethics Committee but balked when a further 3,200 pages were demanded by the committee. It was discovered that he had edited the diary, removing what were allegedly references to sexual encounters and the sexual abuse allegations made against him. Packwood then made what some of his colleagues interpreted as a threat to expose wrongdoing by other members of Congress. The diary allegedly detailed some of his abusive behavior toward women and, according to a press statement made by Richard Bryan, at that time serving as senator from Nevada, "raised questions about possible violations of one or more laws, including criminal laws".

Despite pressure from the public and from female Senators, especially Barbara Boxer from California, for open hearings, the Senate ultimately decided against them. The Ethics Committee's indictment, running to ten-volumes and 10,145 pages, much of it from Packwood's own writings, according to a report in The New York Times detailed the sexual misconduct, obstruction of justice, and ethics charges being made against him. The chairman of the Ethics Committee, Republican senator Mitch McConnell, referred to Packwood's "habitual pattern of aggressive, blatantly sexual advances, mostly directed at members of his own staff or others whose livelihoods were connected in some way to his power and authority as a Senator" and said Packwood's behaviour included "deliberately altering and destroying relevant portions of his diary" which Packwood himself had written in the diary were "very incriminating information"."

Feodor said...

Mr. Moore isn't a Senator yet, so Senate pressure doesn't mean anything. It's up to Alabama Republicans, who, as we've seen, so many of them point to Joseph and Mary and distrust "Yankee papers" like the Washington Post (don't tell them Washington is in the south!)

Which is the real issue, Craig. Yet again, once more, it's not about Trump and Moore. It's about the embarrassing Republican party majority who are so sick in the head with bigotry, racism, misogyny, etc., that they are able to nominate Trump over a dozen other Republicans who couldn't appeal so well to their rage and then vote for him as President and continue to support him or the ridiculously brutal policies of the party. Just because they are out of their minds with wrecking revenge on a changing world and delirious with black dreams that they will ever get the 1950s back again when darkies and women knew their place.

And so then, of course, people like you who cannot confront the sickness that is the Republican Party. You're the issue here.

Anonymous said...

Yes! Exactly!

Dan

Craig said...

Dan,
You act as if your party has absolutely no history of this kind of behavior and as if this is a partisan issue. Hell, I just saw a photo of Al Franken grabbing a reporters breasts while she was asleep. He’s even admitted it (and apologized), yet nothing from you. Yes, Trump is president, but if you look at the news he clearly doesn’t dominate the party in any meaningful sense. Likewise one senate candidate with some decades old crap doesn’t indicate the state of the national party. If you follow the news you’d be aware of the wholesale desertion of Moore by the rest of the party.

Feo is correct in differentiating the legal aspects of this from the political aspects of this situation and that this is an AL thing, not a national thing.

Clearly Moore should drop out and deal with this. If he’s innocent he should fight it, if not he should apologize and do what he can to make amends.

I tend to look at what I write as a whole, so while I may not post on certain things, I have frequently commented on many of these topics and don’t see the need to belabor some things.

Anonymous said...

Yes it's true, Craig. A story did come out about Al Franken today and I have not yet commented on it on my blog. Do you find that strange?

Additionally, Frankenstein has acknowledged the awful behavior, apologized, had the apology accepted, and said he'd support a congressional investigation into his actions.

What would you like me to post on?

Beyond that nonsense, I haven't often commented on the many representatives -left or right - who've been sexually harassing/abusive towards women, it's just clear that it was wrong and of course, I am opposed to it.

This is the point: with Trump and Moore, they're denying any wrongdoing, in spite of their obvious perversions and pretty apparent misdeeds. They don't acknowledge or recognize how perverse and wrong are their attacks on gay folk, Muslims, women, the press, Truth... AND they are getting support from a huge swath of consevatives and a pass on it from people like you.

You are the problem.

Dan

Craig said...

Clearly you missed the point of my mention of Franken. Also the fact that I acknowledged his apology. So I’ll try to keep it simple.
1. This is objectively, manifestly not a partisan issue.
2. Franken is being spoken of as a possible presidential candidate, I suppose you’d be willing to affirm that you wouldn’t vote for him if he’s nominated.
3. Franken has a history of physically attacking and of harassing those who disagree with him.
4. I’ve stood 5 feet from Al and listened to him tell blatant lies.

Not that this excuses Moore or anyone else, but as long as you only attack the character flaws of those you disagree with, your credibility will continue to suffer.

Maybe that’s just something you don’t quite get.

Yes, it’s all my fault. Every damn bit of it. Even the stuff that happened before I was born. Even though I didn’t support or vote for either one of them, it’s my fault.

Even your inconsistency and double standards are probably my fault.

But I apologize, I guess that gets me off the hook.

Marshal Art said...

First, to feo:

It's not a matter of what I'm capable of finding. It's your laziness in presenting your "evidence". How much more difficult is it to include the source of your quotes? Are you crippled (besides morally)? You've proven since your first appearance that you're not to be trusted. I don't make my opponents take such chances, but instead make it easy for them to check by providing what I ask of you. You're an idiot.

Both of the Bobbsey Twins:

You false Christians miss the point. I'm more than willing to hang Moore should he be convicted of all charges. But like you sorry fools, I'm not in a position of deciding who is the more credible...Moore or his accusers. There's no pictures, as in Franken's case, for example. feo speaks of how many accusers and "witnesses"(?---were any of the witnesses present when Moore supposedly groped or fondled?) as if numbers guarantees the truthfulness of the accusers. Keep in mind...initially there were only four...three of which were over the legal age of consent, had parental approval (with one girl's parents withdrawing their consent at which time Moore broke it off) and all said nothing more happened than hugs and kisses. This level of behavior is consistent with Christian teaching regarding male/female relationships before marriage. Only one girl, who said she was fourteen at the time, had said Moore acted abusively. But she has a questionable history (now, of course, all attributable to her relationship with Moore).

Then there's the issue of just how the Washington Post came to believe Moore had such a past. THEY say that the accusers didn't come forward until after the Post contacted them...that they had no intention to speak on their experiences with Moore until the Post approached them. We know that there are those journalists who are more than happy to act on the urging of leftist operatives to smear right-wing people. In the case of Moore, we also know that children like Dan call him a meany because Moore dares to oppose the LGBT agenda based on the accurate Biblical understanding that Dan rejects because he's a moral reprobate (as evidenced by his loving appellations applied to me).

For Dan and feo, all it takes is an allegation and they're off to the races. And because those like Craig, Glenn or myself prefer to wait until proof or admissions are offered, somehow we support sexual abuse. This is just more evidence that the left, and the our own Beavis and Butthead (feo and Dan---or Dan and feo) have the demonizing of their political/ideological opponents in mind, rather than true concern for "the innocent", as Dan deceitfully uses the term.

Marshal Art said...

And as Dan pretends we're somehow obligated to create blog posts expressing our outrage at everyone who merely stands accused of improprieties, I'm still waiting on that scathing Bob Menendez piece. For Dan, it's enough that he's expressed his opposition to blatant acts of sexual abuse or abuses of authority. But we have to walk down the center of Main Street self-flagellating in order to prove we have no truck with such people. All the while, Dan is a great supporter/enabler/defender of other forms of sexual immorality as well as the ongoing murder of innocents and its legal protections. (the same with his sock puppet, feo)

In the small, corrupt minds of these two hopeless buffoons, the key here is to jump up on the soapbox as if they are truly down with true standards of morality. The fact, however, is that they are totally committed to the types of sexual perversion they find acceptable for reasons neither has ever been able to explain beyond their personal preferences so dictating. They now pretend that they don't ever look upon a beautiful young girl and admit they find her beautiful. Find young girls beautiful IS an admission that one is attracted. To these idiots, being attracted can only mean that one intends to find a way to jump the bones of the young girl in question. At least, this is how they view right-wingers, Christian conservatives, etc., because smearing the opposition is a must. So they aren't truly concerned about "perversions", but smearing those who disagree with their notions of it.

I now present an example of a thoughtful, objective consideration of the case. These two liars won't read it, because they lack the integrity and character to truly act like the Christians they laughingly claim to be, but I present it nonetheless:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/in_defense_of_judge_roy_moore.html

And now, Dan's language. I have NEVER used such language as Dan now uses against me. Dan, who calls himself a Christian (again, it's a laughable claim given his worship of science when it suits him, his devotion to sexual perversion and mental dysfunction and his complicity in the murders of innocents) cannot deal with sound and solid arguments against his positions. He now feels he is justified in wallowing in the gutter to use the most vile language possible. Unlike with his cowardice, I leave his comments up so that all can see that I speak the truth about him, rather than like him, delete it and embellish what he said in a manner that misinforms what few readers I have. The irony here is that as a truck driver, I too often speak like a truck driver (it's in the handbook), but have the character to know that there's a huge difference between one's bad habits and the conscious decision to put such language in print. Dan rationalizes his choice to engage in such behavior, as if even legitimate bad behavior by me could possibly be justification for bad behavior by him.

I believe he's just angry with me for re-posting deleted comments over and over again until he responds to them like an adult, and making sound arguments that his problems with my comments are every bit the egregious acts he claims they are. He can't do that because it isn't true, so now he cusses at me like a petulant child. I can take it. I have righteousness on my side, even though I may not be righteous in God's eyes.

Dan Trabue said...

1. This is objectively, manifestly not a partisan issue FOR ME. For Feodor. But you all will attack the Clintons and Hollywood but defend the much worse perverts in your midst.

1a. We can see that it's not a partisan issue for me because I've criticized both the left and right, and had posts criticizing the left and the right, on this topic. For Craig, however, he has time and posts to criticize me for using vulgar language when I've criticized perverse, oppressive behavior, but not a single post on the perverse, oppressive behavior.

2. I've demonstrated a willingness to condemn oppressive behavior on my post. Even of liberal people. You haven't.

That's the difference between me and you.

2a. Clearly, Franken did an atrocious thing, but he did it in the presence of a bunch of people. The point, then, was not secret oppression but to make ill-mannered, sexist, sexually assaulting "joke." One time, so far as we know so far. This IS horrible, but it's not cruising malls to pick up teenaged girls (or defending those who'd try to rape and seduce teenaged girls, who'd minimize it by calling 14 year old girls "women" and talking about how he has been aroused by them! What a pervert! But not a single word of criticism from Craig. But say "FUCK that shit!" about the perverse behavior and attitude and Craig gets his panties in a bunch. We can see where Craig's allegiance lies and, more importantly, where it doesn't lie). It's not grabbing women by the pussy and bragging about it. Or defending that sort of behavior or language.

Your priorities are skewed by your politics, Craig.

3. I have no idea what you're speaking of, here. It appears to be an unsupported charge against Franken, but still not ONE post on child predators and teen predators and sexual assailants, like Trump and Moore.

4. And yet, Moore and Trump tell lies with impunity. And not one single post speaking out against them or those who'd support them.

Maybe that's something you just don't get.

The point remains: I've spoken out against MUCH LESS serious offenses by liberals on my blog, but we have this grievously awful and dangerous president and this pervert, Moore running for high office and not a single post on your blog. If these sorts of behavior were being endorsed, defended and supported by my party, you can be sure I'd be speaking out against those in my party defending lies, assault on the free press, assaults on women, children, gay folk and Muslims.

I would. You won't.

And that's the difference between you and me.

Dan Trabue said...

now, Dan's language. I have NEVER used such language as Dan now uses against me.

You use the most vulgar of language, in attacking innocent people. Not every vulgar word is a cuss word.

Cuss words are crude. Personal attacks on innocent people is actually vulgar.

Marshall, you may not AGREE with my assessment of your posts, but I'm asking you as a grown up adult to abide by my requests. You are not blocked from commenting, but you are blocked from making any comments I deem to be attacks. I get that you may not understand why "all those blacks" or "all those muslims" or "all those gays" ...etc... "are delusional" or "are evil" or "hate God" etc... I understand that you may not get why those are sweeping and perverse attacks on innocent people, but I'll let you know if you don't understand.

If you asked me to avoid comments about Glenn or whoever, I would on your blog. I'd abide by your rules. I'm just asking you to abide by mine. Be a respectful adult and you won't be deleted.

Be an adult.

Marshal Art said...

"1. This is objectively, manifestly not a partisan issue FOR ME. For Feodor. But you all will attack the Clintons and Hollywood but defend the much worse perverts in your midst."

Aside from the initial problem of Dan daring to assume the position of supreme authority in dictating when one is perverted, and whether those HE accuses are more worse perverts than those like the Clintons and Hollywood, it is definitely partisan given the level of vitriol leveled against conservatives and conservative Christians simply because they are accused. Worse, as stated earlier, attacks on those like Moore by the likes of a Dan Trabue are motivated by hatred of Moore for his righteous opposition to the sexual perversity of homosexual behavior...a perversion that Dan celebrates as something God would actually bless.

"1a. We can see that it's not a partisan issue for me because I've criticized both the left and right, and had posts criticizing the left and the right, on this topic."

To this day I cannot recall a single post by Dan criticizing a lefty for sexual improprieties of ANY kind, much less anything like what Moore is only accused of doing. I've asked him to provide links to such and he's not been forthcoming. Nothing about Bob Menendez, who is currently in the news, and prefers the "youngest and newest girls".

All I've seen thus far is the standard blanket "I've criticized the left" claim. Never anything anywhere near approaching the vitriol and church lady outrage he's spews so easily toward those on the right...and especially those like Moore who speak the truth about homosexuality.

"2. I've demonstrated a willingness to condemn oppressive behavior on my post. Even of liberal people."

Never seen it. Post some links.

"2a. Clearly, Franken did an atrocious thing, but he did it in the presence of a bunch of people."

Oh. So that makes it better. I see. Then why give Moore crap for allegedly hitting on teens in the mall? Were the teens in the mall after closing time where no one saw Moore with the girls?

"it's not cruising malls to pick up teenaged girls (or defending those who'd try to rape and seduce teenaged girls"

Who's defended such behavior?

"who'd minimize it by calling 14 year old girls "women""

Stating the FACT that 14 year old girls are not children is not minimizing bad behavior. Calling 14 year old girls "children" because it ramps up the bad emotions about Moore is bad behavior in itself. Dan should not engage in this unChristian tactic anymore.

"talking about how he has been aroused by them!"

Who said this? Provide the comment, time and date of it's posting or a link if is a poorly worded reference to anyone not commenting here.

"But say "FUCK that shit!" about the perverse behavior and attitude and Craig gets his panties in a bunch"

No, Dan. YOU might wear panties, given your devotion to sexual immorality, but Craig simply points out the falseness of your claim to be Christian in light of your "embracing grace"...which apparently means using vile and vulgar language.

"We can see where Craig's allegiance lies..."

Yes we can. With truth, honesty, facts and...you know...Christian civility in discourse.

"It's not grabbing women by the pussy and bragging about it"

You're not lying about Trump again, are you Dan? Of course you are!

"4. And yet, Moore and Trump tell lies with impunity."

And so do you, Dan...about Trump, Moore, me, Craig, the teachings of Scripture and more.

"The point remains: I've spoken out against MUCH LESS serious offenses by liberals on my blog"

When? Provide links.

Marshal Art said...

"we have this grievously awful and dangerous president"

As president, what has Trump done that is grievously awful and dangerous? Especially dangerous. I'd love to see this bit of comedy!

"this pervert, Moore"

At this point, honest people can only say "alleged" pervert. Go ahead. Find an honest person and ask. In the meantime, we're well aware of your own perversion manifesting in your support of perversion and the murder of innocents. How dare you condescend to anyone else!

"If these sorts of behavior were being endorsed, defended and supported by my party"

...which they are.

"you can be sure I'd be speaking out against those in my party defending lies"

But you perpetuate lies yourself, Dan. You're not fooling anybody here.

"assault on the free press"

Not a bad thing at all. The press isn't untouchable. When they have criticism coming, they should get it. And the press has it coming in spades.

"assaults on women"

Where was your post about Hillary attacking the victims of her lecherous husband? Provide the link.

"children"

Your party supports the murder of the unborn. It supports the teaching of perversion in public school to the youngest of children. It supports drugging and mutilating children who think they are of the opposite sex. It supports allowing homosexuals and lesbians adopting and corrupting children to accept the perversions of the LGBT agenda. You've NEVER had post one about any of these assaults on children.

"gay folk"

Of course not. You celebrate perversion.

"and Muslims"

Of course not. You're delusional.

"I would. You won't."

You would not. You haven't. We would and do when it's appropriate or compelling enough for us to take the time. We are not obliged to post on anything. More importantly, we are not the least bit obliged simply because a Dan Trabue believes we must in order to avoid being regarded badly by the likes of a Dan Trabue. THAT'S certainly not compelling!

"And that's the difference between you and me."

That ain't the only difference.

Marshal Art said...


"You use the most vulgar of language, in attacking innocent people"

I neither use vulgar language, nor do I attack innocent people. But even if I were to attack innocent people (can't imagine why I would), I have no need to use the vulgar language you hypocritically find appropriate now, which proves your false nature given your blathering on about "embracing grace".

"Not every vulgar word is a cuss word"

True. "Dan Trabue" is vulgar.

"Cuss words are crude."

They're also vulgar.

From MW:

vulgar

"a :lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste :coarse
b :morally crude, undeveloped, or unregenerate :

"Personal attacks on innocent people is actually vulgar."

It's also crude. You should stop doing it. Moore is innocent until proven guilty.

"Marshall, you may not AGREE with my assessment of your posts"

That's because you're lying about what I wrote, thereby personally attacking an innocent person. That's crude and vulgar.

"but I'm asking you as a grown up adult to abide by my requests"

No, you're not. You're asking me as petulant child who doesn't want to do his chores. Answer the point of my comments. Don't lie about what I'm doing when I post them.

"You are not blocked from commenting, but you are blocked from making any comments I deem to be attacks."

Yeah, I know. But you lie when you call my comments attacks. Any comment to which you are too cowardly to respond you simply deem an attack and delete it. It's how you roll. Because you embrace grace.

"I understand that you may not get why those are sweeping and perverse attacks on innocent people, but I'll let you know if you don't understand."

Oh! By all means! Enlighten me! But first you'll have to let the comments stand in order to provide a point of reference for your attacks on that which is no more than an opposing point of view, fully evidenced and logically presented. But the reality is that I fully get why you need to refer to my comments as "sweeping and perverse attacks on innocent people". It's to gin up emotional opposition to me, with no evidence of wrongdoing to back up your allegations... because you deleted the comments.

"If you asked me to avoid comments about Glenn or whoever, I would on your blog. I'd abide by your rules."

Well, actually, you've ignored this one simple request of all my visitors on numerous occasions. My favorite goes back to the time I deleted a statement of a guy named Mark because I thought it was unnecessarily graphic lesbian friends of yours. After having done so, you lied about what he actually said and what he was trying to convey by saying it as he did, even after I corrected you multiple times. It's why I haven't deleted your vulgar comments above. I WANT people to see what people like you are actually like and when you expose your own self, why, who am I to stand in your way. Also, leaving you comments up allows me proof of MY allegations. People can clearly see that I'm not lying about a commenter as you now lie once again about me.

"Be a respectful adult and you won't be deleted."

I AM a respectful adult and you delete me anyway. And of course the hypocrisy of this insistence is obvious in light of your vulgar language above.

But I think I'll just keep re-posting my deleted comments until you address them as if you were a man of integrity and honor, rather than deleting them like a false Christian and petulant child.

Craig said...

Yes Dan, I’ve never ever said anything negative about Trumo or Moore, not once.

Sure you throw out some criticism of Clinton (after the fact), but then defend his taking advantage of Lewinsky as being ok with you.

My point, and I’ve posted on this, is the fact that y’all on the left have tolerated quite a bit from your elected officials for decades and pulled the lever for the Kennedys, Clinton’s, Menendez, and Wieners of the world. Remainedsilent when congressmen are found with freezers full of cash, and when your elected officials consort with and take billions from pedophiles and abusers.

There’s a chart out showing the vast sums of tax money spent on sexual harassment settlements for Congress. This is clearly a bipartisan issue. The fact that you’ve finally been roused after years of silence because you’ve got good targets just makes your outrage that much more ridiculous.

The fact that you’re reduced to ignoring the many comments I’ve made on this topic and trying to twist my lack of posts into some fantasy of yours just seems desperate.

I’ve said Moore should drop out and defend himself, if he can. If he doesn’t then the voters will probably make that decision for him. As far as Trump, I think he should resign for any number of reasons, and have said so for months.

Yes, I find your vulgar, expletive laden, personal attacks, and invented charges to be immature and ridiculous. The fact that you try to cloak your childish tantrums in “jesusy” bs just makes it worse.

Finally your cowardice in deleting (and lying about the content of the comments) and your recent spate of running away from questions also doesn’t help your case.

Feodor said...

Wow. It is really impressive how outraged Marshall and Dan are by indecent words on this blog!!! Such a model for finely tuned moral values.

So finely tuned, in fact, that they can only find a sentence at best to rake over the coals - strike that - sympathize with 62 million white Americans who support this negligible (to people like Marshall, Craig, and The Wasn’t-rape-just-a-little-14-year-old-touching-past Glenn) little tid bit, little nothing bit of indecency:

Trump: "I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married."

Unidentified man: "That’s huge news there."

Trump: "No, no. Nancy. No this was— And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ I took her out furniture– I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look."
....

“Trump: "Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

Unidentified man: "Whatever you want."

Trump: "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
_______________

No doubt about it how much you all are true moral exemplars.

None.

Craig said...

I don’t know anyone here who claimed to be moral exemplars.

I’m surprised it took that particular conversation to convince you that Trump was lacking in morals. I always thought that his repeated affairs, divorces, and remarriages were ample indications of his lack of a moral compass. Glad y’all finally decided to agree with that.

To be fair, I agree with Dan’s description of Trump as amoral rather than immoral.

Feodor said...

It is clear to me that you identify with amorality, Craig.

It is unclear - and frightening- that you would identify sexual asssult as being amoral.

Craig said...

It’s clear to me, that you are divorced from reality. You have absolutely zero grounds to make any sort of statement regarding the morality or lack there of of people about who you know virtually nothing. Of course this is demonstrated quite clearly by your final sentence. Nowhere, repeat nowhere did I in anyway shape or form say that sexual assault is a moral. Your inability to understand simple English, and to answer simple questions, Raises many questions and doubts about you.

Feodor said...

Craig:

"Nowhere, repeat nowhere did I in anyway shape or form say that sexual assault is amoral."

Donald Trump:

"I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married... I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

Craig:

"To be fair, I agree with Dan’s description of Trump as amoral rather than immoral."

Craig said...

Your copy paste skills are impressive. Your ability to read and understand the English language, is less impressive. To say that Trump is a moral, does not in anyway preclude referring to his behavior is immoral.

Feodor said...

Have you witnessed his behavior? No. Are you basing these blurred shifting conceptual sands of uneducated thoughts of yours not on his behavior rather on recorded private speech and public pronouncements? Yes.

His behavioral record may well be immoral. All indications are that it is. We don’t know for certain.

Frame of mind, way of thinking, judgments and moral conclusions: this is what we have of Trump. And the whole lot of his moral pronouncements and recorded private conversation gives us proof not necessarily of what he has done but of what he is: immoral.

Just as all your public writing here reveals -most often contra to your intentions- not what you have behaviorally done, but who you are, characterologically: you’re sick in the head.

Get yourself well.

Feodor said...

Marshall is the decent nice white fellow that tried to judge Dan for going on a trip that his loving children gave their parents, isn’t he? That’s the decent, non-vulgar Marshall isn’t it? Yeah. That it was the same.

Craig said...

Judging people, twisting things, and misrepresenting reality comes so very easy to you. Maybe we can draw some conclusions about your moral compass given what you write.

Feodor said...

Go ahead. Tell me how writing a blog post trying to punk a guy who goes on a trip given him and his wife by their loving and grateful children is more decent than saying you’re a shithead.

‘Course, in trying, you could very well prove both points true. But chances are just one.

Craig said...

Well, I guess I’d start by saying that (as I remember it)the blog post was directed at the hypocrisy of someone who presents himself as a devotee of “undefined” simple living not at the vacation itself. I’m pretty confident that Art was clear that he had no problem with the vacation itself and that he would have done the same thing.

But, you just keep pretending that your made up version is more accurate than the real version.

Feodor said...

So if the vacation isn’t a problem... what’s the source of the hypocrisy?

Anonymous said...

An imaginary line that Marshall drew: IF you believe in simplicity, THEN you wouldn't go on a vacation to Europe. Not even one time.

It's not a line that I drew. It's nothing I advocated. I have not defined simplicity (don't believe in doing so), nor have I said I'm perfectly "simple" in my lifestyle.

Marshall just determined his line and drew it for me, then said I've crossed it.

There you go.

~Dan

Dan Trabue said...

I'll give you a heads up, Marshall: Our son is in the Peace Corps in Albania (the high living' ritzy Peace Corps, yeah, I know...) When our daughter graduates from college next year, we're taking a second trip to Europe to visit him. A chance to get to see our son again, as we have for one or so week a year the past four and a half years. So that will make TWO trips to Europe in a lifetime. So go ahead and complain about how THAT crosses your imaginary line for "simplicity" that I should not cross.

Go ahead, tell me I shouldn't see my son for the first time in ~18 months and to do so is violating YOUR idea of simplicity. Tell me I shouldn't celebrate our daughter's graduation, son's birthday and our 33rd anniversary in this way without violating YOUR idea of simplicity.

Then I can tell you how much I give a damned about your imaginary lines.

Feodor said...

I think Marshall is jealous of the love shown. And went to his indecent place. His blog.

Craig said...

And Dan, corraberates my recollection, proving Feo to be mistaken.

And Dan gets defensive.

Have a nice trip.

Feodor said...

You’re either obtuse or making it up, Craig. Where’s the hypocrisy? Clearly just in Marshall’s head. But you claim it, too. If the trip isn’t an issue, you’re missing what you need for hypocrisy.

So either you lied when you said the trip wasn’t an issue (in which case you, too, are smarmy enough to criticize a man’s loving, gracious children in an idiotic suggestion of hypocrisy) or you have to admit there is no hypocrisy.

Craig said...

Then you didn’t read carefully, especially the entire context. I was encouraging and a little envious of the trip, just curious about how one reconciles this sort of trip with some of the simple living ideals Dan professes. Hell, if Dan would have just acknowledged the contradiction, and simply said that this was an exception to his principles it would have been done. The other issue I remember was an unwillingness or inability to define the term “simple living”. Like many terms Dan uses, this one is elastic enough that it’s possible to justify virtually anything.

But, that’s what you get when you ignore the context and insist on judging others based on minimal knowledge. But, if it feeds your superiority complex, I’ll put up with it. I wouldn’t want you to lose that. It’s what makes you so unpleasant.

Feodor said...

When you write that it’s an exception to principles [which is hypocritical of you being one always alarmed about makkng inferences of others’ beliefs {but for your constant making it up as you go along}] you are closing the trip is a problem. At the same time you say the trip isn’t the problem. Screwed in the head already.

But - to stay on your up is down territory - how is the trip not living out a claim to simplicity? Monks travel. Jesus travelled. Accepted the gift of a donkey. The Dali Lama travels. Gandhi travelled.

Tell me, Craig, what is the radius of travel from from Lexington beyond which simplicity crosses into extravagance? I’d love to read your guidelines on what GPS location did Dan, in accepting a living, gracious gift from his children, move from value living to hypocrisy?

At the airport? Boarding? Ten miles out? A hundred? A thousand? Make my day, Craig.

Dan Trabue said...

if Dan would have just acknowledged the contradiction, and simply said that this was an exception to his principles

And what "contradiction" would I acknowledge? I have never defined simplicity. No one does, generally. There is no "Simple Living Standards" wherein are laid out the acceptable standards of simplicity. I have never said that vacations are not consistent with simple living. I have never said that overseas travel are inconsistent with simplicity.

The thing you appear to miss is that you all have made up some standards for what YOU think is consistent with simple living and then disparaged someone for not living up to standards that you invented out of whole cloth.

I totally get that if someone were flying to, say, Florida or Scotland for a golfing trip every other weekend and then also saying that they were simple living advocates, that someone might raise the question. But one trip (and now, hopefully, two) in a life time... who decided that this was inconsistent or a contradiction?

Trying to hold someone to a standard that they didn't set and claim an inconsistency or hypocrisy is not rational, it doesn't make any sense.

unwillingness or inability to define the term “simple living”

It's because part of simple living, for me, is grace. That is, I think the idea of striving for simplicity is a good thing. BUT, as soon as you start trying to define, for others, what is and isn't simple living, it loses some of the grace that is inherent in simple living.

I have a friend who only bicycles everywhere he goes. He never uses a car, for reasons of simplicity, healthy living, environmental concerns, spirituality, etc. He inspired me to give up a car for most uses for ~18 years (my new job has caused me to use a car more. He never SAID, however, that "IF you want to be simple live-r like me, you have to give up your car totally!" There was grace in his simplicity that inspired a simplicity in my life that wasn't the same as his, but still, it was a step of simplicity. If he was preachy about it and insisted people need to do simplicity the way he does, it would have lost the grace inherent in simple living.

For me, anyway. Anyway, the point is, simplicity is not and I don't think can be strictly defined. I'd prefer to think of it in terms of, "in my life, what can I do to not be ostentatious, to not spend money frivolously, to live in a way that is grace-full and gracious towards the world we share?"

Right now, for example, I have a job helping people with disabilities to get jobs, to get out in the community, to have richer lives. THAT helps make the world a more grace-full place, I think. It is a simple living step, itself. And indeed, I took a significant pay cut to take this job, so, it's more simple in the amount of income I receive. BUT, the trade-off is that I have to have a car to assist people get around sometimes. That isn't as simple as not having a car, but in the context of this job, it makes sense.

There simply can't be a one size fits all definition of simplicity, at least, not a set of requirements.

~Dan

Feodor said...

It’s pretty simple to accept a gift in humility. Especially from one’s gracious children.

Only moral monsters have a problem with it; moral monsters with green eyes of jealousy, perhaps trapped in lives without much real love.

Craig said...

Dan, if you didn’t satisfactorily address the issues then, I have no reason to think you would now. So why add this additional layer of off topic? I’m just recalling my memories of the multiple threads, not trying to do anything else.

Feo, if you’re just going to continue to try to impose your version of reality on something which is available for people to compare, I can’t help you. Nor do I particularly want to.

So, you just continue on spreading your fantasy world where you’re superior in every way if that helps you.

Anonymous said...

I gave answers that would be satisfactory to a rational human being before. Y'all didn't understand it then and you still do not appear to understand. That's on you. Good luck with life.

Dan

Feodor said...

Craig can’t locate the hypocrisy.

Or humanity.

Feodor said...

You’re an embarrassing liar, Craig. By your own words. You claim hypocrisy. You can’t find it.

Anonymous said...

For instance, you just claimed that my answers don't satisfactorily clear things up, but it's an empty and unsupported claim. You almost certainly support the claim because my answer is just rational and factual. The point being NOT to get you to make sense of your irrational claim. The point is to try to help you see how your partisan allegiances have blinded you to rational discourse.

Dan

Anonymous said...

I do find the simplicity question and how y'all deal with it to be an interesting and informative phenomena. It appears that you both hear about this notion of Simplicity and instantly assume there are rules that one must abide by in order to be a simple living advocate.

It's always about the rules and who is violating them.

I think it's quite telling.

Dan

Marshal Art said...

Dan,

The problem we have is with your claim that your answers are factional and rational. You do this and expect that to end it all. But this forces us, and any other reader, to accept YOUR notion of what is or isn't rational or factual, without having any basis for doing so, as you provide no such basis other than your say-so. I find that to be highly irrational...as well as a cheap dodge. It carries forward with you attempt to "help us see" that we're blinded by partisan allegiances in any way. It's still merely a matter of your saying it is so. Not good enough.

As to the simplicity question, your refusal to define it, particularly when you continue to preach it as a way of life, is what provokes questions about how you resolve taking a European vacation in light of this philosophy you allegedly hold so dear. And making matters worse, you regard the wondering as some kind of attack. So does your cohort, feo. For the benefit of the both of you, understand this: We have no issue with your kids gifting you in this way (though I, personally, wonder if they've rejected your simple living philosophy), and we even have no real issue with your acceptance of the gift, especially if it was already planned and financed before it was presented as a gift to you. It was just a simple question that you haven't the ability to provide what to us was in any way a satisfactory or rational answer. And that is the key. "Satisfactory" is a judgement reserved to the person who is given the response, not he who gives it.

More catching up coming later...

Feodor said...

Defining simplicity: your disagreement with how Dan’s lives his life of simplicity does not constitute his hypocrisy

Defining simplicity: in fact, your thinking that humble acceptance of a gift from one’s loving and grateful children is anything other than simple love makes you the one going down the rabbit hole of irreason.

Also makes you the hypocrite.

Pretty simple.

Feodor said...

Also makes you an embarrassment.

Anonymous said...

About me not defining simple living, I've actually written a great deal explaining my positions on simplicity. I have a whole series of posts that you can look up called, Why Simplicity, where I do all sorts of defining and clarifying. Including this one...

http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-simplicity-complex-answer-part-iii.html?m=1

Dan

Marshal Art said...

feo,

"Defining simplicity: your disagreement with how Dan’s lives his life of simplicity does not constitute his hypocrisy"

Simple living was never defined. Since this is true, it is difficult to agree OR disagree with it. But a common theme during those times when Dan has referred to "simple living" is some alleged problem of "over consuming"...ostensibly buying what one doesn't need, or is an extravagance. A European vacation could easily be an example of either, especially to one who goes on about "simple living". It certainly is to a great many who can't afford such pleasures. My purpose was to have Dan resolve how his philosophy isn't compromised by a European vacation. He failed to do that. His tap-dancing wasn't the least bit compelling. As Craig said, it could have easily been handled by saying even something like, "Hey! It's a European vacation! I couldn't resist!" Yeah, we'd probably have given him grief, but at least it's real.

"Defining simplicity: in fact, your thinking that humble acceptance of a gift from one’s loving and grateful children is anything other than simple love makes you the one going down the rabbit hole of irreason."

I know that you're simple minded, and that after checking Merriam-Webster, FreeDictionary.com, the Cambridge AND Oxford Dictionaries, I've found no such word as "irreason". So you're down the rabbit hole of unjustified pomposity once again.

As to the "point" of your quote, both Craig and I gave the kids props for their generous gift to their parents. I wouldn't mind the same from mine if it won't be too much of a financial burden. But to accept a gift is not the issue, either.

If the money for the trip was already spent, it would have been almost rude to stand by one's "simple living" philosophy and suck the joy from the kids they would have had in seeing Dan accept. But suppose they brought it up before spending the dough because they knew of Dan's "piety". I hope then that Dan would decline their offer, both to honor his alleged devotion to living according to the teachings of Christ (that is, his laughable understanding of it), as well as to impart those teachings to the kids. I'm mean, we're talking about Dan here who is just disgusted that we defer to actual facts before join the two of you in lynching a man based on what a few women said he did forty years ago. Such man of virtue surely wouldn't allow his kids to spend their money on such extravagance or his sake. "No, kids. If you must spend money on men, donate to the soup kitchen in my name." sounds more like the Dan he dares insist he is.

How any of this makes ME a hypocrite I'd be entertained by reading. I'm certainly not embarrassed asking questions. I am embarrassed that with the few readers I have, you are one of them. You really bring down the character of this enterprise...because you're an embarrassment.

Marshal Art said...

Dan,

I went and looked at your link (because unlike you and feo, I do that sort of thing) and found nothing in it that defines simple living. You seemed to focus on prudence in purchasing, as if the wealthy don't do that, too. One can have a mansion outfitted with all manner of luxury and still have been prudent in the purchasing of everything there, as well as having been aligned with Christian teaching to boot. I don't recall any quote of Christ's that says, "Don't buy stuff".

However, it did give me the location of what you think will be explanations of what simple living is and what it looks like in practice. I'll thank you for it after I re-read them should they actually provide. Based on what I saw in the post from the link, and the comments afterwards, I won't be holding my breath.

From here, back to the topic...

Marshal Art said...

OK...not so much the topic, as much as merely responding to the various comments.

"Wow. It is really impressive how outraged Marshall and Dan are by indecent words on this blog!!! Such a model for finely tuned moral values."

First of all, I'm guessing little feo meant "Marshall and Craig"...not Marshall and Dan. But he's too eager to insult (having no real intelligent thought in his pointy head) to control his fingers. Anyhow...

Outrage? Don't believe I felt particularly outraged when Dan demonstrated his true self. But if you need to feel I was outraged, why, you go right ahead, little boy.

"...sympathize with 62 million white Americans who support..."

What about all the black people that supported Trump? You don't think all black people are like the buffoons YOU know, do you?

"No doubt about it how much you all are true moral exemplars."

Yeah, you're right. We should have supported Hillary who married and defended a worse abuser of women...who supports the murder of children and the depravity of homosexuality in whatever manner homosexuals demand...like her boss Barry O did. THAT's what morality looks like.

"Have you witnessed his behavior? No. Are you basing these blurred shifting conceptual sands of uneducated thoughts of yours not on his behavior rather on recorded private speech and public pronouncements? Yes."

One needn't have personally witnessed bad behavior to form an opinion the person engaging in the bad behavior. You seem, however, to now need to believe that's true in order to have something else by which you can condemn Craig. You should keep it in your pants and wait until he actually does something that deserves condemnation...like you do constantly to justify our condemnation of you. In other news, Craig's rather consistent in his positions and demonstrates that his level of education is more than sufficient to make you look like the boob you are.

"His behavioral record may well be immoral. All indications are that it is. We don’t know for certain."

Trump has publicly said much that more than indicates, but actually justifies anyone's opinion that he acts immorally from time to time (or at least used to). So yeah, we know for certain. You should pay more attention.

"Frame of mind, way of thinking, judgments and moral conclusions: this is what we have of Trump. And the whole lot of his moral pronouncements and recorded private conversation gives us proof not necessarily of what he has done but of what he is: immoral."

Is he recorded as having stated he is immoral or that he enjoys wallowing in immorality? Then all we can say is that based on what he says he does, or likes or whatever, he acts immorally. But, it's not inappropriate to say he is amoral versus immoral.

Merriam-Webster:

1. a :having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong

Trump seems to act in a manner that suggests he has no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong, and thus the label "amoral" is appropriate.

Deal with it, loser.

"Marshall is the decent nice white fellow that tried to judge Dan for going on a trip..."

"White" fellow??? Racist.

Craig said, "Judging people, twisting things, and misrepresenting reality comes so very easy to you."

It's like he's getting paid for it, Craig, because that's how the false priest feo rolls.

"Go ahead. Tell me how writing a blog post trying to punk a guy..."

Irony.

Marshal Art said...


"Tell me how writing a blog post trying to punk a guy who goes on a trip given him and his wife by their loving and grateful children is more decent than saying you’re a shithead."

More decent? Decent's not the appropriate term for a simple inquiry into how taking a European vacation squares with a simple living philosophy. "Punking", from my understanding of the word according to the UrbanDictionary, sounds like something you'd enjoy receiving, given your support for The Agenda That Doesn't Exist. A simple question doesn't constitute punking at all. So, that you don't understand the problem with calling someone a shithead is likely due to the fact that you're amoral and aren't concerned with what is right or wrong. Because that's how you false priests roll.


"An imaginary line that Marshall drew: IF you believe in simplicity, THEN you wouldn't go on a vacation to Europe. Not even one time."

I didn't draw any line at all. I was hoping you'd do that. Now you say you don't or won't. But how can you define it then? How can anyone tell that you actually live by that code? Simply because at a given time you're not doing anything extravagant? How's that different than the wealthy dude who lives in opulence slumming about in sweats? Thus, I didn't draw any line for you and claimed you crossed it. But YOU, however, just lied about me again. You must be amoral.

"I'll give you a heads up, Marshal..."

No, Dan. I'll give YOU one. You can do whatever the hell you want, like wetting yourself now over something I didn't do (drawing lines). And you can continue to speak about standards of behavior and continue to leave yourself what wiggle room you need to claim you're not in breech of those standards. I don't expect that you draw lines, as then you'd be bound by them as if you had real conviction in your beliefs, which you clearly don't. No lines means you never sin and you're a pure as the driven snow.

Marshal Art said...


But I never insisted simple living means anything, as I am certain it has no meaning at all in your fantasy world. So it's inane to think I would say what YOU do crosses a line that I drew to define YOUR goofy philosophy.

Ironically, that's exactly what you do when you speak of conservatism or fundamentalism. You really do love irony!

"I think Marshall is jealous of the love shown. And went to his indecent place. His blog."

That's funny. You said you think! Not jealous Bozo. I think it's nice his kids love their Dad. I just wish they had a better one. Just like I wish your imaginary black wife had a better husband.

And my blog isn't indecent...except when you post a comment here. Dan's language ain't sprucing the place up much, either.

Craig's comment of November 18, 2017 at 9:47 AM is spot on. Kudos, Craig.

"But - to stay on your up is down territory - how is the trip not living out a claim to simplicity? Monks travel. Jesus travelled. Accepted the gift of a donkey. The Dali Lama travels. Gandhi travelled."

Really? They all took trips to Europe? For a vacation? Please. Tell me more about Jesus in Paris, Gandhi in the Bahamas, the Dali Lama in Peru (to see the llamas, no doubt) or all those monks digging the casinos in Vegas.

"The thing you appear to miss is that you all have made up some standards for what YOU think is consistent with simple living and then disparaged someone for not living up to standards that you invented out of whole cloth."

We've made up nothing. We hoped you'd clarify this etheral, undefined concept of simple living. By your previous blatherings on the subject, a Euro trip seems inconsistent. That's all. But feel free to demonize as you always do.

"I totally get that if someone were flying to, say, Florida or Scotland for a golfing trip every other weekend and then also saying that they were simple living advocates, that someone might raise the question."

But that would require drawing lines, which you won't do (and thus on your behalf I would chastise such a person who dares raise the question). As such, we have no idea what simple living looks like.

Marshal Art said...


"Trying to hold someone to a standard that they didn't set and claim an inconsistency or hypocrisy is not rational, it doesn't make any sense."

Then good gosh, I'm so glad we didn't do that. I'm so relieved. We can't be blamed, however, for seeking clarification for what appeared to be inconsistent based on the fluid state of the concept of simple living.

"It's because part of simple living, for me, is grace."

Ahhh! But then, you never define "grace", either. You just bandy the word about any time you hope to deflect criticism. As it is defined in Christianity, using it here makes no sense at all. If you're using some secular understanding, there is no way you can say that it doesn't ever apply to the wealthy and opulent (especially given the decorating style of some wealthy people).

""in my life, what can I do to not be ostentatious, to not spend money frivolously, to live in a way that is grace-full and gracious towards the world we share?""

The wealthy aren't necessarily ostentatious or frivolous in the expenditures simply because they have money to be so. I've worked in very-high income areas, toured others in Maui. Big properties, big homes...not necessarily ostentatious even though they conveyed wealth. Perhaps you don't understand the word.

Also, the wealthy are not above graciousness. Jackie Kennedy was described as gracious, graceful and as one who brought grace to the presidency. So there's that. In my inadequate, humble and too often failing manner, I prefer "in my life, how can I please God?" Everything of importance then takes care of itself.

"Right now, for example, I have a job helping people with disabilities to get jobs, to get out in the community, to have richer lives."

I'm gonna stick my neck out and assume you don't mean "rich" in money...because you know...you're not down with that sort of thing.

"THAT helps make the world a more grace-full place, I think."

Well that would depend upon the people you're helping, wouldn't it? What if they're jerks?

"It is a simple living step, itself."

I don't see how, unless your help is contingent on their living simply, despite your not explaining what that means. Indeed, thanks to your help they could go on to live opulently and ostentatiously with no regard to the world we share.

The point here is that none of this clears up the question of simple living. Not in the least. Thanks for trying to make it look like you were trying.

"It’s pretty simple to accept a gift in humility. Especially from one’s gracious children.

Only moral monsters have a problem with it; moral monsters with green eyes of jealousy, perhaps trapped in lives without much real love."


Oh, you're so right, feo. I'm so glad neither I nor Craig engaged in such behavior. But as a moral monster yourself, I'm impressed you expressed such concern. I don't know about Craig, but I'm really happy for people who are able to travel, have nice things and experience as much of all God's creation has to offer. I can be a little envious at times about it, but it only turns to motivation, so it's all good my small minded little buddy.

"So, you just continue on spreading your fantasy world where you’re superior in every way if that helps you."

feo really does think very highly of himself, doesn't he Craig? I guess someone should. I wonder how he justifies it?

I think this all catches me up. Now...what do you say we all get back to the topic of the post, eh? We might have to go all the way back to the top to remember what that was.

Marshal Art said...

OH! I want to add this with regard to the hyperventilating our moral stalwarts (*gack!*) Fred and Ethel are doing over Roy Moore. The following, if the link opens and one is able to view it, is by a guy named Steve Deace. He's apparently a conservative radio commentator who now has a show on CRTV which is a great place for lefties to get educated if there are any of them with an open mind and the intelligence to understand. I don't really watch this guy's stuff to often for a variety of reasons, but due to the title, I found it relevant. Deace presents and example of how honest, moral men of character should regard allegations leveled at ANYone, but Moore in particular. What's most interesting is that this guy knows Moore rather personally, or at least enough that he can call and speak to Moore or his wife...which he did. Deace, too, is conflicted about the situation, but has more knowledge of this guy and all he has done for most of the last forty years. His concern is over whether or not he should take back his endorsement, because despite his association with and knowledge of Roy Moore, he finds the accusations to be somewhat credible (given the time the show was produced in relation to what was reported at the time). But still he has a host of questions that makes those accusations suspect. Well...just watch it and pay attention. I really don't expect Dan or feo to do so, because they don't want to see, hear or know anything that will change their mind, especially facts or the truth. Whether either is presented in this video, one must take the time to find out. It goes on for about 50 minutes after which he gives his two cohorts in the studio about ten minutes each for their two cents.

https://www.crtv.com/video/ep176--on-roy-moore

Marshal Art said...

There is also this tale of Moore being banned from some mall for hitting on teenage girls. Apparently, this story may not be true at all. The piece doesn't absolutely confirm that it isn't true, but it does provide enough to put the story in serious doubt. I don't imagine it will have any impact on the anyone's position if the banned-from-the-mall story is false. Certainly it won't on Dan's or feo's, given their unChristian intent on smearing those with sound Biblical understanding on sexual immorality. It's just one thing they can't use to support what they so desperately want to be true. After ignoring the proof that the story is false, they'd eventually pretend it never existed or pretend it doesn't matter.

In addition is the Gloria Allred client who claims Moore did unspeakable things to her. She claims Moore even signed her high school yearbook as proof Moore actually knows her after he claimed he doesn't. But there are two problems here. Allred won't submit the yearbook to have the signature analyzed to prove it isn't a forgery until after Moore testifies before some august body. The second problem is that the stepson of the woman does not believe the woman is telling the truth, as she has a history of being untrustworthy.

So now, as the he said/she said alters yet again, but this time in favor of Moore, will the weeping women (feo and Dan) temper their calls for tarring and feathering? Hell no. They don't have that kind of integrity.

I'm sorry. That was a joke. They don't have integrity. Nor shame (had to tie it in to the topic of the post).

Moore, like every other American, is innocent until proven guilty. Neither feo nor Dan knows the guy at all personally. That which chaps their respective hides is Moore's stance on homosexuality, and for that he must hang, and any charge that will get him to the gallows if fine by them.

Craig, on the other hand, believes that out of prudence it is better for him to step aside and focus on proving himself innocent. That's not how it's supposed to work. He's supposed to be proven guilty. Until then, he is innocent. But as if that isn't enough, the fact is that should he step down while being innocent, his rep won't be any less tarnished and the charge, although false, will be brought up any time he moves back into the public sphere. So I say, stick around until the facts prove you guilty, Roy. I hope they don't, because we don't need that for anyone.

There is one other point. Let's assume the worst of the allegations is true. As the Deace piece to which I linked earlier more than suggests, there is nothing more recent than these few charges against him. He's led a fairly clean life since that time. So what we're really left to consider is the severity of the behavior, which was minimal compared to what is alleged of Bob Menendez, Donald Trump and of course Bill Clinton, versus the fact that there's nothing to indicate a serial aspect to his character with regard to such behaviors. He's repented it would seem. That leaves lying about it as his only true sin upon which we can judge the man. The repenting would seem to me to be a greater consideration than the lie, given the natural embarrassment a Christian man would have at having such things about him made known. Not acceptable, but understandable. So beyond the lie, we're left with a pretty honorable guy for the most part...and by most I mean enough to match or best any candidate for any public office in terms of character.

But haters like feo and Dan won't let go of what happened forty years ago. Because they have no shame.

Marshal Art said...

OK. At this point I have to go over to Dan's blog and re-post my comments if he deleted them again.

Marshal Art said...

OH WAIT! Before I do, I forgot I wanted to post this quote due to its relevance:

"If a senator drove a car into a river and left a woman there to drown and didn’t notify the police, would that be considered resignation-worthy now? Or are we still not to that point?" —Frank Fleming

Craig said...

Dan, you gave responses that were satisfactory to you.

Feo, it’ll be hard for you to see the hypocrisy without the longer term context. But, you most likely aren’t really interested in context or accuracy at this point.

Dan Trabue said...

Last one, because I'm wasting my time and you all are just getting stupider with every time you try to understand.

So in summation and for what it's worth, I gave these factual answers:

1. There IS no one authoritative definition of Simple Living.

2. It's not a movement with One Voice speaking to define it. It literally is undefined. At least authoritatively.

3. We can and have offered different notions of what Simple Living advocates are suggesting, what they'd like to see, what it means to US, but we're speaking for US, not everyone. Because it isn't one single thing.

These are facts. Do you recognize these facts?

That being the case, I offered these rational points:

A. I have not said that, for me, Simple Living means not going on vacations to Europe or to spending money on personal entertainment.

B. Thus, it is simply not hypocritical for me to go on a vacation to Europe and being a believer in Simple Living. Why not? Because I didn't advocate no overseas trips and I have not defined simple living to exclude overseas vacations, thus, no hypocrisy.

That is a rational point. Do you understand that?

No, of course not.

Con'td...

Dan Trabue said...

So, while Simple Living has no one definition, I have offered several explanations of what it means TO ME. For instance...

"Simple living is
deliberate living, conscious and conscientious living.
It is not chasing after every new Thing that comes along,
but recognizing that our confidence, our happiness, our lives do not consist of Things and more Things, but
in God,
in our relationships,
in our family,
in our community."


Not relying upon our things, but on our relationships, community, God and family. Thus, by THAT definition/explanation, taking a trip to Europe to spend time with family, seeking spiritual nourishment and englightenment... that is entirely in fitting with how I've talked about Simplicity.

I went on and clarified how I see Simplicity (and I'm not unique in this...)

"Deliberate living. Prudent living.

Does that mean I am paralyzed into fearfully buying nothing [including tickets to Europe] unable to know all the possible repercussions?

No, clearly not.

I'm just suggesting something more reasonable and prudent than beginning with the presumption that all the stuff I can buy is going to make the world and my life better."


The point being, my arguments that I have been making all along do not advocate or presuppose that one can't travel, or that one can't travel even as far as some place overseas. It's about striving to consume less, to be prudent in one's spending, to be considerate and deliberate in how one spends.

Nothing about no overseas travel, thus no hypocrisy.

In closing, let me point out how my children arranged for this trip, as they are very good examples of simple living advocates.

My then-24 year old son was living in Taiwan, teaching English part time at a tutoring school (while paying for Chinese classes to better be a good citizen of the world) and making not much money, but able to save money because, by deciding to move to Taiwan, he had deliberately moved to a place with a low cost of living, so that even though he wasn't making much money, he could save money. He didn't buy expensive things. He ate simply and cheaply, had inexpensive tastes and saved his money.

My then 19 year old college student (full time) daughter, who had managed to not have a college debt by getting good grades and working hard - both our kids received minimal financial support from us for college and did it mostly on their own! In addition to being a full time college student working on a double major, she took three part time jobs and, in spite of not making much money, she was able to save money by being thrifty and having inexpensive tastes in what she did.

These two young adults, working part time at low paying jobs, saved their money and did some researching to get the cheapest plane tickets, to book at the cheapest B&Bs, where we stayed in small rooms, sometimes sleeping on couches and on the floor.

Doing it like that, we (my children, mostly) probably spent less than many Americans do on a Disney World vacation and had a grand time connecting with one another (it was our chance to see our son for the first time in a year because he was living in Taiwan) and having a healthy vacation.

If you want to call that sort of scrimping and saving by two part time workers in and just-out of college "extravagant" and in conflict with Simple Living ideals... well, it just goes to show that you don't really know much.

Feodor said...

Marshall: "But suppose they brought it up before spending the dough because they knew of Dan's "piety". I hope then that Dan would decline their offer, both to honor his alleged devotion to living according to the teachings of Christ..."

Jesus: "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly."
________________

Beware Marshall, Dan. He's a thief, only knowing how to kill and destroy. Simplicity is living with Christian joy and discovering that God is present in all good things of the world like a sacrament, because all good things come from God. The love of one's children. The peaks and valleys of Yosemite. The beaches of Brasil. The canals and piazzas and history of Venice. Europe, in fact, has many, many good things.

Anyone can travel in simplicity. So many spend wastefully in gross consumption.

Marshall himself, in his poverty of mind, spends thought in gross consumption.

Beware Marshall, Dan. He's a thief, only knowing how to kill and destroy.

"In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider: God has made the one as well as the other, so that man may not find out anything that will be after him."

Feodor said...

Craig: hypocrisy: 1) holding an ideal; 2) breaking it without admission.

Craig: "the trip is not an issue."

You admit you don't have item #2.

So you cannot say that Dan is a hypocrite.

Which makes you the hypocrite.

Take heart, though. You're better off than Marshall, who is a thief intent on killing the joy of living with God.

Craig said...

It’s so helpful to see that you use your omniscience to make the world a better place for all.

Dan,self serving as usual.

Feodor said...

"... to see that you use your omniscience..." and then, "Dan,self serving as usual."

😂😂😂😂

Hypocrite, much?

😂😂😂😂

Feodor said...

Speaking of embarrassing Republicans.

"I certainly have no reason to disbelieve any of them," Ivey said. "The timing is a little curious. But at the same time, I have no reason to disbelieve them."

Ivey was asked, given her statement that she did not have a reason to disbelieve the women, how the accusations made her feel as a woman. "There's never an excuse for or rationale for sexual misconduct or sexual abuse," Ivey said. "It bothers me."

Ivey said that concern was a factor in her decision.

"Consider all the information that you have," Ivey said. "Certainly, it has an impact. But at the same time, the United States Senate needs to have in my opinion, a majority of Republican votes

Marshal Art said...

Haven't time to deal with feo's comedic melodrama at present. So beginning with Dan's first of two comments:

I not only understand you, I find you've confirmed my suspicions about "simple living".

1. If there's no one definition, how many are there? The more there are, the more meaningless the term becomes. You've made it out to be a "my truth" situation. Truth is just a word when everyone has his own. In the same way, simple living keans nothing.

2. If it's literally undefined, then by definition it has no meaning. All the things you say you don't do, then, can legitimately be included in another's definition. That includes ALL of what you would regard as polar opposite of what it means to you.

So I not only recognize the facts, I recognize far better than you, apparently, the implications of those facts...as you've now presented them. Thanks for validating what I have understood all along.

A. You certainly can't say that now that you've gone, but it still leaves undefined what you mean by over consumption, which is more specifically where it seemed such a vacation was problematic as regards all previous explanations you've given of simple living. You've more than implied over consuming is consuming beyond one's needs. I wouldn't be one to hold you or anyone else to such a standard, but one doesn't "need" to see one's adult kids. So clearly the definition of need is fluid to you as well.

B. But again, it does conflict with notions you've expressed about over consumption. I'm sure if you refer to the original conversation you'll see that's the crux of my inquiries. Not merely simple living. In other words, what you now say was never prohibited in your philosophy continues to conflict with all previous explanations of over consuming. See? I'm totally understanding everything.

Indeed, it seems Craig and I were correct in saying that your philosophy is purposely left as soft and fluid as you need it to be in order change it at a moment's notice.

I'll get to your 2nd comment later. I hate doing this on my phone.

Feodor said...

If you ignore the witness of teenage girls,
If you tell refugees “go back where you came from,"
If you close your doors to dirty field laborers,
I you would turn a child over to a tyrant,
You shouldn’t put up a Nativity this year.

Marshal Art said...

feo,

If you're referring to to Moore situation, the testimonies against him are from grown women anout evemts that ALLEGEDLY happened forty years ago.

No one is telling refugees to go back whence they came, but to wait until we can improve the means by which we determine there are no terrorists among them.

While we may prefer our field laborers are clean when they arrive, dirty or not we expect them to enter according to established laws and procedures.

I know of no one who would yurn over a chilf to a tyrant, but I do know that millions of leftists, like you and Dan, are complicit in the murder of millions of children, and the turning over of hundreds of other children to homosexuals, intentionally depriving those kids of the mother or father they need and deserve.

You should slap yourself continually until the day you die.

Feodor said...

You’ve had a long enough break with reality, Marshall. And with God. Get yourself well.

Marshal Art said...

My responses demonstrate I'm well in touch with reality as I correct your willful distortions of how things truly are. You've never been in touch with either reality or God, preferring instead a god of your own making.

Feodor said...

Governor Ivey is an embarrassment to morality, reason, and the Republican Party. She puts herself by being honest regarding 6 women’s testimony, 32 corroborating witnesses, and widespread community knowledge regarding his behavior around teens.

You can’t even scrape up that much honesty.

You’re broken.

Marshal Art said...

You don't even know what those testimonies are, because you're too fixated on the headlines that suggest that which is not in evidence. Your sole concern is to smear someone with a far better understanding of both Scripture and the Constitution than you could ever hope to have. You're too dedicated to sexual immorality and murder. You're a complete fraud and a false priest. A liar of the highest order.

Feodor said...

You’ve sold your soul. You’re broken. You have a broken relationship with reality. And you e been heading in that direction for a very long time. Someone or something broke you.

Marshal Art said...

I'm sure you might one day come to believe your own rot. In the meantime, you haven't demonstrated in any way that I have a problem with reality. YOU, on the other hand, have quite the deviant relationship with lying. It's how you roll. As such, you deny reality in favor of your personal fantasy, where you believe you impress people with what sadly for you passes as intelligence.

Feodor said...

“A retired Alabama police officer said she and her colleagues were told decades ago to “make sure” Roy Moore “didn’t hang around” high school cheerleaders, and confirmed previous reports that the Republican Senate candidate was banned at the time from a local mall for predatory behavior toward teenage girls.

“The rumor mill was that he liked young girls, and ... we were advised that he was being suspended from the mall because he would hang around the young girls that worked in the stores and ... really got into a place of where they say he was harassing,” former Gadsden police officer Faye Gary told MSNBC on Tuesday.”

Marshal Art said...

"Gary said that though they never pursued Moore on a complaint,

We were also told to watch him at the ballgames and make sure that, you know, he didn’t hang around the cheerleaders, where the cheerleaders would be … Every day we were looking for a complaint to come in.”"


Watching a guy for whom no complaints were lodged. Also, it's now a he said/she said between this cop and the mall guy I cited earlier.

Feodor said...

“Two more women describe unwanted overtures by Roy Moore at Alabama mall”

“Richardson, whose account was corroborated by classmate and Sears co-worker Kayla McLaughlin, is among four women who say Moore pursued them when they were teenagers or young women working at the mall — from Sears at one end to the Pizitz department store at the other. Richardson and Becky Gray, the woman who complained to her manager, have not previously spoken publicly. The accounts of the other two women — Wendy Miller and Gloria Thacker Deason — have previously been reported by The Washington Post.“

Marshal Art said...

You do realize that any woman who is not interested in a man attracted to her considers his attention "unwanted", don't you? (Of course you do, but you're interested in attacking Moore, not behaving with integrity) It is not uncommon for most men, even those with high standards of personal character (look up what "high standards of personal character" looks like) to continue attempting to persuade a woman to take a chance with him. Shy dudes bail on the first refusal, but how then does one know that a girl is playing hard to get? None of these legitimate considerations ever enters the addled mind of a false priest intent on demonizing better people.

Feodor said...

The man has a fetish for underage girls and women far younger than him. Confessed himself that he fell in love with his wife when she was underage and he was 30.

His whole town knew his perversion but, like Cosby, Weinstein, Louis CK, and Trump, white male culture covers these things by avoiding paperwork and keeping accusers silent.

And you support all this because you’re morally corrupted. Broken. Sick in the head.

Marshal Art said...

Most men prefer women younger than themselves...much younger to boot. This isn't a perversion. It's natural. Some men like older women, but most prefer them younger. Conversely, most women like older men, while there are those that like 'em young. There's no perversion in men interested in women, young or old. Men seeking men is perversion. You breathing is perversion. Your hatred for your own race is perversion. You so desperately needing right-wing examples of perversion is perversion.

Craig said...

And the silence regard the ever expanding list of accusations against Franken, is deafening.

Interesting that the same people who what ti keep Moore from being seated, aren’t calling for Franken’s ouster.

Anonymous said...

Most men prefer women younger than themselves...much younger to boot. This isn't a perversion.

Marshall,

1. Stop talking for "most men..." those of us who aren't perverts will thank you for it; and

2. Stop outing yourself as a closet pedophile. It's just damned creepy.

Dan

Anonymous said...

How 'bout it Craig? Will you 'fess up and agree with Marshall that you're attracted to teenaged girls ("MUCH younger," indeed)? Or do you think Marshall should stop presuming to speak for "most men..." as he's coming across as creepy as hell.

Let me be clear: I and the men I know (progressives, yes, but most of the conservative guys I grew up with, as well) do not prefer "much younger women" and certainly not teenaged girls.

ew.

Dan

Anonymous said...

Marshall, is your wife creeped out by your pedophile predilections? Do you have a teenaged daughter (or son, for that matter) and, if so, does she read this blog?

And now, you'll have to excuse me for a while. I am increasingly feeling the need to go take a shower after reading your words, Marshall.

~Dan

Anonymous said...

the silence regard the ever expanding list of accusations against Franken, is deafening.

What silence? Everyone has condemned him. HE has supported an investigation.

It is clearly wrong to, in the midst of a crowd during a photo op, to grab a woman's bottom. It is stupid as hell. It is wrong to make jokes about groping women in the midst of a crowd of people, or to force a kiss on a woman, even as a joke.

Who hasn't condemned him?

"As Minnesotans absorbed the news that their own Senator Al Franken, a Democrat, had become the latest public official to be accused of mistreating women, there was widespread condemnation of his behavior in his home state."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/us/al-franken-minnesota-harassment.html

~Dan

Anonymous said...

I will note that we DO distinguish between awful sexist stupid behavior like grabbing a woman's bottom in public or joking about groping women in public - awful, awful, terrible behavior that will not be tolerated in progressive circles, period! - and attempting to molest women/girls, oppress women/girls, abuse women/girls or date girls in the ways that people like Trump, Moore and Weinstein have done.

There are degrees of awful, with degrees of responses.

~Dan

Craig said...

Your lack of consistency in your response to Moore, demanding that he be prevented from serving if elected, while not holding Franken and Conyers to the same standard.

I love how you treat accusations about attempted behavior more seriously than you do actual behavior.

As you your attacks on Art, I’ll not join.

I will say, that the Darwinian view would be (and the rest of the animal kingdom would bear out), that it’s evoluionaril advantageous for men to be attracted to women who are more likely to be able to bear children.

So, maybe not to be attracted to younger women is evolutionarily perverse.

Craig said...

Oh, the silence was more on Feo’s part than yours, but I appreciate your narcissism.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 370   Newer› Newest»