More Demands From Ducky Dan

 In Dan's Tuesday, February 4, 2025 post submission entitled "Let America Be America Again", he presents a Langston Hughes poem of the same name.  (https://www.blogger.com/comment/fullpage/post/7923725288901074422/1375085908999430787)  Dan's posted it before.  He's got it bad for homosexual communist black men.  They make his lady bits moist.  To each his own, I guess.   I'm more of a Bill Withers or Lionel Richie kinda guy. Throw in some Sylvester Stewart and Stevie Wonder, and I'm good.  Whatever.

I had been working on a post inspired by a suggestion of Bubba, but after one of my semi-random visits to Dan's Blog of Lies, I noticed the above post.  So after noting this reposting of Hughes' poem, I submitted a comment to see if I was correct about him having done so before (I'd say it was within the last year, and possibly no more than six months or so...whatever).  After inquiring, I added the following:

"America is now back on a path toward returning to a place more in line with what it was intended to be. The last for years was a major bump in the road thanks to the unwise like yourself."

 Needless to say, that made Danny clutch his pearls tightly, soil himself and launch into what I will copy and paste below.   It's the usual bile, but it's always comedic.  I present it here for your amusement, as well as to allow myself to respond in my own way without some little 5th grade girl impose her self-serving criteria which if not met fully and to Dan's satisfaction will result in deletion.  You know the drill.  I think I'll be responding in a manner where whatever isn't italicized is my response:

 

"Marshal: Do NOT comment unless you directly and clearly answer my question in bold below. Anything else will be deleted."

Yeah.  Whatever.

"Hey! Look! You did it! You made a factual claim (even though you didn't support it... it's like you lucked into it.)"

Dan thinks herself clever here, as she's referring to my comment posted above.  Despite the fact that Dan says whatever farts out of his ass without providing any evidence in support, this is just a ploy.  If he believes I've said something untrue, he's free to bring evidence in presenting what he thinks actually is.  But as you'll see, he'll say much which is presented as fact without any support whatsoever. 

"Yes, magop IS back on a path to returning to a place more in line with the original intentions of the majority of the founders. The founders wanted a "democracy" and a "republic" where the people getting to decide things were landed (wealthy) white males. Where specifically women, black people, and of course, LGBTQ people were EXCLUDED from having a voice. By design."

Hey Dan!  Remember when we went back and forth about this very false claim not long ago and you abjectly failed to prove the founders intended to deny people the ability to vote?  Yeah...those were good times!

Dan's argument in that case, to which he alludes here, is the same as arguments about race today as regards incarceration rates, qualifications for jobs or higher education and the like.  This argument is one where the "progressive" sees a problem with a racial component and then argues the suffering is the result of racism.  During the founding, property owners (who weren't required to be particularly wealthy) were seen as those who had the most skin in the game.  While there are other ways one can have skin in the game, such as military service, those with nothing at that time were seen the way many who don't produce now have proven themselves to be...forcing considerations for that which they did little to nothing to earn.  Initially, should any who didn't own property come to own property later, they were eligible, too.  It's not an illogical argument for that era and only slightly less so now.  Personally, I believe the most important qualification for voting is that one isn't a freaking leftist, because most of them are so incredibly stupid.  And that's evident by Dan insisting the point was to deny voting rights, rather than a reasoned determination about who should have voting rights.  Naturally, those who don't qualify are denied, but the denial was not the point or purpose.  Dan, who likes to pretend he's brilliant with regard to "nuance", fails to discern it here.
 

Anyway, Idiot Boy goes on:

"And yes, that is actively what magop is shooting for, by your own admissions."

This is three "fact" claims which aren't fact at all and requires evidence Dan doesn't bother to provide, while bitching about me not supporting claims (the first exposed above).  What Dan claims is true about the founding is not what what Trump & Co is working to achieve.  That's just another lie assholes like to tell, and this one says it without support of any kind, pretending, I suppose, that it's somehow "self evident".  And naturally, I didn't admit to Dan's fiction in any way.  It's just him trying to be clever, as in "thinking themselves wise..."

'The thing is: The US as it was founded has grown past its racist, sexist, vulgar oligarchy rule of rich white men.'

Certainly not while Trump and/or true conservatives are running the show. 

"We are NOT going back - no way in hell - to the times of rule by rich white men. Y'all have lost that argument and we're not going back."

No.  Biden's not in charge anymore and for the time being, Democrats and other socialists aren't in the majority.  It's YOU who lost that argument, Sister. 

"No matter how much you may praise those efforts."

 I don't praise those efforts.  I voted against them by voting for Trump.

 "That kind of racist, sexist, irrational anti-human rights thinking is a relic of an evil past.

Says the weak sister who constantly references stupidity like "white privilege/nationalism", promotes, defends, enables and celebrates sexual perversions of all kinds (farmers, keep a watchful eye on your barnyard animals!) and doesn't care about the lives of people in utero or those murdered, raped and robbed because of criminals you invited into our midst.  Asshole.

"But thanks for being honest about it all, as far as that goes. And even if you noted it unintentionally."

Thanks for lying about my positions and what's actually happening as a result of Trump's worthy victory in November.  You do what liars do, Dan.  Constantly.

 "But here's your chance to at least being to save your soul, Marshal."

I'm saved by my acceptance of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, not by appeasing moronic requests from fake Christians from a store front chapel on Jeff St. in Louisville, KY. 
 

"Trump nominated a man who..."

 Get your facts straight, Danielle.  Trump nominated him twice.  The man you're about to disparage worked in Trump's first administration.  Oh yeah, he worked for your racist pervert king, Joe Biden, too.

 "has met with white supremacists and who said

"competent white men must be in charge."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-taps-right-wing-ideologue-senior-state-dept-job-2025-02-04/

WILL YOU UNCONDITIONALLY CONDEMN THIS RACIST PERVERT and call for his removal, acknowledging that this kind of open racism is NOT something that you will support in even the slightest?"

I'll get to the dumbass question soon enough.  But first, I would be remiss if I didn't offer some clarity:

I have been doing some research about this guy, Darren Beattie and have found little to hold against him beyond the snarky way he sometimes expresses himself, which I don't hold against a person who does it well.  I must have looked at two dozen sites trying to find details about his "racist" comments, and as is usually the case, they all referenced the same handful of quotes, none of which offered anything in the way of context.  Now, part of that is that some of the comments were tweets, and I haven't linked to his X presence to see how much of it I can find to see if they're stand alone comments (in which case they were likely stated to piss off the right people), or if they were part of a larger discussion about which there is no mention in any of the articles I read.  Some context can be inferred, as the "competent while men" comment was seen with another referencing wokeness and DEI quotas.  The message is that competent white men are denied in favor of women and minorities, with the implication that it opens us up to having less competent people in places where actual competent people would be of better and greater service.  It's the problem with DEI initiatives and it's the only explanation which makes sense barring a more detailed explanation for what he was trying to express.  He seems to reject requests for comments for further clarification, but given the sources stating he was unavailable suggests to me he isn't keen on giving leftist media the time of day.  Good on him, but I have been thus far unable to find anything from any of his own sites or blogs or such to see if he might have addressed these issues in a more detailed manner.  I subscribed to his Substack page in the most basic manner, which means I'll get emails for current stuff.  I don't know if I'll be able to access any archive without coughing up cash.

This "met with white supremists" bit is not exactly truthful.  It refers to the H.L. Menken Club for which I've found some info from the extremist conservative news source "The Village Voice" (now happily defunct).  Even this source dismissed the charge that the group is actually racist as a point of any mission statement, but is simply a group of most older conservatives who gather to discuss and debate ideas.  They're certainly opposed to stupidity such as DEI, particularly how it's practiced by the racist left, but the Voice considered them basically a group which says and/or favors much of what is said on outlets like FoxNews, which means they're mostly wonderful people.  The problem is, good conservatism often leads to attracting even assholes, like Richard Spencer, who most recently rejected Trump in favor of Biden and Harris, which clearly makes Biden and Harris racists scumbags according to Dan. 

I did find a copy of the speech he gave to this group...the reason Beattie was in attendance at all, and I doubt he cared that among this group might be a few assholes like Spencer.  His speech had absolutely nothing offensive, except perhaps to some conservatives, because the speech was about conservatism specifically, not anything related to racism in any way (a pretty heady speech since he's no idiot and was speaking to a group who aren't idiots, either.  I'm going to have to read a few more times to get a better grasp of what he was saying.  It's that kind of speech.)  Here are two links which provide info for both him and the Menken Club, both from outrageously conservative sources.  Before I do, I'll first give you an example of his snark:

https://x.com/DarrenJBeattie/status/1808531303610147225?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1808531303610147225%7Ctwgr%5Eae2dcc29af4881dcaa48bff59b7921289b6c40b2%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2Ffact-check%2Ftrump-darren-beattie-state-department%2F

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-taps-controversial-conservative-journalist-top-job/story?id=118369945

This story mentions his founding of Revolver, which not only gave a solid argument for the fake bomb threat story of January 6, 2021, but also had an awesome compilation of videos from private phones and other devices which by virtue of their time stamps alone, gives an equally solid description of exactly what had gone on, providing good reasons to concede Democratic hands in the instigation of most, if not all, of the rioting which took place on that day that will live in leftist imagery.  If nothing else, Darren Beattie is a worthy individual based on his low opinion of Dan's kind alone.  I like him already.

https://www.villagevoice.com/is-the-h-l-mencken-club-an-extremist-hate-group-or-just-a-bunch-of-weary-old-white-guys/

It's abundantly clear that Dan has once again chosen to hate on a guy simply for his daring to be a Trump supporter and not an asshole like Dan and those he prefers to Trump.  It's the usual case of, "we've no policies or track record of any merit or value, but we can demonize the better people in hopes there are enough morons like us who will believe our lies".  That's called "embracing grace" and it's what scumbag progressives do best.

So what of Dan's question, which is actually a demand that I be like him (I just puked a little in my throat)?   Well, Dan wants a direct answer, so I'll give it now.  Here's his question again:

"WILL YOU UNCONDITIONALLY CONDEMN THIS RACIST PERVERT and call for his removal, acknowledging that this kind of open racism is NOT something that you will support in even the slightest?"

Sure, Dan.  And I'll do it in exactly the way you condemned a couple of selections by Biden, such as a out and proud Satanist:

https://x.com/WolverinesFree1/status/1568023073768742913

This perv anti-Semite and racist:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/06/the_new_white_house_associate_communications_director_is_an_antisemitic_sexual_fetishist.html

And this overt Jew hating piece of shit:

https://canarymission.org/individual/Maher_Bitar

And of course, Tyler Cherry isn't the only sexual pervert of the Biden appointees, but Dan's totally into that shit so to list the others would only be regarded as good appointments in Dan's reprobate mind.  Thus I'm sticking with these other scumbags.  And of course, Biden's history of racism is well known and was acknowledged by the cerebral Kamala Harris in her first failed bid for the presidency before being tapped by Biden for VP on the basis of her being a "woman of color". 

So how did Dan respond to any of these appointments?  Shit.  I can't think of a single post wherein he even mentioned these several pieces of shit whose bigotry is far more obvious, ingrained and out there by virtue of actual evidence than the occasions of snark and politically incorrect expressions by a guy who appears to be far more intelligent than anyone in the Democrat party.  That means, Dan didn't condemn a damned one of them, and thus I will do as Dan did and not condemn this clearly morally superior individual. 
 

 "Save your soul, Marshal. Take a step into the light."

I'm already saved by accepting Christ as my Lord and Savior, which mean I'm already in the Light.  YOU?  You're gonna need at least a dry book of matches.  You're given over.

"Again, don't bother commenting unless you unequivocally condemn this and demand that Trump remove him."

Note that I never make such petulant, grade school girl demands at this blog.  Since I'm not going to pressured into lying as you demand I do,  I provided an answer to your dumbfuck question here and you're free to try to dig yourself out of this massive hole of your own making.  Good luck.