On more than one occasion in discussions on these here blogs, it has been stated that the "progressive peace loving" Dan finds so much in common among lefties is not so common at all. As Trump's false conviction in one of his four BS trials has been such a gift to Dan-ish lefties (they get to call Trump "a convicted felon"), so too was dust up at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. It allows the Dan-ish to regard conservatives as violent law breakers, insurrectionist or terrorists. Both do no more for them but to validate my position that they're just perverts perverting what they can to further their perverted ends.
But the issue of violence is truly a "progressive" trait far more typical of them than of conservatives. A recent essay by J.R. Dunn, one of the editorial staff at AmericanThinker.com, lists the many examples of this reality. This particular article was one which isn't posted at the site itself, but is part of an exclusive feature reserved for subscribers...like myself. E-mails are sent with four or five such articles by certain regulars at AT at least once a week or two. (Frankly, I'm not sure how often. I just come upon them in my emails and don't pay attention to the frequency of their arrival). As such, I'm unable to link to the article itself unless I copy/pasted the entire thing and provide it as a post. Rather, you'll have to make do with the snippets I'll now provide as evidence of the premise regarding the violent nature of the left.
The title of the piece is "Like the scorpion, leftism's nature is to kill." Pretty provocative, but Dunn brings the receipts.
"In
the 20th century, leftism was responsible for more deaths than any
other factor apart from natural death, including war, disease, famine,
and crime. For the Soviet Union, it was 20 to 40 million (though
Solzhenitsyn spoke to Russians who calculated it as over 64 million). In
Red China, it was 60 million plus (though when Oriana Fallaci
interviewed Deng Xiaoping, he simply shook his head when she suggested
65 million). Cambodia accounted for 2-3 million, and Mengistu’s Ethiopia
starved over a million. North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam…who knows?"
I don't know that one can name a conservative or "right-leaning" parallel during the same period, nor is there one now. He then goes on to name the leaders of these abominations as well as how highly regarded they were and are to many on the left even today:
"Almost
every last leftist icon has been a man (and the occasional woman) of
violence: Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot, and Che, all the way down
to such luminaries as Bill Ayers, Huey Newton, and Mark Rudd. (There
are those who would add Hitler and Mussolini to this list, with some
reason.)"
(I don't know why he didn't just add Hitler and Mussolini, unless it's because how many leftists like to pretend they were "right-wing fascists, dammit!" But they both were leftists, too.) All listed were cut from the same cloth, though they often gave themselves different political identities, which is another common tactic of the left: doing what lefties always do, but changing their names when people get sick of their crap.
Dunn then goes on to list American examples from recent history:
---The Congressional Baseball shooting on June 14, 2017
---The Las Vegas Mass Shooting in October of 2017
--- Three Trump Assassination attempts
---The Health-care Exec Shooting on December 4, 2024
---The Summer of 2020
There's also the Albuquerque man charged with firebombing a GOP office, as well as Tesla dealerships, and the destruction of Tesla vehicles and dealerships in general are all the work of peace-loving progressives. Dunn continues:
"All
this has come to a point over the last few months as the Left has
emerged from the shadows with open threats of assassination and mass
murder. A few weeks back, Maine schoolmarm Joanna St. Germain called for the Secret Service to murder Donald Trump and his staff..."
...and...
"Shortly before that, George Mason student Nicholas Decker published an essay titled “When Must We Kill Them?” calling for mass murder along the lines of the Khmer Rouge and the Red Guards..."
He rightly states that this "is the party of compassion and tolerance in A.D. 2025." As he says,
"At heart, the
American Left is one with the Bolsheviks, the Khmer Rouge, and the Red
Guards."
Throw in Hamas and all those defending their actions on American college campuses. Throw in abortionists, too, as what could be more violent than the rending of innocents limb from limb for personal convenience. Throw in the many Hollywood celebs suggesting violence and assassination against Trump and his followers, as well as a variety of Dem congresspeople enabling violence.
In so many ways, those like Dan who insist they're the party of peace belie such claims and try to portray their political and ideological opponents as fascistic, Hitlerian and all manner of vile crap, projecting their own character upon truly peaceful people.
94 comments:
I don't know what to tell you, Marshal, except that this post is, at best, grade school ineptitude and irrational and, at worst, fascist fear-mongering.
Your killings list is, of course, referring to FASCISTS, not liberals. It's a categorical error/falsehood.
Liberals are all about, first of all, human rights.
Liberals are all about rights specifically for the poor and marginalized (like those great historical liberals, MLK, Gandhi and Jesus).
Liberals are all about freedom.
Liberals - especially more modern liberals - tend to lean towards pacifism/peacemaking and certainly away from the war and deadly destruction of fascism.
Fascists were opposed to Jewish folk, to women, to the disabled, to LGBTQ folks, to the Roma and other poor.
Liberals are supporters and defenders of all these groups of people.
The definition of Liberalism:
"Liberalism is often defined in terms of the
primacy of individual liberty.
This is already two concepts:
individualism and liberty.
These apply to all human persons,
which is to say the principles are universal.
Individualism and universalism are supported by the idea that
persons have in some sense an innate moral equality
merely by virtue of their humanity.
Finally,
pluralism, or a commitment to toleration of diversity of belief and culture, directly obtains from the moral equality of individuals and their free use of reason."
https://www.liberalcurrents.com/liberalism-article-paul-crider/
You're just factually way off from reality when you compare liberalism to fascism or try to assign the crimes of fascism to liberals.
Don't be stupid, if that's what this is.
On the other hand, you're almost certainly NOT THIS stupid. Which would suggest that you are fine with demonizing a wide group of people as literal monsters, which is, of course, one of the tactics of fascists. As we can see in the policies and practices of your actual pervert prince.
May 13, 2025 at 8:26 AM
I'm not surprised at all by your response, Dan. It's typical projection and the usual disparagement of truths and facts for which you can't find or produce legitimate counter. Thus, it's also not surprising you don't know what to tell me other than to criticize and disparage. You think to yourself, "I can't think of a better way to convince this guy that my bullshit is truth." No. You don't know what to tell me.
Then of course you go on with the routine suggestion that what you call "fascism" is not just your kind unbridled once they've captured full power and authority. Worse is the rejection of the truth that fascism is a leftist condition, not a "right-wing" or conservative one. Indeed, it sprang from the minds of socialists and it's what socialists who disagree with each other call each other. But it's the extreme of the left-wing. What "progressive" ultimately becomes.
Your link does nothing but pervert the notion of "classical" liberalism and seeks to dress it up with the socialist brush. But socialism is always socialism regardless of whether "liberal" or "democratic" are attached to socialism in front of it or following it.
But you're well known for pretending crimes of your kind...far more ubiquitous than not...are somehow "outliers" or uncommon when the article I cite provides facts to the contrary. So I'm not comparing classical liberalism with fascism. I'm comparing leftism with fascism, or more precisely, presenting the reality that what you are becomes what you pretend is not of you. I could even say you what you are IS what you pretend you are not. The difference being one of testicular fortitude. You don't have the balls to take your evil to the limit, and when others like you do, you pretend they're of another tribe. Worse, you try to pretend they're of mine.
continuing....
So, wherever above you use the term "liberal", I will use the more accurate term of "leftist" (or its derivatives).
"Leftists are all about, first of all, human rights."
All extremist leftists...all the way to proud, despotic communist states/governments...begin with this pretense at concern for others. But you pervert it beyond all proper understanding, particularly when you suggest we are obliged to abide sexual perversions you find so personally stimulating. Aside from that perversion, you absolutely dictate to others according to your self-serving notions and in doing so infringe upon civil rights. This was never more obvious and rampant as it was during the Biden term. I could go into great detail and am prepared to do so if necessary.
"Leftists are all about rights specifically for the poor and marginalized"
Leftists are all about robbing the producers to care for those the left regards as poor and "marginalized". Worse, leftists promote the very policies which produces the poor and those to whom they refer as "marginalized". In short, fewer leftists means fewer poor and marginalized.
"Leftists are all about freedom."
Leftists promote the freedom to be perverts, but infringe upon the freedoms of any who oppose leftist perversions.
"Leftists - especially more modern leftists - tend to lean towards pacifism/peacemaking and certainly away from the war and deadly destruction of fascism."
Once again you pretend fascism isn't the extreme condition of leftism. And this article who which I referenced in the post gave considerable evidence of the lie the above statement tells. Indeed, it's the point of the article as well as a truth Craig has often presented at his blog, which is that you progressives talk the peace/pacifism talk, but consistently you walk the violence walk. And for those of you without the balls to get down and dirty, you pretend those who perpetuate the violence are not of your kind.
continuing....
"Leftists are supporters and defenders of all these groups of people."
Leftists are liars in suggesting conservatives ill treat anyone. What your kind supports and defends are lies about conservatives and the conflating of behaviors with immutable characteristics. Because progressives are liars.
Your link is to a socialist who is trying to pretty up socialism by speaking on, I believe, classical liberalism. Thus, you're trying to pretty up your own false portrayal of yourself and those like you. Those truly in favor of liberty and individualism don't murder people in utero or support others who choose to do so, and they certainly don't lie about their being legitimate need to ever do so. They don't force bakers, photographers, landlords or florists to appease and accommodate the demands of mentally disordered sexual perverts, or seek the termination of employment of anyone who speaks against the agenda of these disordered people on their own time. They don't force others to fund their pet projects and then pretend they're doing something good for those causes, when they didn't do anything. They don't force others to open up their private property to foreigners who choose to ignore our laws for entry.
I am right on the nose in presenting the truth that the most fascistic are simply progressives. From the center to as far left as one wishes to go on the political divide, fascism is at the extreme. You are all birds of a feather. Your perversion of definitions (another common tactic of the perverted left) does not change the reality I presented in my post.
I noticed you slipped in another disparagement of the greatest president since Reagan. YOU are the true pervert. Indeed, you're the reigning queen of perverts. I will take greater care in the future with reading your comment submissions before posting them Pervert. I will not allow you to disparage one who is clearly a better man than you...assuming you identify as a man. You pervert.
You're deeply broken and corrupt. Get help.
Open your eyes.
Repent.
LEFTISTs are the primary anti-Semitic people.
As for human rights, LEFTISTS deny any rights to the unborn and murder them by the millions. I think Marshall fixed the rest of Dan's nonsensical lies.
Your list left out the fact that the 2020 Summer of Love riots were merely the capstone on a series of left wing riots starting in 2014. You also left out a number of recent mass shootings (Nashville school for one) and the vehicle attack in WI from a few years ago.
That Dan can blithely pretend like the perpetrators of the violence you mentioned were not on the left side of the American political spectrum is simply a refusal to acknowledge the Truth. His immediate descent into semantic bullshit and equivocation is as unsurprising as the left wing support for Mangione, and the antisemitic crap on college campuses.
The reality is that the folx he's trying to disassociate himself from are all on his "side" of the political aisle.
Whatever term you use to describe those on the APL will be incomplete in some sense. For anyone with a grain of sense the term liberal (ass opposed to Classical Liberal) is one of many terms used to refer to the left side of the political spectrum in the US. This whole semantic pile of bullshit is a diversion to attempt to take away the focus of this post.
The pervert queen, Dan Trabue, submitted the following edited comment:
"Antisemitic connections in the government... oh! Wait! They're connected to (Pervert Queen Dan exposed his fake-Christianity with an example of grace embracing hatred with a disparaging comment about our president here) !
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/14/nx-s1-5387299/trump-white-house-antisemitism
But don't let reality or reason interfere with some good childish gossip (with apologies to children).
Dan"
Sez the morally bankrupt pervert queen as he indulges in gossip.
It's always amusing when a morally bankrupt pervert queen like Dan dares to condescend.
I haven't the time to scrutinize and research all of which Dan's NPR allegations suggest, but given the source, I've little doubt I'll find falsehood.
It just occurred to me that while Dan the Queen of Perverts commonly writes off examples of leftist sins and crimes as "outliers" of his "peaceful progressive" angels, he cites this suspicious NPR article which pretty much, if true, speaks of actual outliers given how few conservatives are anti-Semitic or racist.
In the meantime, Dan ignores the documentation presented in the article I referenced of all the leftist violence in history, including American history, and just how freaking common it is, such that there is no conservative or right wing parallel. That's why Dan refers to the worst of it being fascist, because perverts use the word to blame the right wing for what the left does.
What's more, while there might be a few people in the Trump administration about whom the lying pervert left needs to be regarded as anti-Semitic, they indulge in their typical lie "guilty by association". But what of Trump policy? Where's the anti-Semitism there?
I would prefer that all in the administration be as Christ-like as possible, so as not to confuse our own with the left. That's not always possible. But while Trump or any other GOP president fail in that quest for perfection, the left continues supporting, celebrating, defending and enabling all manner of perversion and abomination as a matter of party policy. Thus, Dan the Queen of Perverts, and his favored NPR, dare to condescend to better people.
Repent from what? To what? For what purpose? I was unaware of Dan proposing an objective, universal, standard for behavior that must be followed of sin will result. This sort of condescending, holier than thou, bullshit is the kind of thing that signals Dan admitting that he has nothing of substance left.
Good point. In Dan world, anyone who doesn't agree with his Pollyanna version of liberalism is a fringe outlier, regardless of how mainstream they are or how many leftists agree with them. Yet somehow, anyone he perceives to be on the right, is automatically mainstream regardless of how fringe they actually are.
Marshal:
he cites this suspicious NPR article which pretty much, if true, speaks of actual outliers given how few conservatives are anti-Semitic or racist.
What I did was cite an actual journalistic outfit with integrity and awards to show for their journalistic wherewithal, and that story cited actual connections to actual maga-types to actual antisemitic people who actually identify as conservative. Facts all the way around.
What YOU all have done is made stupidly false and unsupported allegations. You've not cited ONE SINGLE liberal with connections to antisemitic behaviors/practices. You've gossiped like an ill-informed and ill-mannered child. Naught else.
For my part, I've made no claims about how common it is to find antisemitic conservatives, just noting that the people who ARE antisemitic today that we know of, tend to identify either as conservative "christian" extremists OR conservative "muslim" extremists. Religious extremists are always something to be wary of when they embrace hateful, violent, oppressive ideologies.
In the meantime, Dan ignores the documentation presented in the article I referenced of all the leftist violence in history,
You literally cited FASCISTS, not liberals or progressives. The FACT is that modern progressives do not embrace deadly violence, nor antisemitic ideas.
I can just as easily cite 100+ year old traditionalist conservative Christians in the Fascist, Nazi, pro-slavery, oppressor class. That doesn't mean that modern conservatives agree with their vile ancestors (although some in the South sure as hell regularly defend their "noble" racist slaving ancestors).
What I do, instead, is point to the reality that fascists 100 years ago DID attack, target, demean and oppress women, people of color, LGBTQ folks, the free press, "liberals," the educated/experts and immigrants AND the fact that many in the modern magop ALSO do the same thing. I'm pointing to specific actions and policies of modern "conservatives" who embrace tactics of ancient racists, slavers and fascists. That you don't have a problem with that is part of the problem.
The only pervert in the national headlights is your pervert prince, the man who ACTUALLY laughed about and boasted about sexual assault, the man who is ACTUALLY a felon, the man who ACTUALLY regularly attacks and demeans hardworking experts and public servants. The man is an idiot and a pervert and overtly so. He is a hedonist who gets his jollies off of "oh, looky, I got a pretty fancy plane with god toilets given to me to keep" and who abuses his office to enrich himself and keep himself out of prison.
It's sick, it's anti-Christian, it's irrational and unjust and a threat to a free republic. And perverts within the modern "conservative" extremist movement support this foul ass-stain on our US history.
The facts remain, in spite of your juvenile (with apologies to juveniles) irrational efforts to group opposing ideologies together:
Liberals are all about, first of all, human rights.
Liberals are all about rights specifically for the poor and marginalized (like those great historical liberals, MLK, Gandhi and Jesus).
Liberals are all about freedom.
Liberals - especially more modern liberals - tend to lean towards pacifism/peacemaking and certainly away from the war and deadly destruction of fascism.
WHO is defending religious liberty (WHICH includes freedom TO practice your religion - Muslim, Jewish, Christian, whatever - as well as freedom FROM religion)? It is progressives (and some few of the good traditional conservatives like my parents were).
That is, we progressives FULLY support Christians - even conservative Christians or conservative Muslims or conservative Mormons, etc - having the freedom to practice their religion UNTIL it interferes with another person's religious liberties. That is, IF you are a conservative opposed to having abortions or getting "gay married," we FULLY SUPPORT your religious liberty to not do those things. AND, if you are someone who does want an abortion or marry a gay guy, we also fully support THAT religious liberty.
It's conservative extremists (mormon, christian, muslim, etc) who want to push/force THEIR religious views on others which runs contrary to religious liberty. Again, it is the PROGRESSIVES (and good traditional conservatives) who support religious liberty.
And who is supportive of immigrants and other marginalized groups? Progressives. WHO are the ones who demonize and refuse to accept immigrants and other marginalized groups? Fascists and conservative extremists.
WHO are the defenders of human rights? Progressives like those involved in or supportive of ACLU, Human Rights Watch, etc. Where are the Human Rights groups on the far right?
I'll wait while you ignore that question.
WHO are the defenders of the free press? Progressives.
Again, progressives are not fascists. On the other hand, modern maga-types ARE embracing the tools and practices of fascists.
You can ignore reality all you want but that does not change reality.
Progressivism is actively opposed to fascism. That's the real world reality.
Craig...
In Dan world, anyone who doesn't agree with his Pollyanna version of liberalism is a fringe outlier, regardless of how mainstream they are or how many leftists agree with them. Yet somehow, anyone he perceives to be on the right, is automatically mainstream regardless of how fringe they actually are.
The complete and total lack of awareness or any sense of irony is astounding here.
IN THE FUCKING REAL WORLD, you shit-breathed maggot, LIBERALS are not fascists. Period. Full stop. It doesn't matter how STUPID you are or how vulgarly racist and diabolical you are (with apologies to Satan), reality matters, you death-dealing zealots.
It would be better for you to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around your neck than to continue to cause one of these oppressed and those fighting for the oppressed to be maligned and attacked, you graceless sack of shit.
STOP being so damned stupid and graceless. You all CAN' T possibly be THIS idiotic. Don't be obtuse. OF COURSE, liberals are not fascists.
In the meantime, the pervert prince whose ass you lick daily is shitting all over your dumb faces while you sit there with your shit-eating grins and ask for more. Recognize perversion and oppression and stupidity and fascism when it kicks you in your shit-stained teeth, idiots.
Just stop it.
GOD have mercy on your pathetic sin-sick souls and the lies you bear daily and the indecency you defend.
Your children will rise up and call you accursed.
Shit.
Craig lied through his shit-stained teeth (from all the Felon ass kissing he's doing):
how mainstream they are or how many leftists agree with them.
AND YET, in the real world, you can not point to ONE SINGLE liberal who supports fascism or who is engaging in fascist practices. Certainly not a president or prominent progressive leader.
It is a diabolical lie from the prince of lies and shame on you for the graceless, sin-sick slander and gossip you brainlessly, effortlessly engage in.
STOP IT.
I rebuke you in the name of the Lord, Almighty, Jesus, the son of God who came to preach good news to the very poor and immigrant and marginalized that your "church" attacks and maligns with these lies.
Repent. Open your eyes, wipe the shit from them and repent.
You won't see right again until you get your head out of the pervert's ass.
The thing is: Progressive minded people - people who do good for the sake of doing good and who fight for human rights and liberties for all simply because it's the right thing to do - are just literally not fascists. Don't be obtuse.
And, at the same time, the pervert king you all have bedded down with is causing active harm with his lies (your lies, when you repeat nonsense), his attacks on innocent immigrants, innocent Gazans, innocent people with disabilities, innocent LGBTQ people.
Right now, here in Kentucky, I'm personally familiar with at least half a dozen children and adults with disabilities - kids with Down Syndrome, adults with Cerebral Palsy, folks on the autism spectrum, etc - who are actively LOSING benefits today. They are being denied life-saving and life-affirming needs, being told that they're too lazy or not "disabled enough..." I sat in on a meeting today with a hard-working person with a disability who was being denied services "indefinitely" due to funding cuts. I talked with a mother whose adult child with multiple disabilities is likely losing services. I'm hearing from folks daily right now about benefits being denied or living in fear that it's only a matter of days/weeks before THEIR benefits are denied.
These benefits helps these people to work, to get to medical appointments, to get medications. Denied. Denied. Denied.
They are being told daily and in hundreds of ways, "Just go away and die. We don't want your kind here." They're not stupid, they know what the pervert king and his allies are doing.
Same for immigrants living in fear right now, here today. PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACTUALLY FACED oppression and death threats back home, NOT your lily white racists and descendants of racists in S Africa.
And NO, Craig, they are NOT BEING OPPRESSED. You're reading far right white racist conspiracy theories and treating them as if they're real.
No, the immigrants I know are actually facing actual oppression and threats and YOU and your godless hoard of hedonists and deviants are telling THEM to go to hell, while you greet the wealthy white folks with open arms.
You deviants can't act like openly racist people and not be considered openly racist. You deviants can't deny those with disabilities with needed funds - funds that just allow people to live and work and have decent lives - and not be considered the enemy of the disabled.
You all are actively placing yourselves in the place of the goats of Jesus' story. GLADLY doing it WHILE pissing on Jesus' message of good news to the poor and telling the Lord God almighty that God and Jesus are liars and fools.
Repent. You're pushing this evil and oppression TOO far and no good will come of it.
You're on the wrong side of decency, of honesty, of the poor and disabled, the immigrant and Jesus who allied with them all. You're on the wrong side of history and there will be literal hell to pay for your vulgar indecencies and defense of the perverted and diabolical.
Repent.
Addressing more of this BS:
Almost every last leftist icon has been a man (and the occasional woman) of violence:
Except that "Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot, and Che, all the way down to such luminaries as Bill Ayers, Huey Newton, and Mark Rudd..." are NOT "leftist icons." Again, don't be daft.
Leftist icons are Jesus, MLK, Gandhi, RBG, Rachel Carson, Emerson, Thoreau, Helen Keller, Nelson Mandela... John Lewis, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B Anthony, Mary Wollstonecraft...
James Baldwin, Oscar Romero, Harry Emerson Fosdick, Harvey Milk, James Cone, Desmond Tutu, etc, etc. Seriously, do you READ any actual progressive type material from actual progressive types? The list would shift some depending on who was answering the question but on NO LIBERAL's list of heroes would you find your fascist oppressors. And WHY not? Because they do not represent liberal ideals and, indeed, are antithetical to liberal ideas.
Do you think some college kid with a Che t-shirt represents higher progressive thinking?
It sounds like you're just supremely ignorant of what it is that progressives stand for and you're willing to listen to fascist liars tickling your ears with stupid lies that you're willing to believe and then pass on like you have a single brain in your head instead of the cowardly goatcheese there, instead. You don't have a brain so much as just one large amygdala making you so fearful that you believe just anything any liar tells you if he is white and conservative enough.
If you don't know who those people are or what they stand for and are known for, look them up for ACTUAL progressive icons (noting that a one of them are perfect humans). If you don't know what an amygdala is, look it up.
Surrender your cowardly ignorance and gossip. Grow up and embrace adult reasoning.
Dan
Well, Craig, as a committed grace embracer, Dan Queen of Perverts wants us to repent and be more like him. The things he's said about you would stand as examples of "embracing grace" and I'm undecided as to whether or not I should post them. Like me, you might be too overwhelmed by just how firmly he "embraces grace" in his responses to you.
It is confusing to match Pervert Queen Dan's wonderful self-description with his words and actions and people/party/policies he supports.
Craig, demonstrating an astounding lack of basic moral reasoning, asked questions with morally, rationally obvious answers...
"Repent from what?
To what?
For what purpose?"
Repent from gossip.
Repent from making stupidly false claims.
Repent from slander.
Repent from making historically stupid comparisons that just aren't rational, correct or apt.
Repent TO being rational and understanding that fascists aren't liberals and liberals aren't fascist.
Repent TO apologizing for making slanderous false claims.
Repent TO more rational adult conversations and thinking.
To what purpose?
To be a rational adult, not a dangerous, uneducated liar.
Why would you NOT want to be a rational adult?
Dan
At present, there are four, maybe five, comments from Dan sitting in the queue awaiting my decision to publish them. I'm torn. Dan's perversion has me confused about what he believes is "mature, adult, rational" discourse as his comments are not such as most would find to be any of those three qualities.
He's done the unforgivable as far as him submitting comments here. He continues to refer to our president as a pervert, when few are as perverse as Dan, who is Queen of Perverts. Dan supports, defends, celebrates and enables perversion, while Trump just dug getting laid. Even to refer to a horn dog as a pervert for his lust for hot babes, that doesn't come anywhere near the level of perversion Dan supports, defends, celebrates and enables...and possibly fantasizes indulging if not doing so discreetly. I've asked him repeatedly to refrain from referring to our president in that way, but being a Pervert Queen, he's clearly incapable of such self-control...what one might refer to as "embracing grace". No. He feels morally superior, like the Pharisee in the temple, while not being so in the least.
But far worse than that, Dan the Pervert Queen had the audacity to disparage Craig in a most profane way. This is the same Dan the Pervert Queen who scolded me at her Blog of Lies for not showing more respect to scumbag Jew-hating Hamas supporter, Mahmoud Khalil! The words I just used there are the worst of it and far less profane than those Dan used in response to Craig. But then, I'm still confused at what "embrace grace" is supposed to look like. So while the first crime is specific to Dan, this one has been in place since the inception of this blog: Visitors aren't to attack my visitors.
So, regardless of what I do about the comments still in the queue, I would encourage Dan to abide my restrictions and perhaps save the comments he hopes to see published in a file, where he can amend it when he doesn't see his first attempt posted.
So to Pervert Queen Dan I say,
You're deeply broken and corrupt. Get help.
Open your eyes.
Repent.
It's now up to 7 comments in the queue by Pervert Queen Dan. It wouldn't be so bad if there was an apology in one of them for his blatant grace embracing in the comments not yet posted, but profane attacks on my visitors and our president is somehow "embracing grace" to the Pervert Queen Dan.
Dan's ability to embrace grace, or at least to demand that others embrace his warped idea of grace, is well known. Dan's grace language is vitriol, lies, and ad hom attacks. He's very good at it.
OK, now I'm curious as to what vile, hateful, grace filled things Dan has said about me. At least he's chosen to embrace the double standard.
It's strange how "attacks" on his butt-buddy, or one of his pet groups of the "oppressed" are immediately deleted and lied about at the cesspool, yet how freely he engages in behavior that would get him banned at his own blog of crap.
Now you can see that behavior in full, along with the equivocation, prevarication and selective citations of what "progressives" actually believe and who their icons are.
Now you can see that behavior in full.
Now you can see that behavior in full.
I will be addressing Dan's filth and lies in time. But I reiterate my suggestion that he would do well to save comments he submits for publishing in a file so that he can resubmit them without his vile attacks on a president who continues to prove he's of far more value to humanity and the nation than Dan will ever be. There's not much Dan can do to prove he's at all a good person, and his constant autobiographical presentations (always boring as hell) will never be enough to overcome all the evil he represents.
Those Mr J comments were from me, Dan. Apparently a visiting family member had logged in on my computer and I had not noticed. If you don't mind, I'd request you'd delete those, since they're pointing to the wrong person.
I stand by the comments, just don't want them attributed to the wrong person.
The reality is that liberals are not fascists or ruthless oppressors. They are wholly unrelated to Stalin.
That you all make such stupidly false comparisons do not speak well of either your intelligence, knowledge of history/reality or your morality.
If you had ANY proof that modern progressives are fans of Stalin or other fascists, you'd post it.
You've got nothing except a broken, decaying morality and support for people with actual connections to Nazis, white nationalists, "Christian " nationalists and other oppressors.
Dan
The fact is that "modern progressive" are all across the news (since at least 2014) burning, looting, occupying, and trashing various cities.
This notion that one can magically define things to exclude those with one shares common cause in order to manipulate a false "reality" would be kind of cute in it's child-likeness, if it wasn't founded on lies.
To suggest that the Nashville school shooter was anything but left wing is patently absurd. Along with those Art mentioned.
That you could dredge up 3 lower level members of the administration that have views you (and maybe I) disagree with isn't sufficient to tar everyone on the right. It's literally you engaging in the same tactics you bitch about.
Well, I guess we get to see Dan embracing grace, showing how Christ would respond to a political disagreement (really a semantic disagreement), and demonstrating the love he shows for those he refers to a "brother".
This childish notion that only "fascist" commit violence for political purposes is both silly and unfounded. I'll simply note that Dan has not demonstrated any of the mentioned people/groups to actually be fascist, nor has he demonstrated that they are not on the left side of the political spectrum.
We see quotes from Biden administration minions bemoaning a couple of thousand "right wing extremists" , who might talk some, but never actually do anything.
Every time I drive down Lake Street (5 years later) I still see the results of the 2020 Summer of Love riots. But they were all fascists too, right?
Why in the hell does Dan need multiple identities to post on a blog?
It's amusing when Dan demands "proof" of widely reported news stories, and only accepts "proof" that comes from his tiny number of acceptable "real" journalists, yet offers unproven anecdotes as if they're to be blindly accepted as Truth. The double standard is strong here, with the unsupported, unproven claims.
I guess lying is now embracing grace, as is racism. These unproven claims of "racism" and the like are all Dan has when he can't actually make a fact based argument. It's easier to throw out epitaphs, vitriol, and unproven wild claims, than to simply acknowledge that a segment of the APL has indeed embraced violence and the threats of violence to get what they want politically.
That Dan elevates himself to speak for Jesus is just pride, hubris, and arrogance, nothing new.
"Do you think some college kid with a Che t-shirt represents higher progressive thinking?"
This one "question" is rich with meaning.
1. The implication that Dan is a "higher progressive" thinker.
2. The implication that the "lower progressive" thinkers are not progressive.
3. The ignoring of the fact that you only see the Che, Mao, merch on left wingers.
4. Given that colleges and universities in the US are bastions of left wing thought and activism, and how much stock progressives put in credentials, it seems impossible to conclude that a college kid in a Che shirt is not a progressive.
This after the fact, biased purity test based in Dan's fairy tales about what a "real progressive" is, along with the endless semantic games are childish and tiresome.
The double standard is strong with this one.
As you have not proven me to have engaged in any of those things, even as you engage is slanderous lies about me, as if adhering to your arbitrary, subjective hunches about being a "rational adult" is a goal of mine.
"One of the central purposes of political language is the drawing of distinctions that make the complexities of political life more coherent. This is hardly an original insight. Noting “the special connection between politics and the debasement of language,” George Orwell was complaining about the numerous political terms that had been drained of any substantive meaning all the way back in 1946:
The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.” The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way."
The above Orwell quote describes Dan's vitriolic personal attacking, demonstration of grace perfectly.
It's like the interview videos that about from left wing protests. The interviewer asks for specific examples of "fascism" and the one being questioned has no answer or makes an excuse to run away.
Thanks. I believe that it is valuable to demonstrate Dan's complete lack of the grace he demands others embrace and of any degree of civility or honesty. If this temper tantrum (fit for a small child) is what Dan perceives as "rational and adult", then he's clearly unaware of how adults communicate. As the multiple videos of the APL engaging in this sort of "rational adult" behavior, I say let Dan speak for himself. Let everyone see his lack of Christlike behavior and grace. I say let the APL spend the next three years throwing these kinds of tantrums, then trot out AOC for POTUS.
Bring that on.
Dan's behavior and inability to exert the smallest bit of self control, buttresses the notion that he's a child throwing a temper tantrum. Nothing more.
Oh, you want considerations now? Accommodation? Courtesies? Good gosh, what audacious gall! Not happening Pervert Queen. They stay as they are. It's not as if anyone was fooled regarding who was spewing vile and lies. We know precisely to whom that crap be rightly attributed.
The reality is that fascists and ruthless oppressors are almost always leftists, usually having begun saying all the nice things you say, all pretending to be champions of the people before exterminating them by the millions. All the people mentioned in the article are leftists to one extreme or another, but leftists they are, just like you. You can't pretend they're not by calling them "fascists", which was born of socialists, who are leftists as well. But then again, leftists love distancing themselves from the destruction they've wrought by renaming themselves. Honest and intelligent people who pay attention aren't fooled.
It's absurd to pretend that leftists don't idolize the extreme of their kind, and yeah...kids wearing Che t-shirts are just the most stupid among them. Those kids more often than not are idolizing the leftist depiction of the guy, rather than the historic truth of his evil.
But your kind has given similar favor to Castro, Mao and a host of others. Your kind loves you some commies and promote such philosophies constantly. You can't come here and try to bullshit us as you do at your blog of lies, Fairy Queen of Perverts.
Oppression has always been from those like you, not from conservatives. That's just more progressive lying, which is how you make hay.
Because "rational adults" don't pay attention to their surroundings, although they do apparently stand by their lies and vitriol.
I agree that it's vile, childish, vitriolic, condescending, and subjective bullshit intended to give Dan the cover (in his mind) from having to be tarred with the actions of his fellows of the APL. (As Dan seemingly has the memory of a goldfish, APL=American Political Left) While he regularly assigns responsibility to us for the actions of some tiny minority of fringe people, he wants complete separation from thousands of leftists spreading destruction, violence, threats of violence, antisemitism and support for Hamas even though they fall on the left side of the political spectrum.
What's sauce for the goose... Unless you're Dan and can spew some semantic bullshit to insulate yourself from the actions of your fellow leftists.
Art,
A suggestion. Since Dan's strategy here is to play semantic games based on your use of the term "liberal" to describe these folx who embrace violence, by magically pretending that "progressive" is somehow distinct and unrelated from "liberal", perhaps you should find a term that encompasses the entire spectrum of American left wing political thought and use that exclusively.
I have to confess that I was tempted, for a brief moment, to copy/paste Mr J's comments at MrJ's blog for all to see.
Then I realized that I don't want to act as Dan and his butt-buddy might so I refrained.
It's not that hard to define fascism. We tend to agree what it is and what it consists of...
"Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of the nation over the individual. This model of government stands in contrast to liberal democracies that support individual rights, competitive elections, and political dissent.
In many ways, fascist regimes are revolutionary in nature. They advocate for the overthrow of existing systems of government and the persecution of political enemies. However, such regimes are also highly conservative in their championing of traditional values."
That is, it's NOT liberal or progressive as those terms are understood.
But again, don't let reality interfere with your idiotic, diabolical gossip.
(Again, with apologies to Satan).
Dan
While I regard terms like "progressive", "Democrat", "socialist", "marxist", "leftist" are all different words for the same thing (Mark Levin prefers "statist" and I wouldn't disagree with it's use to describe all these things), I had been defaulting to "leftist" to encompass them all. "APL" is a good one, and I may begin using that, as I am focused on the morons of our own nation when I use any of these terms.
Once again the difference at all between any of these terms, including "fascist", is one of degrees. They all point in the same direction.
Normally, Perv, I insist that you source your quotes so that they can be reviewed in full context in order to understand how you're pulling from its context perverts the point of it. In this case I know exactly whence it comes because I have that very article saved. Knowing you probably read no further than that which you thought would score you points, further on down one finds that "such regimes are also highly conservative in their championing of traditional values" skews the reality of those regimes.
Two things are beyond dispute:
1. Fascism is an offshoot of socialism, as the two parties cited in the article you didn't read fully mention both Italian fascists and nazis, the leaders of both being socialist, just like you.
2. These lefties partnered with conservatives early in their activism to stand as opponents of the existing socialist structure. Two things about this:
a) Lefties split off from those of their own kind with whom they have a falling out, and accuse the other side of being the evil one, when they both are.
b) Having invented the term "fascist" for that purpose, conservatives foolishly joined with them as a legit foe of socialists, not realizing at first they were just joining a different socialist asshole.
Thus, the socialists portrayed themselves as "champions of traditional values" when they aren't and never have been, or they would have simply joined with and become conservatives rather than bullshit around and become a greater extreme of leftism.
The terms are understood by us properly and more truthfully than you're trying to insist they are. Just like the original fascists, you seek to convince others of how you portray yourselves, while the rest of us regard you based on the harm you've caused and continue to cause.
Nice of you to apologize to your Father of Lies, while still not having apologized to Craig. I'm not at all surprised.
Much more later.
I forgot to add the link you couldn't be bothered to provide:
https://education.cfr.org/learn/learning-journey/what-does-fascism-really-mean/what-is-fascism
I completely agree that all of those terms as virtually synonyms, and all describe some aspect of the continuum of leftism. The problem is that Dan is using some minor semantic bullshit to try to separate "progressive" from the rest of the continuum. You're welcome to APL (I'm considering adding an S for social), as it's my attempt to use one term to encompass the breadth of leftists.
You're correct, unfortunately Dan demands that you see things his way.
It's interesting that Dan's definition of fascism doesn't appear to be from a dictionary of similar place. Strangely enough, I see very little of the populism Trump campaigned on, nor do I see an attempt to militarize to some excessive degree. Nor do I see the nation being placed over the individual, in fact I see the opposite in Trump. It seems strange to claim that someone who's trying to cut government, is more of a fascist than those fighting to cut as little as possible.
The reality is that fascist is the new racist for the ASPL. It's a word that means anything and nothing at the same time and is really just a cudgel to be used when you have nothing else to offer.
Ultimately, the reality is that (no matter how creatively Dan labels them) the folx mentioned by Art are definitely on the left side of the political spectrum, and you rarely see anyone on the right idolizing Che, Mao, or Lenin. Pointing out the reality that those on the left have embraced violence is gossip now.
For example, let's look at the Derek Chauvin case. For the most part those on the left wanted him convicted of 1st degree murder, civil rights violations, and locked up for life. Those on the right argued that some level of manslaughter might be the most he should be found guilty of, although many thought he shouldn't be charged at all.
So, when the protesters were outside the courthouse threatening violence, the most logical conclusion is that those protesters were leftists of some stripe. They were adamant that Chauvin be found guilty, they were primarily black, and they were threatening additional violence if they didn't get what they wanted. You can label them whatever you want, but to argue that they were "fascists" or "right wing" is simply stupid.
Art, you should know better than to argue with Dan when he's defining things. It doesn't matter that he "quotes" an unknown source, which itself refers to unknown "experts". You should simply bow to his demands and move on. That he's too committed to his narrative to acknowledge that "the right" doesn't have a monopoly on any of the things he claims are "fascism", or that his description sounds a lot more like one of the communist countries or an Islamic theocracy, shouldn't be ignored. Hell, by that definition the US under FDR from '39-45 sounds pretty fascistic to me.
He's just going to play semantic games, dodge, bob, weave, and hide behind his vaunted Reason fortified with more lies, vitriol, and gracelessness. Why indulge his bullshit.
"What I did was cite an actual journalistic outfit with integrity and awards to show for their journalistic wherewithal..."
Hardly compelling or impressive without knowing who presented them the awards and for what.
"...and that story cited actual connections to actual maga-types to actual antisemitic people who actually identify as conservative. Facts all the way around."
But not only are those "facts" are no better than a cheap and desperate attempt to suggest a lie and to mitigate the large body of evidence against your kind...the lie being that such suggests something commonplace among conservatives, and that there exists a true parallel between left and right as regards violence.
"What YOU all have done is made stupidly false and unsupported allegations. You've not cited ONE SINGLE liberal with connections to antisemitic behaviors/practices."
This is stupidly false all around. The article I reference proves the premise of the commonality of leftist violence, and we've shown quite enough to indicate anti-Semitic behaviors and practices in just the many pro-Hamas "protests" at American universities alone. In addition, the defense of Mahmoud Khalil by your kind as if the issue is one of free speech rather than his support of Hamas. What's more, the framing of the Israeli response to Gazan atrocity by Khalil, his organization, progressives in general and you in particular as one of aggression, colonialism, war crimes and the like is abject, blatant and unmistakable anti-semitism at the very least.
"For my part, I've made no claims about how common it is to find antisemitic conservatives..."
Well pat yourself on the back for not lying harder than you normally do.
"...just noting that the people who ARE antisemitic today that we know of, tend to identify either as conservative "christian" extremists..."
An abject lie typical of Dan the lying Pervert Queen. The vast majority of anti-Semites "that we know of" are NOT conservative Christians and certainly not of the "extremist" types, because that flies in the face of Christian teaching. But as you like to regard yourself as typical of the progressive Christian type, it is you and yours who lie about the conflict in Gaza and who the true aggressors/oppressors are and who the true victims are. Thus, if you're typical of the "progressive" "Christian", then clearly anti-Semitism is typical of your kind far, far more than it is of the conservative actual Christian ever could be.
Actually, the vast majority people who are antisemites (that we know of) are Muslim. The antisemetic/pro Hamas protesters we see on college campuses are (almost by definition) on the political left.
Dan thinks that he can, by finding one article that makes some accusations, tar everyone on "the right" (or at least a majority) as either antisemitic or at least "supporters" of those who are antisemitic.
Strangely enough, he gets his panties in a wad when he thinks we're doing what he's doing here.
"Religious extremists are always something to be wary of when they embrace hateful, violent, oppressive ideologies."
"Extremist" actual Christians, who are always conservative, do not embrace or indulge in violent, hateful, oppressive ideologies, but being a pervert liar, you're more than willing to presume an extreme or fundamental Christian is akin to an extreme or fundamental muslim, which requires perverting reality to even dare suggest such a thing. You're just the pervert queen for the job.
" I can just as easily cite 100+ year old traditionalist conservative Christians in the Fascist, Nazi, pro-slavery, oppressor class."
No you can't. Not without perverting history and the facts. Then again, since lying comes to easy to you, I guess you could do it easily. It just wouldn't be factual.
"What I do, instead, is point to the reality that fascists 100 years ago DID attack, target, demean and oppress women, people of color, LGBTQ folks, the free press, "liberals," the educated/experts and immigrants AND the fact that many in the modern magop ALSO do the same thing."
You're a liar. You're not pointing out "reality", pervert queen. You're pointing out your perversion of reality. What you call "magop" doesn't do any of those things. Keep in mind, Pervert Queen...this isn't your Blog of Lies and Perversions. This is my blog and lies like yours won't stand unopposed. What you did in that statement was the typical leftist "guilty because a lefty accused another of being guilty". That's not fact OR reality that any honest person would ever recognize.
"I'm pointing to specific actions and policies of modern "conservatives" who embrace tactics of ancient racists, slavers and fascists."
Again, assuming the info from your unreliable leftist source is at all true, it's a meaningless report which in no way mitigates the truth of the many facts presented in the article to which my post referenced, and that was not an exhaustive list. You had to scrape the leftist barrel to come up with the less than a handful of potential examples of conservative anti-Semites.
"The only pervert in the national headlights is your pervert prince..."
From here you go on to repeat that which has been explained, debunked and shown to be no more than the ranting of a pervert lying queen from Jeff St. But because of your Christ-hating persona as a false Christian, you can't help but wallow in the insignificant while daring to pretend that YOUR choice of alternative is actually a better person who is better for the nation. That crap doesn't fly here or anywhere else honest reality is cherished. It can't be said enough: Trump is a far better human being that you or anyone you'd prefer to him is. You're a pervert of the worst kind, while Trump is simply a flawed human being who still knows how to help and improve the nation.
" He is a hedonist who gets his jollies off of "oh, looky, I got a pretty fancy plane with god toilets given to me to keep" and who abuses his office to enrich himself and keep himself out of prison."
What a sad and pathetic liar you are, totally given over by God to your corruption. Trump accepted for use by the US government a gift to the people of the United States in the same way other presidents...such as Grant with regard to the Statue of Liberty...accepted gifts to the nation. What's more, you pathetic piece of shit, he's offered to use his own money to retrofit the gift from Qatar to become Air Force One, at least until Boeing gets their heads out of their asses and finishes the job they are contracted to do. You're a lying fuck who talks out your ass about things about which you spend not a single microsecond to try and understand.
"It's sick, it's anti-Christian, it's irrational and unjust and a threat to a free republic. And perverts within the modern "conservative" extremist movement support this foul ass-stain on our US history."
You and those like you are the true stains on this nation. You're not Christian in any true sense of the word, but only lying fucks who try to convince the stupid that you give a flying rat's ass about the Will of God. With all of his faults, any honest person would prefer the company of Donald Trump to a vile shit-stain like you and those of your kind.
"The facts remain.."
Yes, they do. You just ignore them blatantly. Everything you say defines "liberals" is just talk. What you asshats do is of far more importance as regards the facts which remain. Let's review:
"Liberals are all about, first of all, human rights."
Except for those humans in utero, about whom you don't give a flying rat's ass. Thus, you're a liar.
"Liberals are all about rights specifically for the poor and marginalized..."
Except for the rights of those in utero whom you assholes marginalize in the worst possible manner. I can list a whole host of actual rights of people you reject and ignore while posturing as "good", but this is the worst of it and it well and clearly exposes your kind as moral monstrosities.
"Liberals are all about freedom."
Says the perv who cancels the free speech of those she's unable to counter with truth and fact and logic at her Blog of Lies and Perversions. Your kind cancels the free speech of lots of people on college campuses while promoting murderers at the same time. You sue people who wish to be allowed to enjoy their right to live their faith in business.
"Liberals - especially more modern liberals - tend to lean towards pacifism/peacemaking and certainly away from the war and deadly destruction of fascism."
Despite all the examples of "liberal/leftist/socialist/marxist/Democrat/progressive" violence and war as if calling the worst of your kind "fascists" means they aren't still leftists.
What all this means is that you're all talk. When the chips fall and the shit hits the fan, you're just another scumbag ready to do all which you say is anathema to "liberals".
More later.
"WHO is defending religious liberty (WHICH includes freedom TO practice your religion - Muslim, Jewish, Christian, whatever - as well as freedom FROM religion)? It is progressives (and some few of the good traditional conservatives like my parents were)."
Don't bring up your parents here ever again. Given how poorly you understand what conservatism is....attributing to what you call "modern" conservatism what your kind does...I have no confidence they were conservatives, either, whether good or conservative.
In any event, your kind is most responsible for infringing on the rights of actual Christians and Jews to practice their faith in the everyday living of their lives, especially in business. This has been proven many times.
"That is, we progressives FULLY support Christians - even conservative Christians or conservative Muslims or conservative Mormons, etc - having the freedom to practice their religion UNTIL it interferes with another person's religious liberties."
This is just talk, and worse, it relies on YOUR notion of true religious liberty, which is far from reliable. What's more, you pretend a true, devoted Christian is no different than a true, devoted muslim, which indicates no understanding of either.
"That is, IF you are a conservative opposed to having abortions or getting "gay married," we FULLY SUPPORT your religious liberty to not do those things."
Wow! Pervert Queen Dan says it's OK if we promote, express and live out true and actual Christian teachings! What a swell girl Dan is!
"It's conservative extremists (mormon, christian, muslim, etc) who want to push/force THEIR religious views on others which runs contrary to religious liberty. Again, it is the PROGRESSIVES (and good traditional conservatives) who support religious liberty."
It's the "progressives" who support sodomy, covetousness, infanticide and the rejection of civil laws and then pretends it's supporting "religious liberty". I make no apologies for being an "extremist" Christian, but I do apologize to the One True God you reject for not being even more so. "Progressives" have indeed pushed their foul counter-Christian perversions upon an otherwise Christian nation. Real Christians do not enable sexual perversions and infanticide, nor any of the other lies you perpetrate and love.
More later...
"And who is supportive of immigrants and other marginalized groups? Progressives. WHO are the ones who demonize and refuse to accept immigrants and other marginalized groups? Fascists and conservative extremists."
Now, being the Queen of All Perverts and Perversions, you pervert reality to pretend you have some moral high ground. There is no rejection of, or desire to prohibit immigration by conservatives. "Immigrants" are only those who cross our borders in the manner the law demands. Those who cross illegally are illegal aliens...invaders. Only a pervert progressive would welcome foreigners to ignore our laws and take up residence in our country on their terms. Keep in mind pervert queen, this isn't your Blog of Lies and Perversions. Restrict your lies to that hell hole.
Conservatives don't demonize law abiding immigrants. Conservatives aren't fascistic. Lefties are.
"WHO are the defenders of human rights?"
Conservatives. We don't murder our children in utero. We don't allow illegal entry into our nation so that foreign gang/cartel members can deny the human rights of their murder/rape/human & drug trafficking victims. We don't threaten our Jewish neighbors and students going about their business while we pretend murderous assholes in Gaza are "victims of oppressive apartheid".
"Where are the Human Rights groups on the far right?"
First, there is only "the right". When perverts like you use the term "far right", you're immediately suggesting "the far right" are extremists in a negative way. That's called "lying" you pervert queen. That evidence of false Christianity doesn't fly here. Keep that shit at your Blog of Lies and Perversions.
Our human rights efforts don't entail enabling sexual perversions and anti-Semitism like those "progressive human rights" organizations do. Our human rights efforts defend actual infringements upon good people. Groups like the ACLJ, Thomas More Society, Alliance Defending Freedom, Freedom Watch, Operation Rescue (and any/every other pro-life group). None of these enable the sick shit your vaunted groups do. Everything else is covered by law enforcement and Constitutionally sound courts.
"WHO are the defenders of the free press? Progressives."
More Pervert Queen perverting. Conservatives are defenders of the free press. "Progressives" are defenders of the Democrat propaganda arm which has destroyed legacy media journalism. To defend the assholes who have been mere mouthpieces for fascist marxists of the Dem Party is nothing about which a true Christian would brag. But then, it was you who said it, so...
"Again, progressives are not fascists."
Fascism is the bastard child of socialism/communism from which the progressive movement is patterned.
"On the other hand, modern maga-types ARE embracing the tools and practices of fascists."
Not that you could ever prove with evidence. Lefties always accuse others...even other lefties...of fascism. It's like constantly referring to Republicans as "Hitler". But when you assholes have no real ideas, when you have no actual record of helping anyone, but rather a sad record of creating human suffering, all you have is to demonize better people with terms like "Hitler" or "fascist", and you're not loath at all to perpetuate such crap.
This is Dan the Pervert Queen embracing grace.
This is Pervert Queen Dan embracing grace again. But what could be more fascist, a more egregious example of fascist practice than the murder of one's child in utero, which progressives defend as "necessary". All "prominent progressive leaders" defend the legality of murdering one's own child in utero and lie about its necessity just as the Pervert Queen does. Talk about a "diabolical lie"! But then, progressives lie as a matter of policy.
Then the Pervert Queen dares to rebuke defenders of the unborn in the name of Jesus, as if Jesus would be cool with it. What a vile individual Dan truly is.
"The thing is: Progressive minded people - people who do good for the sake of doing good and who fight for human rights and liberties for all simply because it's the right thing to do - are just literally not fascists."
The thing is, being perverts, "progressive minded people" have a very self-serving notion of what "good" is. If such people aren't "fascists", conservatives are far less so. Progressives create the environments which leads to rights being denied for truly good and innocent people. Conservatives create environments in which more...if not all...people can thrive and survive in peace.
" And, at the same time, the pervert king you all have bedded down with is causing active harm with his lies..."
Here, pervert queen Dan perverts the truth, refers to a good man as "pervert king" because he has no real way to argue against his policies. It's the pervert progressives who are doing the lying. They lie about who's crossing our borders illegally. They lie about how conservatives respond to people in need. They lie about Trump and/or conservative tax policy being for the rich at the expense of the less-than-rich. They lie about the reason for poverty among the lower classes. They lie about homosexuality being immutable. They lie about God being likely to bless the unions of homosexual couples. They lie about abortion being a necessary thing in some cases when it never is. Progressives just lie. Constantly.
" Right now, here in Kentucky, I'm personally familiar with at least half a dozen children and adults with disabilities - kids with Down Syndrome, adults with Cerebral Palsy, folks on the autism spectrum, etc - who are actively LOSING benefits today."
Trump has moved to end DEI in agencies dependent upon government funding. If funding is cut, then the agencies in question have refused to end their DEI policies. Given it's you describing these alleged issues with which you are "personally familiar", I've no doubt that the issues are less about Trump than you are suggesting. You're a liar and thus you are not a reliable source, which means your anecdotal stories aren't worth a damn here. If you have something more tangible than your stories, feel free to present them.
"They are being told daily and in hundreds of ways, "Just go away and die. We don't want your kind here." They're not stupid, they know what the pervert king and his allies are doing."
Doubtful. It's doubtful those denying them are telling them the truth about why they're being denied. Perverts like you lie when you are the cause of the suffering of others.
In any case, given you're a known liar...the pervert queen who perverts reality...I'm not inclined to believe any of your anecdotal stories, and I certainly don't believe dozens of disabled people are running to Dan Trabue to relate their woes getting their disability checks. More likely is one or two told someone and you're hearing the same stories dozens of times from different people.
"They are being told daily and in hundreds of ways, "Just go away and die. We don't want your kind here." "
No one's telling them anything like that. That's just you perverting reality to make it sound sadder for effect.
"Same for immigrants living in fear right now, here today. PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACTUALLY FACED oppression and death threats back home, NOT your lily white racists and descendants of racists in S Africa."
Typical racist response from a fascist progressive. Fuck those white people being butcherd in SA and having their land stolen from them by marxist black people, right? Let's just pretend only those who cross our borders are truly under truly direct threats to their lives, though you can't prove that's more common than Americans being under threat from violent gangsters your asshole presidential choice invited into our country. It's OK of our women are raped and murdered, our cops assaulted (remember those horrid J6ers who wrestled with a few Capitol cops...OOH how the Trump-hating progressive grace embracers can't forget that horrid scuffling!).
You're a freaking joke, Dan, you pervert.
More later.
Right wing violence/threats
1865 - today - KKK
1860s-1950s - Jim Crow lynchings and oppression
1921 - Tulsa massacre
1950s-1960s - "Red Scare"
1960s - Bull Connor, KKK, other assaults on freedom for all people
1963 - 16th St Baptist Church bombing
1968 - Dr King assassination
1978 - Aryan Nation founded
1992 - Ruby Ridge
1993 - Waco
1995 - Oklahoma City Bombing
1996 - 1998 - Eric Rudolph bombings of abortion centers
2000s - various attacks and threats from the so-called "boogaloo movement," conservative extremists
2008 - Racist attacks surge following Obama's election
2012 - Multiple arson attacks on Muslim, Hindu, Shi'ite buildings in NYC
2018 - Tree of Life antisemitic mass shooting
...too many to list!
2014 - Armed takeover of Nature refuge by the Bundy family and allies
2015 - Mass murderer Dylann Roof assault on Charleston church
2016-2020 - Neo-Nazi and white extremist presence and protests increasing, being empowered by Trump
2021 - Jan 6 Insurrection
2024-2025 - Neo-Nazi and white extremist presence and protests increasing, being empowered by Trump
https://amarkfoundation.org/reports/violent-attacks-on-houses-of-worship/
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/right-wing-extremist-terrorism-united-states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boogaloo_movement
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-and-racism-what-do-the-data-say/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/18/white-nationalist-hate-groups-southern-poverty-law-center
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/is-the-political-climate-influencing-a-spike-in-racist-incidents
https://www.france24.com/en/20081119-racist-attacks-surge-after-obamas-victory-
Too many to list? You perverted liar! A quick scan of your list immediately reveals most, if not all, are not right wing at all, but leftist violence. You lying assholes simply refer to such things as right-wing because lying is what you do. I'll be going over these in more detail later, as I'm still responding to previous hateful comments by you from a few days ago.
That's a cute little claim you make there, Marshal. And if merely saying it made it so, you might have a point.
But of course, a stupidly false and unsupported claim is just that.
Dan
Strangely enough Dan can't grasp the possibility that "religious progressives" can also be extremists and that their actions can also be harmful. Of course anyone can take things out of context and twist them to support all sorts of nonsense. That Dan claims he can do things, doesn't do them, but expects that we pretend that he has done them, is just a manifestation of his arrogance and hubris.
What are "god toilets"? Dan can't keep his identities straight when he comments, now this...
Riots, arson, violence, occupation of public spaces, support for Hamas, unlimited immigration, allowing criminals release to commit multiple crimes, and a lying political and media class are all perfectly fine in Dan's imaginary construct. None of those things are "anti-Christian" or the like.
Sounds like one of Dan's tricks. Keep repeating something and pretending like that makes it True.
Well since the first few of those were/are literally DFL actions and He simply pretends that some of them are "right wing" issues. Ignoring that the "Red Scare" was led by a DFL congressman, and that history has demonstrated that McCarthy was more correct than leftists would like to admit.
So many of these things seem to be assumptions on Dan's part regarding the motivation of those involved.
It's amazing how one can organize a fantasy world where he can simply dismiss the actions of the ASPL over the last 10-20 years as inconsequential and immaterial, yet drag up all sorts of random stuff (some of which was literally done by the DFL) and announce that every bit of it can be blamed on his political enemies. That every action represents "mainstream conservative" philosophy and can't be dismissed as "fringe". It must be nice living in a fantasy world.
If one was to look at the total cost, in lives and money, of the ASPL riots starting from the '60s through today by both measures they would dwarf the cost of "conservative" actions.
I'm going to start with your links, pervert. A-Mark is ostensibly an outfit with an interest in journalism, its mission statement: Making focused grants to organizations that offer awards to promote and encourage journalism and investigative reporting.
However, for your purposes, I saw nothing in the link making any claims about the political persuasions of the perpetrators of attacks on houses of worship. It has a section on motivations and such, but it doesn't mention politics. It does mention white supremacy, references Biden's baseless concerns about an expansion of white supremacy in the US, but says nothing about any political connections.
It's long been clear that progressives...being liars with no legitimate argument against the policies and positions of the conservative right...likes to throw around libelous/slanderous labels toward the right, such as "racist", "fascist" and of course "white supremacist" and thus I've no doubt that the mention of the latter term to you...being a lying pervert progressive...means conservative or "right-wing". But saying so doesn't make it so and you'll need something more to make that connection than this link.
More to come...
Shocking, two Jews killed by a pro-Hamas Hispanic and Dan will insist that he's conservative.
That Dan can have his head so far up his own ass, as to believe that no ASPL would ever engage in violence or that any who do are "fringe", is almost as delusional as those who believe that a man can become a woman.
It's really quite easy, Craig. Simply label every violent crime as the result of "right wing extremism" and you're good to go. I'll be addressing this tactic in time.
Now for the second link. This one is especially problematic given the many criticisms the ADL has endured in recent years, particularly since Jonathan Greenblatt replaced Abe Foxman as national director. A detailed accounting of the criticisms since this guy took over can be found here: https://www.jns.org/whatever-happened-to-the-adl/.
That Democrat hackery might have something to do with the "study" presented in the link Dan offered. Regardless, I offer a counter to it with the following:
https://www.businessinsider.com/adl-extremism-ultraright-wing-violence-statistics-anti-defamation-league-2020-4?op=1
My source doesn't necessarily drip with animosity toward the ADL, nor suggest ill intent. But he does present problems with their methodology and examples of how they misrepresent cases of violence which results in overstating...wildly so in my opinion...the threat of "right wing extremism/terrorism" or that it is escalating terribly, if at all. It's hard to determine when they count cases of, say, a Klan member murdering his wife. Indeed, my source is far more careful in counting only those who are motivated by ideology...attacking, say, a black person in order to indicate a truly "white supremacist" act. Even then, just because a white guy murdered a black guy doesn't mean it was a racial situation. We see this when the situation is reversed. Somehow blacks attacking whites aren't immediately regarded as a racial hate crime. The criteria used by my source is far more specific to the issue rather than the more vague criteria of Dan's.
Of course it's easy, otherwise Dan wouldn't use the tactic. That it's inaccurate, false, and ultimately slanderous, is the point. At least when Dan imputes responsibility/guilt to the entire "conservative" movement.
The problem with so much of this discussion is exemplified by the Kendi model in which every difference between blacks and whites can only be explained by racism. Unfortunately, whites might kill or harm blacks for reasons which have nothing to do with race (and vice versa), yet those crimes are assumed to be racially motivated with no actual evidence.
It would be bizarre if we looked at the statistics, which clearly state that blacks kill substantially more whites that the reverse, and to automatically assume that every one of those instances was racially motivated. It's possible, but probably not likely.
Dan's third link references the Boogaloo movement. This one's most curious, as the "movement" lacks true organization on the one hand, absolute disparities in beliefs on the other and no site I've thus far read speaks at all to the size of this "movement". All this seems rather necessary if one wishes to add them to a list of evil right-wingers to prove a false premise of widespread and growing "right-wing extremism/terrorism". So they're at least convenient for that purpose, and as Dan needs as many examples as possible to make his false point, so be it.
Except for those who insist they aren't racists, there does seem to be those who are and who seek to exploit leftist "peaceful protests" to stoke a race war. Others seem to attack government like the progressive terrorists do, so it makes things even more confusing. As I believe the extreme of the center right moves toward anarchy, while the extreme of the center left results in total government control, to call these guys "right wing extremists" might fit, except that conservatism doesn't demand no government, but merely the least degree of it necessary to maintain order, cohesion and defense.
But again, Dan needs to pad his lists, so...
Dan's fourth link...the Brookings piece...is a real piece of crap. So much so that it doesn't surprise me that Dan chose to include, though as with all the links he provides to support his false premises, I fully doubt he read this one, either.
The entire piece not only wallows in correlations, it actually acknowledges the reality that correlation isn't causation:
"The data analysis discussed above has centered on correlations; they are suggestive of a link between Trump and racist attitudes and behavior, but do not actually demonstrate that one leads to the other."
But that's not enough, for it then says,
"In experiments, being exposed to Trump’s rhetoric actually increases expressions of prejudice."
A quick scan of this survey reveals a plethora of problems. Look at the Trump quote about Mexicans and who they're sending. This one quote alone provokes several questions about any given person being surveyed who responded negatively when seeing a picture of Mexicans or the mere word "Mexican":
1. Was the person familiar with the entire context from which the quote was drawn, thus knowing it wasn't referring to Mexicans in general?
2. Was the person predisposed to having racist attitudes prior to exposure to Trump in any way?
3. The Hillary quotes do not seem to be similar.
These and other questions came to mind as I went through this survey report. Given it seems to leave so much to be desired, it seems perfect for Brookings and more so for you, for whom objective fact regarding Trump, "MAGA people" and conservatives in general is not important. This Brookings piece is the worst so far. But here's one truth is presents, though I doubt they realize how it indicts them:
"increasingly, partisanship skews what Americans think qualifies as racist."
This is never more true than it is for progressives. The entire concept of what racism is or has become is the result of the leftist leanings of the progressive/marxist/Democrat. They abuse and pervert words and their meanings as it serves them to do so, and racism is but one example. It's easy to label another when one gets to define the label. To the progressive, everyone's a racist if one is white and conservative. Everyone is Hitler if one is white and conservative. And every white conservative is thus an extremist in the most negative sense a progressive can assert.
The worst part of this article is the assertion that Trump's rhetoric is necessarily conducive to racist tendencies or to promoting racist behaviors. It doesn't get into the weeds regarding the alleged increase in violence they insist is directly correlated to what they construe as racist rhetoric from Trump. It's quite typical crap one sees from the progressive left all the time.
With Dan's fifth link to the Guardian, things are not getting better for him. Among Britons, it ranks as the most left-wing news paper in the UK, while the Daily Mail is regarded as the most right-wing, according to this piece:
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/17715-how-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers
What's most notable is that the opinions aren't altered by a Briton's own political leanings. That is, a lefty Brit also regards the Guardian as heavily left-leaning. (I think that stat is rater cool!)
But just to drive that point home, it cites the execrable Southern Poverty Law Center, who regards "Moms For Liberty" as a hate group. The history of the SPLC renders any citation of their work as a non-starter. But, all Dan needs is some asshat organization to spew the same crap Dan does, and for him it's golden. Here, it's evidence of an intent to deceive.
Number six on Dan's list of hit jobs is PBS. Right there, we can pretty much dispense with them as a viable source of truthful, objective information. They too have a ranking member of the SPLC and we can see from the jump they're making the same causation claims without evidence that what they regard as spikes in extremism is the result of Trump's election.
Dan's last link is more of the same with heavy use of the SPLC to make their assertions.
None of this is evidence of Dan's premise. All of it is mere like-minded leftist assertion of an unsubstantiated premise. As I've show with regard to Dan's first or second link, a truly deep dive rebukes the notion of a rise in "right-wing" extremism or terrorist activity.
One of the egregious omissions, be it intentional or not, is how the lefties doing all this fearmongering determine that a person is "right-wing". Evidently, it's by their actions. If a person or group attacks black people, they're racist and therefore right-wing. If a person or group burns down an abortion mill, they're right-wing. I'm not seeing any evidence that any of the people labeled "right-wing extremists/terrorists" have a voting record of voting for the GOP candidates. I guess despite the many Dem voting women marginalized by the typical Dem hags due to being pro-life doesn't suggest that an Obama supporter might be responsible for attacking Planned Parenthood locations. But this is how those like Dan operates. The idea isn't to attack perpetrators of bad behaviors, but where possible, to attribute those behaviors as typically conservative or "right-wing". This is how he can provide is first list and think he's made his point. I'll get to those later.
Now I'm going to look at some from Dan's list of "Right wing violence/threats"
1865 - today - KKK
1860s-1950s - Jim Crow lynchings and oppression
1921 - Tulsa massacre
1950s-1960s - "Red Scare"
1960s - Bull Connor, KKK, other assaults on freedom for all people
1963 - 16th St Baptist Church bombing
1968 - Dr King assassination
It's interesting that a list of "Right wing violence/threats" would begin with seven citations of left-wing terrorism. Even in the case of MLK's assassination, James Earl Ray was a fan of George Wallace...a Democrat. Bull Connor was also a Democrat. The Klan was always Democrat, especially in those days and likely still are, though they may be as put off by the current marxist/progressive/Democrat Party as much as normal people are.
1978 - Aryan Nation founded
Also not "right-wing" given they worship a socialist named "Adolph Hitler", are a mix of left-wing militants like the Klan. It's really a stretch to regard them as "right-wing" and until that term is more strictly defined by the very people who wish to project their own violence upon conservatives, it's just a smear and a baseless one at that.
1992 - Ruby Ridge
This one is especially problematic. The Weavers were basically loners in the woods. While the reason was their distrust of government, they weren't particularly active or intent to engage in criminal behavior. Randy Weave did, though, check out a nearby radical group, in which he met an ATF informant who basically entrapped Weaver by getting Weaver to procure a couple of saw-off shotguns, which are illegal for reasons not even the dumbasses who made them so can explain in a logical manner. Weaver was subsequently arrested for handing over the guns to the informant and was assigned a court date, which he missed because the courts erroneously gave him a date a month after the actual court hearing. This is what led the feds to seek to arrest him. It went downhill from there after one of the feds shot at Weaver's kid and another who lived with them. In short, what occurred at Ruby Ridge was a clusterfuck similar to Waco.
So that makes nine of Dan's list of 21 which are not what he asserts they are, as well as each of his links not supporting his premise. Thus, together that's well over half of Dan's "proof" of his claims regarding violence being a "right-wing" thing, while even if we concede them all, he's still got a long, long way to go to overcome the examples provided in the article cited in my post.
The problems with Dan's "right wing extremist" nonsense are plentiful.
1. He cant' accurately quantify how many there are.
2. He can't point to any actual violent actions that these groups have engaged in (J6 Was barely violent when compared to recent left wing violence).
3. J6 was one incident compared to the regular rioting of the left from 2014-present.
4. He assumes that 10 "right wing" guys out in the woods are equivalent to 10,000 left wing rioters burning and looting.
5. Most of the "right wing extremist" groups are people who want to be left alone.
In short, Dan needs the "right wing extremists to be a huge threat. He needs something to counterbalance the left wing riots/occupations/destruction that's happened since 2014 and he needs there to be more "right wing" groups and a bigger "threat" regardless of the reality. Therefore he needs to pretend that actions and groups that are heavily associated with the DFL are magically "right wing".
Clearly, Dan's bought into the baseless narrative that the greatest threat to the nation is (take your pick) "white nationalism", "right-wing extremism", Donald Trump, "MAGA" Republicans. They are all the same to Dan and those like him (including of course, Joe Biden and the Dem party), while a truly stronger connection between progressives, marxists, anti-Americanism is obvious. So, in order to stoke fear of those center-right, he joins the chorus of lefty liars demonizing typical conservatives, Christians and/or Republicans as the source of danger to the land.
As I near the end of Dan's list, there are still serious issues with most of them as to their being justly used as evidence of Dan's greatly flawed narrative in response to the facts of the article I cited in my post. Waco, for example, doesn't present anything which would suggest "right-wing extremism". It was only a case of cult and the crimes they were alleged to have perpetrated. Were it not for those, no one would ever have cared about them and remnants of the original religious group remain.
OK City bombing suggests anti-government motivations for McVeigh. But regardless of who is in the White House or Congress, there will be those who oppose that government. Thus, anti-government is still somehow "right-wing"?
I could not find anything definitive about Eric Rudolph's politics and reading his statement from prison didn't really give a solid understanding in that regard. His opposition to abortion might be considered a conservative stance, given conservatism's righteous regard for abortion as murder. It's hard to oppose his extreme actions in defense of the defenseless and innocent, and harder still to pretend his actions are more vile than the butchers who engage in infanticide for money and who're responsible for orders of magnitude more killings than Rudolph. But again, if defending the innocent victims of selfishness makes one "right-wing", I'm good with it. The problem isn't with those who care about the defenseless. It's those who don't and have legislated the protection of the worst of them.
Racist attacks following Obama election. A link would have been good, though I doubt it could provide proof that all attacks they might list were indeed all motivate by racism or Obama's election. What's even less likely is noting the political persuasion of those motivated by race.
The same would go for arson attacks on religious buildings. And it must not be ignored that hoax crimes are perpetrated to stoke animosity toward conservatives. Jussie Smollet is but one example.
Robert Gregory Bowers was a mental case. Thus, even if he was a registered Republican...as Timothy McVeigh was, at least for a time...that doesn't mean his motivations were a true representative of center-right philosophy. Note how poorly Dan Trabue understands conservatism or Christianity!
The Cliven Bundy situation is fascinating. It all began when leftists declared a tortoise as endangered and thus a tract of land used by the Bundy family since 1954 was closed to their cattle. I don't agree with the subsequent arguments against the feds regarding land rights and ownership, but were it not for that damned tortoise... In any case, what a stretch to include this one!
Yes, Dan needs bogeymen to stoke fear of. He's probably one of the idiots that believed that 10k/year unarmed black dudes got killed by cops. He probably believes that throwing money at schools that graduate the functionally illiterate will magically make things better. He simply chooses to ignore reality, while clinging to his pet bogeymen.
In general, I'm not sure that I'd ever consider cults as "right wing" , but whatever it takes to add to the list.
OK City seems like one of the more possible instances, yet as you note, there's no real hard evidence that McVeigh was really right wing politically. As far as "anti government", it's amazing how this philosophy has gone from the left wing counterculture types in the '60s to getting hung on every single conservative today.
Dan probably thinks that the "attacks" on Wallace and Smollette were "right wing extremists" too.
I agree that the Bundy thing is a stretch to include on this list. It seems like a clear government overreach and I'm pretty sure he used the legal system for remedy.
By and large, it's just a list thrown together with little thought or research as a tactic to put you on the defensive, while Dan gets to merely brush off thousands of ASPL rioters, looters, and arsonists, and no big deal at all.
Dylan Roof, just a kid, was simply a racist. This is another attempt by members of the racist party...like Dan and other Democrats...to project their own history onto the right side of the political divide. Now, this is not to say there are no racists...to one degree or another...among the right. But to automatically assert that racism is now, magically after all these centuries, a GOP thing is pure bullshit. The Dems are still purveyors of identity politics, and racism is one aspect of it.
Finally, there's these laughable entries:
2016-2020 - Neo-Nazi and white extremist presence and protests increasing, being empowered by Trump
2021 - Jan 6 Insurrection
2024-2025 - Neo-Nazi and white extremist presence and protests increasing, being empowered by Trump
Dan and pervert liars like him enjoy pretending Trump "empowers" racists and nazis. They go out of their way to pervert Trump's rhetoric, never taking a single second's effort to actually listen to what he says, preferring instead to intentionally assert the lie that he's racist. Thus, they just as falsely connect any behavior or activity of racists/nazis to Trump as well.
And J6? An outlier event of ever there was one. A righteous concern about a suspicious election "win" likely incited into a disturbance by non-"MAGA" people or Trump supporters, over-hyped as "the worst attack on our 'democracy'" since the Civil War, Sept 11, 2001, Pearl Harbor and Disco Demolition. What rot!
All and all, what remains is no solid, definitive explanation for why racism and anti-government activity is naturally "right-wing" and thus "fascist". It's just lying lefties' sad attempt to portray their ideological opponents as worse people than they are. Unlike the post, none of the list can confirm the same direct connection as is clear in the post between leftism and violence.
Dan fails yet again.
"It's not that liberals aren't smart, it's just that so much of what they know isn't so." --Ronald Reagan
In a way, I can't blame him. I wouldn't want to be associated with all the suffering caused by leftists. But facts are facts no matter how much Dan needs to make up his own.
In some cases, they aren't smart. Or more likely, they aren't as smart as they believe themselves to be.
Dan is really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. First he chooses to ignore that SCOTUS ruled that protests/parades by NAZIs and other vile groups are protected speech. That Dan would choose to abridge the free speech rights of some groups is a troubling, almost fascist, idea. That he also ignores the fact that the "fine people on both sides" hoax has been long discredited and clings to that bullshit would be amusing if it weren't so representative of all the other discredited bullshit he believes.
What Dan sees as being "empowered" is really more like Trump refusing to be the fascist Dan desperately wants him to be. Dan might actually applaud Trump for a fascist act is Trump rounded up the protesters Dan doesn't like and refused those protesters their first amendment protections. Strange;ly enough, if one actually looks at these protests (along with the Tea Party) you see thousands of peaceful, orderly, people who show up and protest then leave things clean.
Of Dan's entire list J6 is probably the only one that actually "proves: his point. The problem is that we have vast amounts of evidence that it was an outlier event. Even with the loss of control, J6 was over quickly and caused minimal harm. Maybe Dan and his fanciful theories about the ASPL are always perfect, but occasionally real people lose control. J6 started as a legitimate, peaceful protest about legitimate concerns, and people went overboard. There are questions about the role of LE in provoking things, which should be investigated, but the reality is that the protesters should have maintained control. It was a regrettable incident, yet one not repeated, nor with any precedent.
If we were to place the ASPL "protests" and J6 on a scale, the balance would far and away tilt to the left. Starting in 2014 the various "BLM" riots culminating in the 2020 Summer of Love and the threats of violence intended to sway the Chauvin jury, the damage and harm caused by the ASPL far outweighs that caused by the "right".
Dan just wants to set up this double standard where any action, however small, engaged in by someone to his "right" is automatically an indictment of mainstream conservatives, while any action on the left is always the responsibility of "fringe outliers". Even when it's thousands of people, lasts for months, and causes billions of dollars in damage and harms innocent people.
Absolutely. Dan also tries to legitimize violence as "voices not heard" or some perversion of MLK's intention.
Further tilting the scales are the several cases of "trans" people committing violent acts, including murder, the Stonewall riot, the "Occupy Wall St" and its variations.
I've mentioned the Nashville school shooter as well. The chances that anyone "trans" is "right wing" are virtually zero, yet we see more "trans" shooters and it's likely those numbers will only increase.
I'll note (maybe again) that Dan has never actually dealt with the examples you've given. He's dismissed them, but that only ignores reality in his mind not in the real world.
Post a Comment