Recently, a hub-bub arose from a report that Betsy DeVos supported Trump budget cuts that included ending $18 million for the Special Olympics, whose mission is:
...to provide year-round sports
training and athletic competition in a variety of Olympic-type sports
for children and adults with intellectual disabilities, giving them
continuing opportunities to develop physical fitness, demonstrate
courage, experience joy and participate in a sharing of gifts, skills
and friendship with their families, other Special Olympics athletes and
the community.A worthy cause indeed. However, does its worthiness obligate us to contribute tax dollars to its mission? The question is worth consideration given the amount of money it attracts in donations from individuals, corporations and a variety fund-raising events. In DeVos' defense of the cuts, she said they take in over $100 million annually. I've found other sources that say the same. With that in mind, as well as the need to cut federal spending, is such a group beyond consideration for cuts of any kind?
Well, so many respond in the negative. Certainly those who run Special Olympics are unhappy. Celebs and politicians have raised a stink as well. Some present the notion as "going after people with disabilities". That might hold some water if there was no money flowing in at the rate it does without tax dollars, but as things stand, it's rather nonsensical. Cuts do not mean that donations are affected, that people must stop or reduce their participation as regards supporting the organization.
In any case, in today's paper, I read that Trump has backed off on these cuts. I don't think he should based on the money they take in each year. I also don't think that simply because a cause is worthy it means the federal government needs to involve itself at all. Charity is something for which each of us as individuals is responsible, not the government. Look again at the mission statement. Are we to expect that the federal government has some sort of obligation to make certain that all who wish to compete gets to do so? How so? On what basis is this true? On what basis is this logically possible? There is no right to such things, except the right to strive to avail one's self. Should others wish to help with their personal contributions, that's beautiful and I encourage the encouragement of others to help out.
But the federal government is tapped out. This particular cut is part of a cut in funding of the Department of Education. I believe Trump is looking for cuts in any and every department, and in this case, DeVos is tasked with cuts related to her department. Is there any recipient of tax dollars that sees itself as unworthy of continued funding? I doubt it. So the decision has to be made on the giving side of the equation, and this particular cut makes sense given the sizable amount of money Special Olympics receives from charitable giving.
Some wish to insist on simply raising spending rather than redirecting money from one area to another of greater need. At some point, cuts and redirecting must be done. We can't just keep increasing the spending. And worthiness can't be dictated solely, or even primarily, by the recipient. Once all arguments for attracting money are made, the source of the money gets to decide where best to spread it around. Special Olympics is a most worthy cause, but they're doing great without federal funds. Everyone can always use more money. That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to more. This is especially true when the source of some of that "more" instead really needs to cut back its spending.
But here's a thought: Let's cut off Planned Parenthood. Those who compete in Special Olympics events are people with the types of disabilities supporters of Planned Parenthood use to justify abortion. Instead of giving them the estimated $500 million per year, divert $18 mil to Special Olympics...hell, make it an even $20 mil...and use the rest to help pay down the national debt. Planned Parenthood is definitely NOT a worthy cause.
Friday, March 29, 2019
Wednesday, March 06, 2019
Responses To A Fake Christian
What follows are comments I sought to post in the comments section of one of Dan's latest blog posts (where the post itself can be shown as well). As Craig has done at his own blog, I post these here because Dan, being a coward and a liar, deleted them due to his inability to respond honestly and maturely to that which he demanded and received. As I include his comments when I respond to them, you can match up with the thread to see where these would have fallen within it. While he arrogantly won't condescend to visit here, especially when his cowardice and dishonesty has been so blatantly exposed, he is nonetheless more than welcome to do so in order to defend himself, though he won't because he can't. To wit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Marshall, I'll play your game, but then, you MUST admit it is a false claim, that you were stupid for not recognizing it, apologize and promise to work against Trump the remaining time in the office."
I'm not playing any game, and I don't know what you think you mean by saying this. I will work against Trump when he gives me a valid reason for doing so. You've not provided one. You've only provided reason to work against your derangement.
"Trump claimed REPEATEDLY that "the press is the enemy of the people...""
Honest people understand what he means by this. Find an honest person and ask him. While some who don't hate Trump (as disordered people like you do) find this expression to be over the top, they, too, understand what he means by it. It's a sentiment shared by millions and was that which led to the popularity of conservative talk radio like Rush Limbaugh and others, and to the creation of FoxNews. It is apparent in the many stories out there that demonstrate "fake news" is a reality:
http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/06/16-fake-news-stories-reporters-have-run-since-trump-won/
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/12/10/the-7-worst-examples-of-fake-news-from-the-mainstream-media-n2257896
http://www.returnofkings.com/105550/10-recent-examples-of-fake-news-from-the-real-news-media
http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/23/13-major-fake-news-stories-just-five-months-trumps-presidency/
What the above links also show is how easily, like hundreds of Dan Trubues, reporters run with false tales without doing their own research...also known as "investigative journalism"...which results in false stories gaining validity by their constant repetition. The following letter to an editor highlights another example of all to common fake news, the misleading headline:
https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/mailbag/headlines-about-trump-are-misleading/article_1922cbfd-1d0c-5fa1-a906-60f94479b46d.html
Considering the well known bias of the general journalist population, how stories are covered, as well as which stories, validates Trump's opinion that the press is the enemy of the people. The more accurate way of saying it, and the way that honest people understand it is that when the press dispenses with objectivity, looking for the negative to report rather than simply reporting the newsworthy, the people are poorly informed, and THAT is an assault on the nation. It's good to make the press accountable. They need to be held accountable.
So clearly, the "only ONE factual, real world answer to this question", Dan, is that there is plenty of evidence to support the opinion Trump has of the press. And that's what it is, Danny, his opinion. Or were you trying to put this out as one of his "lies"? Either way, it's not without solid factual basis, even if it's a bit "over the top" to state it in the manner he does. But only a bit.
"your favorite nonsense fear mongering magazine, American Thinker"
Here's one of YOUR lies. AT is not a "fear mongering" magazine. You don't even read it. Shit...you don't even read the articles from it that I link for your edification. You just blow it off like you just blew off the links above. Your panty-wetting over Trump's use of the expression "enemy of the people" demonstrates your derangement, as you again try so desperately to plead with others to turn on him to soothe your disordered response to his unique and peculiar style.
"You know why Obama didn't do that?"
Yeah. Because he was too busy attacking the press in far more serious ways than Trump ever has:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/obama-whose-administration-prosecuted-and-spied-on-reporters-claims-trump-is-very-bad-for-criticizing-newsrooms
https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-top-five-ways-obama-attacked-the-free-press/
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2017/02/17/11-times-barack-obama-abused-press-freedom/
https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/02/22/fox-correspondent-obama-worse-than-trump/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/29/sharyl_attkisson_if_you_cross_obama_admin_they_will_treat_you_like_enemies_of_the_state.html
(There. There's some more links you'll ignore.)
And this Obama stuff provokes another truth that validates Trump's, and the general public's, opinion about the press: there's a night and day difference between the coverage of Trump versus Obama, who was worshiped by the press despite his adversarial attitude toward them. The press fawned over Obama. They were every bit biased toward Obama as they've been with Trump, but 180 degrees in the opposite direction. It would be a stupid ass who claims otherwise. Don't be a stupid ass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't bother commenting here further, Marshall. Ever. Short of an apology and recognition of your error for supporting stupidly false charges and dangerous attacks on the free press."
You're a liar. A far worse liar than Trump, engaging in far more egregious lies. Here, you claim I'm supporting "stupidly false charges and dangerous attacks on the free press". This is a blatant lie for which the comments you deleted provided no evidence whatsoever. Thus, I'm not about to apologize for something I didn't do, just because you falsely accuse me of having done so.
The bigger and more egregious lie, among the many about Trump you continue to tell, is that he attacks the free press. My comments proved the falsehood of this charge, and you, because you're a liar, deleted it so you could continue with the lie. Worse, you did this while I, in my comments, conceded his expression "enemy of the people" was a poor choice of words even though his meaning is not hard to fathom, especially by true Christians...a claim you make that is clearly a lie.
With regards the crimes of the "free press", I present the following Snopes article, in which an actual objective summary of the falsehoods directed at Trump from the media in general is presented. Together with the links of my now deleted comments, it illustrates why anyone would be justified in questioning the motives and intentions of the media in general. A media that itself plays fast and loose with the truth, that makes little effort to be objective in their reporting and that unabashedly picks sides in politics furthering the agenda of one side (the left) over the other does all these things at the expense and to the detriment of the general public, purposely misinforming them and as such stands as their enemy. A real Christian wouldn't stand for it. Find a real Christian and ask him.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/07/12/trump-lies/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Marshall, I'll give you ONE more chance to respond with something short of an admission of your mistaken false claims."
Pound sand. I can't apologize for having done nothing at all wrong, and I've made no false claims whatsoever. If I had, it would be demonstrating what "embracing grace" looks like to point out alleged mistakes while explaining what makes them so. You didn't do either.
1. "DEFINE "Enemy of the State/People.""
I did that in the comments you deleted. More importantly, I explained how the expression was being used by Trump.
2. "If your definition is not the standard one, admit that it is not standard/what is typically meant by enemy of the state."
There is no "standard definition" of the expression, and what you supplied weren't definitions but how the term was applied in the examples presented. And no, it does NOT require "physical harm"...not directly or initially or at all...in order for an entity to be labeled as such. You just want it to be in order to help you demonize a flawed man that has been far better in his current job than is comfortable for you personally.
3. "If you don't know what is typically meant by Enemy of the State, admit it."
Bite me. I not only know, but I acknowledge that even as hyperbole, it is appropriate in the manner used by Trump. You reject this purely out of your unchristian hatred.
4. "If you do all of that, then point to THE RESEARCH/DATA to support the claim that "80%" of the media is an "enemy of the state" (according to your own definition)."
I did that in the comments you deleted as well. I included a piece from Snopes.com, a left leaning source that also demonstrated the many falsehoods of the media directed at Trump.
5. "If you can't do that (and you can't), then admit that you can't do it, that it is an unsupported opinion, not anything at all like a fact."
I DID do that with numerous links you clearly never bothered to read, thus showing it is more fact than you have the honesty and true Christian grace to admit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll continue to post comments at Dan's blog as I feel compelled to do so. He'll delete a significant portion of them because he's immature, totally lacking of Christian character and dishonest in a way and to an extent that makes Trump look like he accessorizes with Wonder Woman's Lasso of Hestia wrapped around him. It really doesn't matter. Between him and his pet troll, they provide much grist for this mill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Marshall, I'll play your game, but then, you MUST admit it is a false claim, that you were stupid for not recognizing it, apologize and promise to work against Trump the remaining time in the office."
I'm not playing any game, and I don't know what you think you mean by saying this. I will work against Trump when he gives me a valid reason for doing so. You've not provided one. You've only provided reason to work against your derangement.
"Trump claimed REPEATEDLY that "the press is the enemy of the people...""
Honest people understand what he means by this. Find an honest person and ask him. While some who don't hate Trump (as disordered people like you do) find this expression to be over the top, they, too, understand what he means by it. It's a sentiment shared by millions and was that which led to the popularity of conservative talk radio like Rush Limbaugh and others, and to the creation of FoxNews. It is apparent in the many stories out there that demonstrate "fake news" is a reality:
http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/06/16-fake-news-stories-reporters-have-run-since-trump-won/
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/12/10/the-7-worst-examples-of-fake-news-from-the-mainstream-media-n2257896
http://www.returnofkings.com/105550/10-recent-examples-of-fake-news-from-the-real-news-media
http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/23/13-major-fake-news-stories-just-five-months-trumps-presidency/
What the above links also show is how easily, like hundreds of Dan Trubues, reporters run with false tales without doing their own research...also known as "investigative journalism"...which results in false stories gaining validity by their constant repetition. The following letter to an editor highlights another example of all to common fake news, the misleading headline:
https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/mailbag/headlines-about-trump-are-misleading/article_1922cbfd-1d0c-5fa1-a906-60f94479b46d.html
Considering the well known bias of the general journalist population, how stories are covered, as well as which stories, validates Trump's opinion that the press is the enemy of the people. The more accurate way of saying it, and the way that honest people understand it is that when the press dispenses with objectivity, looking for the negative to report rather than simply reporting the newsworthy, the people are poorly informed, and THAT is an assault on the nation. It's good to make the press accountable. They need to be held accountable.
So clearly, the "only ONE factual, real world answer to this question", Dan, is that there is plenty of evidence to support the opinion Trump has of the press. And that's what it is, Danny, his opinion. Or were you trying to put this out as one of his "lies"? Either way, it's not without solid factual basis, even if it's a bit "over the top" to state it in the manner he does. But only a bit.
"your favorite nonsense fear mongering magazine, American Thinker"
Here's one of YOUR lies. AT is not a "fear mongering" magazine. You don't even read it. Shit...you don't even read the articles from it that I link for your edification. You just blow it off like you just blew off the links above. Your panty-wetting over Trump's use of the expression "enemy of the people" demonstrates your derangement, as you again try so desperately to plead with others to turn on him to soothe your disordered response to his unique and peculiar style.
"You know why Obama didn't do that?"
Yeah. Because he was too busy attacking the press in far more serious ways than Trump ever has:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/obama-whose-administration-prosecuted-and-spied-on-reporters-claims-trump-is-very-bad-for-criticizing-newsrooms
https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-top-five-ways-obama-attacked-the-free-press/
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2017/02/17/11-times-barack-obama-abused-press-freedom/
https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/02/22/fox-correspondent-obama-worse-than-trump/
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/29/sharyl_attkisson_if_you_cross_obama_admin_they_will_treat_you_like_enemies_of_the_state.html
(There. There's some more links you'll ignore.)
And this Obama stuff provokes another truth that validates Trump's, and the general public's, opinion about the press: there's a night and day difference between the coverage of Trump versus Obama, who was worshiped by the press despite his adversarial attitude toward them. The press fawned over Obama. They were every bit biased toward Obama as they've been with Trump, but 180 degrees in the opposite direction. It would be a stupid ass who claims otherwise. Don't be a stupid ass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't bother commenting here further, Marshall. Ever. Short of an apology and recognition of your error for supporting stupidly false charges and dangerous attacks on the free press."
You're a liar. A far worse liar than Trump, engaging in far more egregious lies. Here, you claim I'm supporting "stupidly false charges and dangerous attacks on the free press". This is a blatant lie for which the comments you deleted provided no evidence whatsoever. Thus, I'm not about to apologize for something I didn't do, just because you falsely accuse me of having done so.
The bigger and more egregious lie, among the many about Trump you continue to tell, is that he attacks the free press. My comments proved the falsehood of this charge, and you, because you're a liar, deleted it so you could continue with the lie. Worse, you did this while I, in my comments, conceded his expression "enemy of the people" was a poor choice of words even though his meaning is not hard to fathom, especially by true Christians...a claim you make that is clearly a lie.
With regards the crimes of the "free press", I present the following Snopes article, in which an actual objective summary of the falsehoods directed at Trump from the media in general is presented. Together with the links of my now deleted comments, it illustrates why anyone would be justified in questioning the motives and intentions of the media in general. A media that itself plays fast and loose with the truth, that makes little effort to be objective in their reporting and that unabashedly picks sides in politics furthering the agenda of one side (the left) over the other does all these things at the expense and to the detriment of the general public, purposely misinforming them and as such stands as their enemy. A real Christian wouldn't stand for it. Find a real Christian and ask him.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/07/12/trump-lies/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Marshall, I'll give you ONE more chance to respond with something short of an admission of your mistaken false claims."
Pound sand. I can't apologize for having done nothing at all wrong, and I've made no false claims whatsoever. If I had, it would be demonstrating what "embracing grace" looks like to point out alleged mistakes while explaining what makes them so. You didn't do either.
1. "DEFINE "Enemy of the State/People.""
I did that in the comments you deleted. More importantly, I explained how the expression was being used by Trump.
2. "If your definition is not the standard one, admit that it is not standard/what is typically meant by enemy of the state."
There is no "standard definition" of the expression, and what you supplied weren't definitions but how the term was applied in the examples presented. And no, it does NOT require "physical harm"...not directly or initially or at all...in order for an entity to be labeled as such. You just want it to be in order to help you demonize a flawed man that has been far better in his current job than is comfortable for you personally.
3. "If you don't know what is typically meant by Enemy of the State, admit it."
Bite me. I not only know, but I acknowledge that even as hyperbole, it is appropriate in the manner used by Trump. You reject this purely out of your unchristian hatred.
4. "If you do all of that, then point to THE RESEARCH/DATA to support the claim that "80%" of the media is an "enemy of the state" (according to your own definition)."
I did that in the comments you deleted as well. I included a piece from Snopes.com, a left leaning source that also demonstrated the many falsehoods of the media directed at Trump.
5. "If you can't do that (and you can't), then admit that you can't do it, that it is an unsupported opinion, not anything at all like a fact."
I DID do that with numerous links you clearly never bothered to read, thus showing it is more fact than you have the honesty and true Christian grace to admit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll continue to post comments at Dan's blog as I feel compelled to do so. He'll delete a significant portion of them because he's immature, totally lacking of Christian character and dishonest in a way and to an extent that makes Trump look like he accessorizes with Wonder Woman's Lasso of Hestia wrapped around him. It really doesn't matter. Between him and his pet troll, they provide much grist for this mill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)