I'm about as fed up as one can be with this whole COVID-19 nonsense. There's just too much that has been unnecessarily imposed upon the American people, unjustly imposed, unconstitutionally imposed. When Donald Trump was elected president, imbeciles began a #Resist movement (an impotent movement...a bowel movement...but a movement nonetheless) as if Trump was some sort of despot. But now, when despotism and fascism is apparent in various Dem controlled states, these pathetic imbeciles are silent. It's astounding.
---I recently had someone scold me over a comment I made about the sheep who aren't #Resisting, comparing them to those who hopped on the boxcars taking them to the showers. The Jewish-in-heritage-only woman doesn't see the similarities between the incremental encroachment of nazi oppression and what we're seeing now with the suspension of Constitutional rights by Dem governors. We may not get to the point of jackbooted police state tactics, but we're seeing that which led to it and there's no reason why anyone should abide any of it or any degree of it. It's wrong and it's absolutely unAmerican to infringe upon our clearly enumerated Constitutional rights.
---I agree with those who see all this as the best means by which the left can persuade the populace that Trump is worth deposing come election time. The longer they extend the oppression, the more difficult it will be for the economy to recover. That's clearly the plan. I don't think it will work. Open things up and the economy will come roaring back because this virus thing is not an economic policy. That which Trump set forth that led to our economic boom is still in place and the effects of his policies will then be unshackled and the result will be the same.
---I also believe that Dem governors presiding over states economically devastated by years of Democratic malfeasance are looking to exploit this virus situation as a means by which they can suck federal tax dollars that can then be used to cover all the fiscal damage they've done...all the debt they've racked up...that came before the virus. Dems are economic idiots.
---I cannot stand the many commercials and PSA's that are exploiting this situation. The whole "we're in this together" line is crap, given we're forced to distance ourselves from each other. And then to run commercials and ads of people happily "making the best of it" is outrageously deceitful, given the reports of increases in suicides, spousal and child abuse, substance abuse, etc. The whole thing is unnatural, both as Americans and simply as human beings. We crave being together and doing things together and socializing and visiting and touching and hugging. Masks, gloves, distancing...these are all unnatural and, totally unreliable for achieving the goals purported to be the reason they're imposed upon us.
---It is a lie that those who reject masks or distancing are being selfish. Neither are confirmed as necessary or effective in protecting us from infection. There are at least two studies that indicate that no stay-at-home, social distancing policy has had any effect on the time-line of virus spread. It's presence and duration are unchanged by such policies and thus, there's no need to have imposed them. I get that in the beginning it made sense to play it safe. But we're way passed the point at which we learned what is effective and what isn't. And we're still finding things that prove masks and distancing are unnecessary for the vast majority of the populace.
---Worse than the commercial exploitation, is the many attempts to have celebrities appeal to us to continue the worthless practices, as if they are impacted to the extent the average citizen is. I am personally still enjoying the novelty of the new place into which the Mrs and I moved, but that novelty is wearing off quickly while being denied freedom. The luxury in which movie, TV and sports stars live is not at all the same, nor is the fact that they have the funds to sustain them for far longer periods of time than are those whose jobs were criminally considered "non-essential". I don't need some asshat to sing to me from their living room as if it is a free concert that enhances my imprisonment. They are far worse sheep who insist that I be sheep as well.
---While on the one hand it's hard not to regard people walking outside or driving alone while wearing masks to be absolute morons, I have to remind myself that many have been induced into abject fear that they are moments away from contracting the Black Plague. This is evil to have done this to the populace. They have stolen reason and threw it out the window.
---There is no problem by the usual suspects to highlight cases of severe suffering by those few who have the worst cases of infection and then die. This is exploited to rationalize the many idiotic prohibition unconstitutionally imposed upon the public. This tactic suggests that there is no worse way to die and thus, we must hide. Bullshit. Is it worse than being murdered? Worse than burning alive? Worse than jumping out of the World Trade Center rather than being burned alive? Is it worse than dying of cancer? Are there any people who, dying of cancer, pneumonia...the flu...comfort themselves by saying, "At least it's not COVID-19?"
---What we're experience is the worst case of "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" that we've seen in some time. Who the hell asked them? I never asked my evil governor to keep me healthy. Not THAT obese SOB! I have never asked anyone for such assistance (not even my doctor, really) and DEFINITELY not the government, who has no business meddling in health care in the first place.
---Some of the most egregious acts of government overreach includes the prosecution of small business owners who decide to ignore unjust orders to remain closed because they need to suppport their families, the attacks on churches who try to bend over backwards to serve their flocks while upholding idiotic health policy mandates (most of which have no real effect on who gets sick or not), the harassment of families in parks playing with their own children. These are but a few of the examples that should elicit a real #Resist attitude in those who hate Trump. Cowards all.
---I ignore requests to wear masks where I can. Now and then there are things I must have and in order to get them I don my kerchief AFTER walking in and take it off upon paying for the product. More often than not I go without. I understand that some businesses are forced to comply with corporate dictates, who believe themselves forced to comply with despotic government dictates. Others are trying to consider those who have been made to fear for their lives, and thus they cater to them by mandating customers wear masks. That's sad, because it's actually enabling the despots as well as enabling irrational fear.
---Life is risk. We have ALWAYS been at risk for contracting infections that can lead to our demise. This will always be the case. As more data continues to roll in, we find that this virus is really no different than the annual flu. Sure. It might be a bit more contagious, and it might be a real pain in the ass to experience. But all disease left untreated can get really bad and possibly lead to death. All disease impacts people differently depending upon the strength of their immune systems. This one is no more or less than the others nor is there justification for the reaction under which we all continue to suffer. In my life I've dealt with mononucleosis, swine flu, pneumonia (twice) and various strains and severity of flu. While the last ten years has been among the most healthy decades of my 65 years, even with a mild case of emphysema nagging me as well. God will take me when He's good and ready. I'll not live in fear of disease but instead will continue to take reasonable precautions. This crap has to end...NOW!
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Tuesday, May 05, 2020
Fini
This shouldn't take too long.
"Your first step will come when you learn to recognize what you can't even admit and perhaps don't even see."
This is funny. The following is what Dan thinks I should be seeing:
"
By attacking these women with your hateful, rape-sympathizing slurs, you are extending an attack to all women."
This one line is chock-full of distortions and absurdity.
a) I'm not "attacking" anyone, including the two whores/sluts whose "honor" Dan thinks he's defending. To call a spade a spade is not attacking the spade. Whores and sluts is simply what they are based on their own testimonies. Are those the words they used? Not to my knowledge. But again, a rose by any other name....Again, there's no word to describe women who do what they do that makes it any less wicked and no more acceptable. The proverbial "hooker with a heart of gold" is still a hooker.
b) Describing a sinner by her sin is not hateful. It's a statement of fact...nothing more, nothing less. There's no emotion involved as there is no emotion necessary. It simply is. Nor, to prevent the charge, is it a judgement. It's not as if they haven't admitted to indulging in the sinful behaviors that warrant the terms.
c) Calling whores and sluts, "whores" and "sluts" has nothing to do with rape. Nothing. But Dan needs it to be so. He's far too invested, far too "given over" to his hatred for Trump that he needs as much justification as he can muster in order to pretend his hatred is somehow righteous...as if hatred ever is when directed to another human being. And when anyone disagrees with his hatred, questions his rationalizations, he then must attack them also as being supportive of all the evil to which he attributes to Trump. "Whore" and "slut" are not words used for those who have been raped. The word for them is "victim". That rapists may refer to their victims as whores, sluts or any other word does not mean those words do not have proper applications, regardless of how badly Dan needs that to be so.
d) By properly describing the character of these two women, I'm not attacking them (except with truth/fact/reality) and much, much less women in general. Again, more absurdity of a level matched only by Dan's sock-puppet, feo. This lame angle is an attempt to portray me as painting all women with a broad (no pun intended) brush despite my focus being on two specific women. It's simply one more thing Dan needs to be true in order to not face the reality that his defense of these two women is moronic.
"By defending Trump, you are defending all sexual predators."
So Dan needs to believe, but the reality is that I have not defended Trump's sexual immorality at all. EVER! And here, I'm not defending Trump in any way. Here, I'm attacking Dan's hateful attacks on Trump because they're so ludicrous. Dan needs to regard Trump as negatively as possible. That's why he uses loaded terms such as "sexual predator". There's no evidence that he's ever engaged in any sexual behavior that wasn't consensual. There's only allegations, and as regards the two innocent whores/sluts in question, there's only the allegation that he engaged in a adulterous affair with their willing selves. "Predator" is an incredibly strong term for a guy who just likes to get laid with any woman he finds attractive. There's no proof that he's ever been involved with anything more than a "it takes two to tango" situation. If the women are willing...consenting...there's no more predation on his part than there is on theirs...which is every bit as likely, particularly with the two in question.
"By giving him a pass (in your vote for him and his defense of him), you are defending all sexual predators."
By giving Obama a pass in your vote for him and your defense of him, you are defending all baby murderers. This is a truer statement than Dan's of me.
"So, THAT is why your attacks on these women will not stand. Not here and not with men and women of good moral reasoning."
Well, there's very little of that where Dan is concerned as we've seen quite clearly over the years! Dan and "good moral reasoning" do not go together at all.
"I will thank you for taking the time to answer some simple questions and do so relatively directly."
("relatively"???) " I am sorry, however, that you entirely miss the point."
Didn't miss the point at all. I've been mocking it all through my last post and this one!! Your point is idiotic, false and without basis in actual fact...radical feminist studies in a nutshell.
"You admit you do not know these women or their history. And yet, your ignorance and cowardice allows you to attack them in the same way that sexual predators and rapists do. You do not know these women."
I do indeed admit I do not know these women or their history. Neither do you. I DO know that they are both what I called them because of their histories clearly known to us. I don't need to know every detail of their past lives to know them by their fruits. At the same time, you know nothing of Trump's history and think you are still justified in labeling him in all manner of progressive Christian grace-embracing ways with far less fact to justify it. As sinful a life as he has led...and seemingly admitted to living...you go far, far beyond that to over hype just how bad it might never have been. I do nothing more than point out that these two women are more than admitted whores and sluts, there's actual film and pictures to prove it! And despite this disparity...despite there being more tangible proof of their sinfulness, you take their word over Trump's denial, which is what led to all this nonsense of yours. Now you're boxed into another one of your corners and you're attacking me in your attempt to extricate yourself. Just keep embracing that grace, fraud!
"Jesus did not condemn the "woman caught in adultery," nor did he use abusive oppressive slurs towards her. He did the opposite."
THIS again! This perversion of Scripture!! This abject lie! Jesus didn't condemn the woman because He had no authority to do so as a mere man (He has authority to do so as God if the woman ignores His encouragement to "sin no more"). From the lips of Christ, what could be more "oppressive" than to be recognized as a sinner?? To say Christ didn't condemn her is not the same as pretending she wasn't the adulterous she was (according to the text). You continue to mistake "condemnation" with "labeling". They are not the same at all. In order to condemn, one must be guilty of something for which some form of condemnation is appropriate, even if the decision to condemn is withheld. He never said or implies that she wasn't an adulteress worthy of condemnation. He just didn't condemn her. In the same way, I haven't condemned anyone, either...including the two whores/sluts in question. It seems you think being called an "adulteress" is not an oppressive thing to call a woman. I'm sure you could call any of the women in your life such a thing and they'll be cool with it, right? I'm sure you can call any woman you're certain actually IS guilty of that sin an adulteress and SHE'D be cool with it, right? You're an idiot. To condemn is to pass sentence...here, a stoning. To condemn is NOT to identify the crime or to label the perpetrator of the crime the term that applies.
I don't need to know the history of a murderer to justly refer to such a person as a murderer if it is a fact that the person committed murder. To acknowledge such a person is a murderer is not a condemnation. It is simply a statement of fact. I don't need to know the history of these two women to know what they are, either, for that, too, is a fact as such, acknowledging that fact is not condemnation. If I have made either the women or the murderer victims, I have victimized them with facts. The following is not in any way a fact:
"And if that fails, then recall the other words of Jesus:
For I was oppressed, poor, marginalized, a victim of rape and harassment by sexual predators... and you did nothing to help. Indeed, you attacked me with vulgar words and accusations while defending the rapist who attacked me."
What Gospel is this from specifically, Dan? Cite chapter and verse or admit you're engaging in your typical blasphemy. Every time you dare to paraphrase Christ in order to push your agenda, you commit blasphemy by your willful perversion. And to do so in order to lie about me (or whomever) makes it worse. And this is to say nothing of the fact that the above are NOT "the other words" of Christ. While you attack Trump, you expose just how corrupt you are.
Yeah, I don't need to defend him. You need to defend your unChristian behavior.
"Your first step will come when you learn to recognize what you can't even admit and perhaps don't even see."
This is funny. The following is what Dan thinks I should be seeing:
"
By attacking these women with your hateful, rape-sympathizing slurs, you are extending an attack to all women."
This one line is chock-full of distortions and absurdity.
a) I'm not "attacking" anyone, including the two whores/sluts whose "honor" Dan thinks he's defending. To call a spade a spade is not attacking the spade. Whores and sluts is simply what they are based on their own testimonies. Are those the words they used? Not to my knowledge. But again, a rose by any other name....Again, there's no word to describe women who do what they do that makes it any less wicked and no more acceptable. The proverbial "hooker with a heart of gold" is still a hooker.
b) Describing a sinner by her sin is not hateful. It's a statement of fact...nothing more, nothing less. There's no emotion involved as there is no emotion necessary. It simply is. Nor, to prevent the charge, is it a judgement. It's not as if they haven't admitted to indulging in the sinful behaviors that warrant the terms.
c) Calling whores and sluts, "whores" and "sluts" has nothing to do with rape. Nothing. But Dan needs it to be so. He's far too invested, far too "given over" to his hatred for Trump that he needs as much justification as he can muster in order to pretend his hatred is somehow righteous...as if hatred ever is when directed to another human being. And when anyone disagrees with his hatred, questions his rationalizations, he then must attack them also as being supportive of all the evil to which he attributes to Trump. "Whore" and "slut" are not words used for those who have been raped. The word for them is "victim". That rapists may refer to their victims as whores, sluts or any other word does not mean those words do not have proper applications, regardless of how badly Dan needs that to be so.
d) By properly describing the character of these two women, I'm not attacking them (except with truth/fact/reality) and much, much less women in general. Again, more absurdity of a level matched only by Dan's sock-puppet, feo. This lame angle is an attempt to portray me as painting all women with a broad (no pun intended) brush despite my focus being on two specific women. It's simply one more thing Dan needs to be true in order to not face the reality that his defense of these two women is moronic.
"By defending Trump, you are defending all sexual predators."
So Dan needs to believe, but the reality is that I have not defended Trump's sexual immorality at all. EVER! And here, I'm not defending Trump in any way. Here, I'm attacking Dan's hateful attacks on Trump because they're so ludicrous. Dan needs to regard Trump as negatively as possible. That's why he uses loaded terms such as "sexual predator". There's no evidence that he's ever engaged in any sexual behavior that wasn't consensual. There's only allegations, and as regards the two innocent whores/sluts in question, there's only the allegation that he engaged in a adulterous affair with their willing selves. "Predator" is an incredibly strong term for a guy who just likes to get laid with any woman he finds attractive. There's no proof that he's ever been involved with anything more than a "it takes two to tango" situation. If the women are willing...consenting...there's no more predation on his part than there is on theirs...which is every bit as likely, particularly with the two in question.
"By giving him a pass (in your vote for him and his defense of him), you are defending all sexual predators."
By giving Obama a pass in your vote for him and your defense of him, you are defending all baby murderers. This is a truer statement than Dan's of me.
"So, THAT is why your attacks on these women will not stand. Not here and not with men and women of good moral reasoning."
Well, there's very little of that where Dan is concerned as we've seen quite clearly over the years! Dan and "good moral reasoning" do not go together at all.
"I will thank you for taking the time to answer some simple questions and do so relatively directly."
("relatively"???) " I am sorry, however, that you entirely miss the point."
Didn't miss the point at all. I've been mocking it all through my last post and this one!! Your point is idiotic, false and without basis in actual fact...radical feminist studies in a nutshell.
"You admit you do not know these women or their history. And yet, your ignorance and cowardice allows you to attack them in the same way that sexual predators and rapists do. You do not know these women."
I do indeed admit I do not know these women or their history. Neither do you. I DO know that they are both what I called them because of their histories clearly known to us. I don't need to know every detail of their past lives to know them by their fruits. At the same time, you know nothing of Trump's history and think you are still justified in labeling him in all manner of progressive Christian grace-embracing ways with far less fact to justify it. As sinful a life as he has led...and seemingly admitted to living...you go far, far beyond that to over hype just how bad it might never have been. I do nothing more than point out that these two women are more than admitted whores and sluts, there's actual film and pictures to prove it! And despite this disparity...despite there being more tangible proof of their sinfulness, you take their word over Trump's denial, which is what led to all this nonsense of yours. Now you're boxed into another one of your corners and you're attacking me in your attempt to extricate yourself. Just keep embracing that grace, fraud!
"Jesus did not condemn the "woman caught in adultery," nor did he use abusive oppressive slurs towards her. He did the opposite."
THIS again! This perversion of Scripture!! This abject lie! Jesus didn't condemn the woman because He had no authority to do so as a mere man (He has authority to do so as God if the woman ignores His encouragement to "sin no more"). From the lips of Christ, what could be more "oppressive" than to be recognized as a sinner?? To say Christ didn't condemn her is not the same as pretending she wasn't the adulterous she was (according to the text). You continue to mistake "condemnation" with "labeling". They are not the same at all. In order to condemn, one must be guilty of something for which some form of condemnation is appropriate, even if the decision to condemn is withheld. He never said or implies that she wasn't an adulteress worthy of condemnation. He just didn't condemn her. In the same way, I haven't condemned anyone, either...including the two whores/sluts in question. It seems you think being called an "adulteress" is not an oppressive thing to call a woman. I'm sure you could call any of the women in your life such a thing and they'll be cool with it, right? I'm sure you can call any woman you're certain actually IS guilty of that sin an adulteress and SHE'D be cool with it, right? You're an idiot. To condemn is to pass sentence...here, a stoning. To condemn is NOT to identify the crime or to label the perpetrator of the crime the term that applies.
I don't need to know the history of a murderer to justly refer to such a person as a murderer if it is a fact that the person committed murder. To acknowledge such a person is a murderer is not a condemnation. It is simply a statement of fact. I don't need to know the history of these two women to know what they are, either, for that, too, is a fact as such, acknowledging that fact is not condemnation. If I have made either the women or the murderer victims, I have victimized them with facts. The following is not in any way a fact:
"And if that fails, then recall the other words of Jesus:
For I was oppressed, poor, marginalized, a victim of rape and harassment by sexual predators... and you did nothing to help. Indeed, you attacked me with vulgar words and accusations while defending the rapist who attacked me."
What Gospel is this from specifically, Dan? Cite chapter and verse or admit you're engaging in your typical blasphemy. Every time you dare to paraphrase Christ in order to push your agenda, you commit blasphemy by your willful perversion. And to do so in order to lie about me (or whomever) makes it worse. And this is to say nothing of the fact that the above are NOT "the other words" of Christ. While you attack Trump, you expose just how corrupt you are.
Yeah, I don't need to defend him. You need to defend your unChristian behavior.
Sunday, May 03, 2020
Just Getting It Off My Chest
This might be long, so I'll make extra effort to keep it from being too boring. That means snark and mockery whilst reiterating my point regarding the appropriate and justified use of the terms "whore" and "slut" relative to two particular women whose character and behavior provide that justification which makes the terms appropriate. In doing so, I'll be referring to the post and subsequent comments found here-----> http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2020/03/to-all-women-i-love-and-admire.html Some may ask, "Why bother?" The answer is simple. "Cuz". What's more, I seem to have a lot of time on my hands thanks to another Democratic asshat governor. So, let's begin:
"We really SHOULD have a female running to beat Trump, this WAS the year and I'm sorry it's looking like it's not turning out that way. They clearly were the better candidates."
Well, considering how low the bar, that's not saying much at all. But more importantly, leave it to a lefty to think sex is a worthy criterion for selecting a candidate for any office, be it public or private sector. It's the very same lunacy that got us eight years of presidential impotence immediately prior to the surprisingly effective and America improving Donald Trump. I'd be interested to know exactly which of the feminine fakes Dan had in mind, or if he is even more a loon and would have accepted any one of them. As to "clearly the better candidates", that's debatable anyway, as the most "normal" of the leftist choices likely was Andrew Yang. Again, a low bar.
Dan then launches into a his poetry with artwork of "strong women", at the top of which is a series of "x's". Are these kisses? The predator!!! The poem ends with:
"It IS your life. Live it by your rules. This poet stands with you and your choices."
After all these years, we know that Dan backs a woman's choice to murder her own unborn, to engage in immoral sexual behavior because to embrace grace means enabling sinfulness. Nothing says "embracing grace" like joyfully celebrating women losing their souls. Ain't he sweet?
But it gets better with more direct attacks on me personally, so this is where it gets really fun! To wit:
"Marshal, who is banned until such time as he apologizes for using abusive/oppressive language about women, not surprisingly is trying to comment here suggesting that the pervert/sexual predator Trump is a better option than all these Democrat candidates including the women."
Again, there is no apology anywhere in the works since I've done nothing wrong whatsoever. I wasn't speaking about "women" when I chose those appropriate and justified words in my response to his troll, feo. No. I was referring to two specific women as mentioned in an earlier post. Thus, Danny-boy is acting like the corrupt press he defends by perverting the truth. But as if that isn't enough, this is the same Dan Trabue who rationalizes in the most blasphemous way his use of profane and obscene language at the blogs of others. But then, his hypocrisy is legendary. He pretends he's a champion of women. So let's look at that:
1. He ignores the millions of females murdered in the womb at the hands of their own mothers.
2. He ignores the physical, emotional and spiritual harm inflicted upon women who choose abortion over raising the child they invited into existence by their indulgence in sexual self-gratification.
3. He enables true sexual predators who rely on the legal ability of women and girls to get abortions in order that they can freely abdicate their responsibility for their part in bringing that child into existence.
4. He enables those suffering from mental disorders that result in lesbian behaviors and homosexual behaviors, which often result in a married women with children losing her husband and the father of their children in order to satisfy his disordered desires.
5. He enables those suffering from sexual identity disorder which puts women at risk by allowing men to make use of women's facilities, women's shelters and women's privileges in housing, business and other areas where a woman's sex grants aid and assistance in order to compete with men.
6. He enable those men who "identify" as women to compete in athletic events in direct competition with women, including combat sports, which denies women a fair chance at winning.
7. He assumes, due to his putting irrational value in radical feminist studies, that women who indulge in sexually immoral acts never do so because they are immoral, but because someone like Donald Trump abused them earlier in life. Kinda blows that "strong woman" poem all to hell, doesn't it?
8. He'll pretend we live in a "rape culture", because his cherished radical feminist studies tell him we do, yet will attack good Christian men who encourage women and girls to dress modestly so as not to arouse the prurient interest of sexual predators that lurk around every corner.
Yeah. That's real concern for women, ain't it? But he'll go on attacking Trump despite having no more concrete knowledge but that he has cheated on his wives to have consensual sex with other women who have no way of legitimately saying they didn't know he was married. Yeah. Right.
And I'm not "suggesting" that Trump is the better choice than that entire field of Democratic clowns, male OR female. I'm stating a fact based on their track records and policy proposals versus the less than full term of proven effectiveness and fulfilled campaign promises. And I can now include his handling of this COVID-19 issue, which has been pretty damned good given the bad info he's had to overcome.
Dan then "prays" for me, or at least composes a prayer he might pray, that my eyes be opened to what I've done by supporting Trump's presidency and re-election. Of course, there's no telling to whom he's praying given his "theology" strongly suggests he isn't a big fan of the God or Jesus Christ, but only uses those names to pose as a Christian. The real Dan shows up in his alternative prayer:
"Lord, may you afflict those pervert-defending conservative men with a painful, debilitating case of genital leprosy in the weeks leading up to the election and continue it until such time as sexual predators like Trump-and those who defend them, like Marshal-are no longer in a position to oppress and imperil women and other human beings."
Wow! Talk about a lying con man!!! Dan truly makes Trump look like a piker!! This is a guy who supports women candidates who support the murder of the unborn!! And he dares talk about imperiling women and other human beings!!! Trump's got nothing on Dan or his preferred choices for president, whomever they may be. Is there even a thing called "genital leprosy"? Sounds painful. With grace-embracers like Dan, who needs satanists?
At this point, Dan goes on to reiterate that I'm not welcome without apologizing for calling a couple of sluts "sluts", while he says all manner of unjustified things about me and Trump. Yeah, Trump's a womanizer. But we have no credible accusations that he's done any real "predatory" acts. We only know he ogled naked girls and sought sex with other women not his wife. And the fact that the two women in question are proven whores and sluts confounds his attempts to demonize Trump beyond reason. No. He has to pretend that despite their character and behaviors being beyond question, the fact that I don't know the women personally somehow prohibits me from calling them what their character and behaviors justifies. He tries to pretend the actual words I use are somehow worse in describing them than any other, OR, he's insisting that despite their blatant and unquestioned immorality, they are not to be called ANYTHING that describes their immorality...while he calls me and other Trump supporters all manner of nasty things, and Trump worse things. And when having pointed out this double standard, he defaults to this nonsense about the history of oppressed women under the of oppressive men and rape cultures, yada, yada, yada...as if somehow that excuses sexually immoral behavior by women.
My favorite part is the insistence that the use of words like "whore", "slut" and the like are the domain of men, yet I've provided studies (at least one by a woman) that validate my contention that women are just as likely, if not more so, to use those words to describe other women than are men.
Despite the easily proven truth that I have only used the terms in reference to two specific women, Dan continues insisting...lying...that I used it to speak of all women. And he laughingly tries to insist that women are somehow harmed, insulted or in any way oppressed by their merely hearing those words, and mocks me for my still ongoing polling of women which, to date, has yet to find a woman or girl who is so personally traumatized.
He tells me to look at the data, the research, to listen to experts in the field (BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!). And I read all the "data, research and experts" he provided and I don't find radical feminists to be reliable about anything the report. In turn, as I said, I provided counter research that doesn't agree in the least, other than to say what I've said: that women who are NOT whores or sluts are insulting and hurt by being referred to in those terms, and actual whores and sluts are inconvenienced by having their true character revealed where they hoped to have kept it hidden. Dan wants to pretend that what I say is merely my personal rationalizations, some kind of fantasy, a product of some ego he thinks is out of hand. But then, he'll say anything to protect his hateful position on Trump and he's not above exploiting women to do so. Indeed, with champions of the fairer sex like Dan, who needs women-haters!!!
Quite frankly, his continued assertion that I side with sexual predators, that I am somehow aligned with those who assault and harm women would justify my kicking his ass if he said such to my face. Fortunately, as a Christian, I would simply challenge him to a bout rather than to stomp him in the street. Otherwise, I would continue to challenge him to support his crap with more than radical feminist studies he finds so compelling. I prefer REAL science and REAL research, not leftist crap sandwiches that have no basis in reality.
Jeez! This IS getting long!!!
He goes on and on with more nonsense about ME ignoring reality, but reality includes the fact that jokers like him are the reason both sexual predation AND sexual immorality of women continues. I promote Christian values and virtue. Dan excuses those who do not practice such things, as if he is doing God's work by NOT pointing out the sinfulness of an immoral woman's behavior. Yeah. THAT will get her into Paradise all right! So Dan asks me some questions and the last comments he allowed were my responses to them. Then he responds to those as stupidly as one might imagine:
"YOU KNOW NOTHING about these women and their history."
IT DOESN'T MATTER IN THE LEAST! But I do know enough of their history that the terms are appropriate appellations given their careers, history and testimony with regard to Trump. They acted of their own accord to engage in all of it. By Dan's Trump-hating motivations, there is no one that can be convicted if their past is less than fairy tale. That's Dan-level bullshit. Apparently he's unfamiliar with the adage, "old enough to know better."
"You ignore the reality that research shows that many women who have ended up in "adult businesses" are there in part due to their oppressive/harassment/assault in their history and, in part, due to the objectification of women by men in power."
I ignore nothing, such as the fact that no "research" Dan presented showed that "many" women "end up" in sex-trades because of a harsh past, but only that his "research" shows that some women did. It didn't poll all that many women to justify the use of the term "many" and regardless, it doesn't mean we should assume that in any whore or slut, and not in the case of the two in question. Dan simply wants that to be the case. More as evidence of Dan's dishonesty, he wants ME to assume that because he needs as large a list of Trump victims as possible to justify his attacks on Trump. Without these whores, the list is chopped down to...what...22 accusers about whom Dan knows less than I do? No. Dan doesn't WANT to know their histories because to find that, say, Stormy Daniels was simply as horny as Trump but nowhere near as entrepreneurial that porn was her path to easy living...well...that just won't do.
"In spite of that reality, you're willing to assume the very worst of these women and deny the oppression of women writ large at the hands of men like Trump and those, like you, who defend them."
First of all, there's no reality but only Dan's presumption that these women suffered earlier in life so as to justify ignoring the fact that they're whores and sluts. I, in the meantime, assume nothing about them that is not absolutely certain, proven and affirmed by their own testimonies. Secondly, Dan just wanted somewhere he could say "writ large" because he thinks it sounds cool. BUT, Dan ignores that their known history is "writ large" enough to know they're whores and sluts. In the meantime, Dan continues to slander me as a defender of rapists and sexual oppressors simply because I voted for a guy who was the lesser of two evils...by a long shot...promised that which all conservatives wanted out of a president, then delivered on those promises in a way unprecedented in American politics and is thus worthy of a second term. Dan supports baby killers and thinks I'm the bad guy.
"I am not blind to what I suspect was the great psychological harm that was most likely done to him by his parents and those around him in his upbringing. He is very clearly a man with a damaged soul/psyche. I can and do feel sympathy for Trump, the man. In the same way that I can find some sympathy for other pedophiles and rapists who were damaged by others growing up."
Dan's not the first asshat to think he's capable of psychoanalyzing from afar. He's just the dumbest and as such the most arrogant. I have no idea what Trump's childhood was like. I've never seen nor heard of anything that suggests it wasn't happy and nurturing. And I have no reason to believe Dan give's a flying rat's ass about Trump except to see him out of office replaced by one of his baby-murdering, LGBT enabling, high taxing, economy and culture destroying leftist asshole alternatives. That's how Dan rolls. He does this in the guise of a Christian, without knowing what that word actually means, as evidenced by his obsessive hatred of the man.
"NONETHELESS, in a world of competing sympathies, we must always side with the oppressed, the marginalized and the harmed over and against those who are doing the oppressing, the harming."
Not in the realm of sin. We don't say to one, "oh, you had a hard life, your sin is OK" while saying to another, "your life was easy, your sin in reprehensible". No. Sin is sin and Dan is an idiot. These two women were not oppressed when they willfully chose to have sex with a married man. They certainly weren't by Trump. And while we know with unquestioned certainty of the immorality of these two women, we...DAN...has not credible evidence that Trump is guilty of harming any women, except for ogling some naked chicks and cheating on his wives with willing co-conspirators. This is the guy who expects ME to apologize when he's far more guilty of lying about me, Trump and of supporting true oppressors of women...far more egregious oppressors given what they do to the unborn...while I have done no worse than state the facts.
All of Dan's shit is simply because he can't truly defend his hateful attitude toward a president who is far more effective than the Barry Obumble who accomplished nothing of note.
Dan stupidly encourages me to take classes in the same radical feminist studies where he earned his skirt. But I prefer truth, reality, facts, evidence...NOT bullshit half-assed leftist nonsense that has done nothing for the cause of women except to lead them to immorality and despair. Dan, however, needs to study Scripture...not with "progressive" "christians", but with real Christians who put God's will above earthly concerns. Dan's a baby-killer supporter. This is true and beyond a doubt given the people he's supported for president. Thus, Dan is complicit in the murder of the unborn. This is far more true than any suggestion that I support or defend sexual predators. I've NEVER suggested I support such things in any way. Dan has openly stated he no longer considers abortion immoral. More women have been harmed by abortion than by womanizing rich dudes.
So, this really HAS been a long post, and I have just a bit more to add before I'm finished with Dan's whiny, bullshit, pearl-clutching, fake outrage about calling two whores/sluts what they are.
"We really SHOULD have a female running to beat Trump, this WAS the year and I'm sorry it's looking like it's not turning out that way. They clearly were the better candidates."
Well, considering how low the bar, that's not saying much at all. But more importantly, leave it to a lefty to think sex is a worthy criterion for selecting a candidate for any office, be it public or private sector. It's the very same lunacy that got us eight years of presidential impotence immediately prior to the surprisingly effective and America improving Donald Trump. I'd be interested to know exactly which of the feminine fakes Dan had in mind, or if he is even more a loon and would have accepted any one of them. As to "clearly the better candidates", that's debatable anyway, as the most "normal" of the leftist choices likely was Andrew Yang. Again, a low bar.
Dan then launches into a his poetry with artwork of "strong women", at the top of which is a series of "x's". Are these kisses? The predator!!! The poem ends with:
"It IS your life. Live it by your rules. This poet stands with you and your choices."
After all these years, we know that Dan backs a woman's choice to murder her own unborn, to engage in immoral sexual behavior because to embrace grace means enabling sinfulness. Nothing says "embracing grace" like joyfully celebrating women losing their souls. Ain't he sweet?
But it gets better with more direct attacks on me personally, so this is where it gets really fun! To wit:
"Marshal, who is banned until such time as he apologizes for using abusive/oppressive language about women, not surprisingly is trying to comment here suggesting that the pervert/sexual predator Trump is a better option than all these Democrat candidates including the women."
Again, there is no apology anywhere in the works since I've done nothing wrong whatsoever. I wasn't speaking about "women" when I chose those appropriate and justified words in my response to his troll, feo. No. I was referring to two specific women as mentioned in an earlier post. Thus, Danny-boy is acting like the corrupt press he defends by perverting the truth. But as if that isn't enough, this is the same Dan Trabue who rationalizes in the most blasphemous way his use of profane and obscene language at the blogs of others. But then, his hypocrisy is legendary. He pretends he's a champion of women. So let's look at that:
1. He ignores the millions of females murdered in the womb at the hands of their own mothers.
2. He ignores the physical, emotional and spiritual harm inflicted upon women who choose abortion over raising the child they invited into existence by their indulgence in sexual self-gratification.
3. He enables true sexual predators who rely on the legal ability of women and girls to get abortions in order that they can freely abdicate their responsibility for their part in bringing that child into existence.
4. He enables those suffering from mental disorders that result in lesbian behaviors and homosexual behaviors, which often result in a married women with children losing her husband and the father of their children in order to satisfy his disordered desires.
5. He enables those suffering from sexual identity disorder which puts women at risk by allowing men to make use of women's facilities, women's shelters and women's privileges in housing, business and other areas where a woman's sex grants aid and assistance in order to compete with men.
6. He enable those men who "identify" as women to compete in athletic events in direct competition with women, including combat sports, which denies women a fair chance at winning.
7. He assumes, due to his putting irrational value in radical feminist studies, that women who indulge in sexually immoral acts never do so because they are immoral, but because someone like Donald Trump abused them earlier in life. Kinda blows that "strong woman" poem all to hell, doesn't it?
8. He'll pretend we live in a "rape culture", because his cherished radical feminist studies tell him we do, yet will attack good Christian men who encourage women and girls to dress modestly so as not to arouse the prurient interest of sexual predators that lurk around every corner.
Yeah. That's real concern for women, ain't it? But he'll go on attacking Trump despite having no more concrete knowledge but that he has cheated on his wives to have consensual sex with other women who have no way of legitimately saying they didn't know he was married. Yeah. Right.
And I'm not "suggesting" that Trump is the better choice than that entire field of Democratic clowns, male OR female. I'm stating a fact based on their track records and policy proposals versus the less than full term of proven effectiveness and fulfilled campaign promises. And I can now include his handling of this COVID-19 issue, which has been pretty damned good given the bad info he's had to overcome.
Dan then "prays" for me, or at least composes a prayer he might pray, that my eyes be opened to what I've done by supporting Trump's presidency and re-election. Of course, there's no telling to whom he's praying given his "theology" strongly suggests he isn't a big fan of the God or Jesus Christ, but only uses those names to pose as a Christian. The real Dan shows up in his alternative prayer:
"Lord, may you afflict those pervert-defending conservative men with a painful, debilitating case of genital leprosy in the weeks leading up to the election and continue it until such time as sexual predators like Trump-and those who defend them, like Marshal-are no longer in a position to oppress and imperil women and other human beings."
Wow! Talk about a lying con man!!! Dan truly makes Trump look like a piker!! This is a guy who supports women candidates who support the murder of the unborn!! And he dares talk about imperiling women and other human beings!!! Trump's got nothing on Dan or his preferred choices for president, whomever they may be. Is there even a thing called "genital leprosy"? Sounds painful. With grace-embracers like Dan, who needs satanists?
At this point, Dan goes on to reiterate that I'm not welcome without apologizing for calling a couple of sluts "sluts", while he says all manner of unjustified things about me and Trump. Yeah, Trump's a womanizer. But we have no credible accusations that he's done any real "predatory" acts. We only know he ogled naked girls and sought sex with other women not his wife. And the fact that the two women in question are proven whores and sluts confounds his attempts to demonize Trump beyond reason. No. He has to pretend that despite their character and behaviors being beyond question, the fact that I don't know the women personally somehow prohibits me from calling them what their character and behaviors justifies. He tries to pretend the actual words I use are somehow worse in describing them than any other, OR, he's insisting that despite their blatant and unquestioned immorality, they are not to be called ANYTHING that describes their immorality...while he calls me and other Trump supporters all manner of nasty things, and Trump worse things. And when having pointed out this double standard, he defaults to this nonsense about the history of oppressed women under the of oppressive men and rape cultures, yada, yada, yada...as if somehow that excuses sexually immoral behavior by women.
My favorite part is the insistence that the use of words like "whore", "slut" and the like are the domain of men, yet I've provided studies (at least one by a woman) that validate my contention that women are just as likely, if not more so, to use those words to describe other women than are men.
Despite the easily proven truth that I have only used the terms in reference to two specific women, Dan continues insisting...lying...that I used it to speak of all women. And he laughingly tries to insist that women are somehow harmed, insulted or in any way oppressed by their merely hearing those words, and mocks me for my still ongoing polling of women which, to date, has yet to find a woman or girl who is so personally traumatized.
He tells me to look at the data, the research, to listen to experts in the field (BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!). And I read all the "data, research and experts" he provided and I don't find radical feminists to be reliable about anything the report. In turn, as I said, I provided counter research that doesn't agree in the least, other than to say what I've said: that women who are NOT whores or sluts are insulting and hurt by being referred to in those terms, and actual whores and sluts are inconvenienced by having their true character revealed where they hoped to have kept it hidden. Dan wants to pretend that what I say is merely my personal rationalizations, some kind of fantasy, a product of some ego he thinks is out of hand. But then, he'll say anything to protect his hateful position on Trump and he's not above exploiting women to do so. Indeed, with champions of the fairer sex like Dan, who needs women-haters!!!
Quite frankly, his continued assertion that I side with sexual predators, that I am somehow aligned with those who assault and harm women would justify my kicking his ass if he said such to my face. Fortunately, as a Christian, I would simply challenge him to a bout rather than to stomp him in the street. Otherwise, I would continue to challenge him to support his crap with more than radical feminist studies he finds so compelling. I prefer REAL science and REAL research, not leftist crap sandwiches that have no basis in reality.
Jeez! This IS getting long!!!
He goes on and on with more nonsense about ME ignoring reality, but reality includes the fact that jokers like him are the reason both sexual predation AND sexual immorality of women continues. I promote Christian values and virtue. Dan excuses those who do not practice such things, as if he is doing God's work by NOT pointing out the sinfulness of an immoral woman's behavior. Yeah. THAT will get her into Paradise all right! So Dan asks me some questions and the last comments he allowed were my responses to them. Then he responds to those as stupidly as one might imagine:
"YOU KNOW NOTHING about these women and their history."
IT DOESN'T MATTER IN THE LEAST! But I do know enough of their history that the terms are appropriate appellations given their careers, history and testimony with regard to Trump. They acted of their own accord to engage in all of it. By Dan's Trump-hating motivations, there is no one that can be convicted if their past is less than fairy tale. That's Dan-level bullshit. Apparently he's unfamiliar with the adage, "old enough to know better."
"You ignore the reality that research shows that many women who have ended up in "adult businesses" are there in part due to their oppressive/harassment/assault in their history and, in part, due to the objectification of women by men in power."
I ignore nothing, such as the fact that no "research" Dan presented showed that "many" women "end up" in sex-trades because of a harsh past, but only that his "research" shows that some women did. It didn't poll all that many women to justify the use of the term "many" and regardless, it doesn't mean we should assume that in any whore or slut, and not in the case of the two in question. Dan simply wants that to be the case. More as evidence of Dan's dishonesty, he wants ME to assume that because he needs as large a list of Trump victims as possible to justify his attacks on Trump. Without these whores, the list is chopped down to...what...22 accusers about whom Dan knows less than I do? No. Dan doesn't WANT to know their histories because to find that, say, Stormy Daniels was simply as horny as Trump but nowhere near as entrepreneurial that porn was her path to easy living...well...that just won't do.
"In spite of that reality, you're willing to assume the very worst of these women and deny the oppression of women writ large at the hands of men like Trump and those, like you, who defend them."
First of all, there's no reality but only Dan's presumption that these women suffered earlier in life so as to justify ignoring the fact that they're whores and sluts. I, in the meantime, assume nothing about them that is not absolutely certain, proven and affirmed by their own testimonies. Secondly, Dan just wanted somewhere he could say "writ large" because he thinks it sounds cool. BUT, Dan ignores that their known history is "writ large" enough to know they're whores and sluts. In the meantime, Dan continues to slander me as a defender of rapists and sexual oppressors simply because I voted for a guy who was the lesser of two evils...by a long shot...promised that which all conservatives wanted out of a president, then delivered on those promises in a way unprecedented in American politics and is thus worthy of a second term. Dan supports baby killers and thinks I'm the bad guy.
"I am not blind to what I suspect was the great psychological harm that was most likely done to him by his parents and those around him in his upbringing. He is very clearly a man with a damaged soul/psyche. I can and do feel sympathy for Trump, the man. In the same way that I can find some sympathy for other pedophiles and rapists who were damaged by others growing up."
Dan's not the first asshat to think he's capable of psychoanalyzing from afar. He's just the dumbest and as such the most arrogant. I have no idea what Trump's childhood was like. I've never seen nor heard of anything that suggests it wasn't happy and nurturing. And I have no reason to believe Dan give's a flying rat's ass about Trump except to see him out of office replaced by one of his baby-murdering, LGBT enabling, high taxing, economy and culture destroying leftist asshole alternatives. That's how Dan rolls. He does this in the guise of a Christian, without knowing what that word actually means, as evidenced by his obsessive hatred of the man.
"NONETHELESS, in a world of competing sympathies, we must always side with the oppressed, the marginalized and the harmed over and against those who are doing the oppressing, the harming."
Not in the realm of sin. We don't say to one, "oh, you had a hard life, your sin is OK" while saying to another, "your life was easy, your sin in reprehensible". No. Sin is sin and Dan is an idiot. These two women were not oppressed when they willfully chose to have sex with a married man. They certainly weren't by Trump. And while we know with unquestioned certainty of the immorality of these two women, we...DAN...has not credible evidence that Trump is guilty of harming any women, except for ogling some naked chicks and cheating on his wives with willing co-conspirators. This is the guy who expects ME to apologize when he's far more guilty of lying about me, Trump and of supporting true oppressors of women...far more egregious oppressors given what they do to the unborn...while I have done no worse than state the facts.
All of Dan's shit is simply because he can't truly defend his hateful attitude toward a president who is far more effective than the Barry Obumble who accomplished nothing of note.
Dan stupidly encourages me to take classes in the same radical feminist studies where he earned his skirt. But I prefer truth, reality, facts, evidence...NOT bullshit half-assed leftist nonsense that has done nothing for the cause of women except to lead them to immorality and despair. Dan, however, needs to study Scripture...not with "progressive" "christians", but with real Christians who put God's will above earthly concerns. Dan's a baby-killer supporter. This is true and beyond a doubt given the people he's supported for president. Thus, Dan is complicit in the murder of the unborn. This is far more true than any suggestion that I support or defend sexual predators. I've NEVER suggested I support such things in any way. Dan has openly stated he no longer considers abortion immoral. More women have been harmed by abortion than by womanizing rich dudes.
So, this really HAS been a long post, and I have just a bit more to add before I'm finished with Dan's whiny, bullshit, pearl-clutching, fake outrage about calling two whores/sluts what they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)