Independence Day just ended. It is now the 5th. Back to the conversation the left doesn't really want to have. As we're told by "progressive" white guys to listen to black voices, and then admonished for only listening to conservative voices, as if we haven't heard the others, it seems clear that it is the "progressives" that have no interest in hearing all black voices out there. In a previous post, I've provided a number of really solid black voices, most of which actually have substance and evidence carried and delivered by their voices. Here, I am posting another from one of the best. For Thomas Sowell, facts and evidence are paramount when it comes to suggesting "fixes" to what ails the black community. This is a guy who knows marxism, having been a marxist himself in his younger days. Now, at 90, he can make a leftist look stupid with very little effort, knowing them better than he knows himself, and of course, knowing the facts.
Among the problems plaguing the black community is education deficiency. The left insists more money is the problem. That's because the left is stupid. Sowell's latest book, considered by himself as the most important of all the many he's written, is about charter schools and how the leftists that have run the education system in this country for decades have failed the minority student by ignoring the real needs in favor of spending other people's money...mostly on themselves.
If the two champions of the black community, Dan and feo the false priest, truly care about black lives, they need to watch intently this video from start to finish and then buy Sowell's book, and definitely more of them. They have no clue. Sowell will provide them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3428&v=9boQrCPwMws&feature=emb_logo
I have no doubt they won't bother. They prefer platitudes.
Sunday, July 05, 2020
Saturday, June 27, 2020
Continuing The Conversation: The Challenge
Over at Dan's blog, he challenged me to speak about Langston Hughes and the Harlem Renaissance. He got his panties in a wad after I stated that Hughes' poem, like MLK JR's speech of a previous post, were not relevant to the situation of race relations today. I stand by that while he and his troll do nothing to defend the contrary opinion. Like most on their side of the divide today, any disagreement, question, critique or objection to anything said by, or in defense of, the black community is racist.
In any case, I decided to take up the challenge he laid before me in the comments section following the post in question. Because Dan is not an honorable boy and can't be trusted to actually engage on an intellectual level (or what passes for one in his fevered imaginings), I must also post my response to him here. Between the two of us, we haven't much of a blog following. But by posting my response here, everyone will know that I did my part. Should he choose not to engage, I will have further reason to believe his kids were most likely the result of a sperm donation because he clearly has no balls. So what follows is my response, and despite it wasn't exactly how I wanted my next post to go, it does cover some of what I wanted to say in it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Harlem Renaissance was a time when black and white Americans alike “discovered” the vibrancy and uniqueness of black art, music, and especially, literature. Large numbers of black artists could earn their livings and be critically acknowledged in their fields. The distinction of black cultural heritage and its manifestation was in vogue during this period. There was a strong communist influence among the Black intelligensia in this area (though it certainly wasn't unheard of in America in general at that time---Woodrow Wilson was a far left "progressive" after all). And along with the proliferation of the N.A.A.C.P. and the Urban League (begun in the 1910's), there was also a proliferation of licentiousness, with cabarets for homosexuals and transvestites common in its nightlife (which no doubt attracts Dan even more).
"Good God have mercy on your poor, pitiful damned soul."
You shouldn't pray to the God for Whom you have no true devotion, and certainly not after presuming you can do His job.
But from the above arrogance, you go on to make your demands, as if they change the point. Nonetheless, here we go:
"THEN, apologize for your various comments and maybe you can comment here and try to offer something rational, rather than something ignorant."
Until you find spine enough to demonstrate in what way my comments are ignorant or irrational...which means something more than simply asserting such because you don't like and can't counter what I say...then my comments are neither.
"Their words ARE relevant. Of course. Just ask and listen to black people and other rational people."
Again, just saying someone agrees with you doesn't make it so. An actual argument in defense of the proposition might. Give it a try. My argument is coming below.
"That you want to pretend that their words are not still relevant because racism has been "solved" and things are all better now, does not make it so."
Not in the least an accurate reflection of anything I've ever said, here or elsehwere.
"I'll give you ONE chance to give a review on the whole poem and tell me what you think it means."
It's no mystery. In nutshell, it's simply saying what others have said and continue to say, which is that the ideals of American...the intention of what America was meant to be...haven't been realized. Not at all a unique sentiment. Most anyone can say it and not be wrong, except by doing so it demands a perfection the speaker himself hasn't attained, either. But of course, despite Hughers mostly speaking as a black man, the poem doesn't speak only on behalf of the black community. Like the typical leftist...and he was a socialist for sure, if not a full on communist...he was a social justice warrior and speaks for that cause with this poem. Again, no mystery here.
"Why is this poem still so relevant and powerful today?"
This question is problematic. It assumes I find it either. I'm not sure you could find a majority of black people today even know who the guy is, much less know of this particular poem. Certainly YOU find it both, yet you have to ignore the many advances in race relations (and other areas of American life) in order for it to be "still so relevant". I'm sure you have no problem doing that. Powerful and relevant for whom? I mean besides yourself and other socialists? The America of today is not the America of Hughes' time. The conditions for the black community is not at all the same now as then. I doubt that Hughes, like King, would not wonder what the hell the typical black activist is whining about.
"What makes it a classic poem?"
Again, "classic" to whom? Certainly to social justice warriors, poets, perhaps and no doubt those among the leftist black variety. But like those who influenced him as a writer and poet, his preference for "speaking normally" or in the character of the average person made him stand out and accessable. It spoke to the conditions of the time from the perspective of a black leftist.
"Do you think that it was ever a relevant poem, or was Hughes way off in his assessment of US history?"
Most poems are relevant to somebody. This one was likely relevant to other leftists of his day more than to others who weren't leftists. Like similar works of all eras, it was certainly worthless to those who took a rosier view of life and/or America...that is, those who are honest enough to acknowledge American isn't perfect, but still honestly recognize what it was meant to be, was at the time, and what it can be. The thing is, here was a guy who lived during a time when racism was far more prevalent and blatant, and he earned his living doing what he loved to do. Yet, poems like this are his whining about how bad a place American is. He had none of the MANY advantages available to black people today, and STILL succeeded tremendously...writing poems!!! (among other things of course) That would suggest his assessment, as indicated by this poem, is a bit off.
" Show me that you're not coming from a place of ignorance on Hughes..."
It's typical that you regard disagreement with you as "coming from a place of ignorance", as if you're opinions and position come from a place of great wisdom. You don't feel the need to back up that attitude because that would take effort and and actual argument that is coherent and fact-based. You want to believe that I've never heard of the guy simply because I don't hold him in the same high regard as you, especially in your bulshit pro-BLM, "Art's a racist" mode. The fact is that I wouldn't need to know who he was to have an opinion of his work and whether or not it is relevant to today. Unlike you, I can defend my opinion.
"...on what basis would we consider your crazy hunches that it's no longer relevant to be relevant?"
On the basis I mentioned already. The conditions now are far improved over what the conditions were back in the days of either Hughes or King. Of this there is no debate. What lies at the heart of current whining is the false excuse of "racism", not a true "systemic" racism or even the blatant, widespread racism of their time. If this were not true, how can test scores for black students of Harlem in the 1930 be equal to and sometime better than whites of nearby schools? How could most black children be familiar with their fathers, since they were still living at home with Ma? How could the out-of-wedlock childbirth rate be better than whites? Yet today, none of this is the case in an America with FAR less racism (most whites bending over backwards to avoid having anyone think they're racist), equal opportunity laws, affirmative action, welfare up the wahzoo, and a host of other "legs up" available BECAUSE one is black. And you want to tell me this poem is still relevant today? That the King speech you posted is still relevant today? Tell me how.
Now go ahead and delete this you pathetic, lying coward. It's far easier than "listening" or having a conversation you pretend to want to have with those who reject the BLM, white guilt, white privilege bullshit narrative.
In any case, I decided to take up the challenge he laid before me in the comments section following the post in question. Because Dan is not an honorable boy and can't be trusted to actually engage on an intellectual level (or what passes for one in his fevered imaginings), I must also post my response to him here. Between the two of us, we haven't much of a blog following. But by posting my response here, everyone will know that I did my part. Should he choose not to engage, I will have further reason to believe his kids were most likely the result of a sperm donation because he clearly has no balls. So what follows is my response, and despite it wasn't exactly how I wanted my next post to go, it does cover some of what I wanted to say in it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Harlem Renaissance was a time when black and white Americans alike “discovered” the vibrancy and uniqueness of black art, music, and especially, literature. Large numbers of black artists could earn their livings and be critically acknowledged in their fields. The distinction of black cultural heritage and its manifestation was in vogue during this period. There was a strong communist influence among the Black intelligensia in this area (though it certainly wasn't unheard of in America in general at that time---Woodrow Wilson was a far left "progressive" after all). And along with the proliferation of the N.A.A.C.P. and the Urban League (begun in the 1910's), there was also a proliferation of licentiousness, with cabarets for homosexuals and transvestites common in its nightlife (which no doubt attracts Dan even more).
"Good God have mercy on your poor, pitiful damned soul."
You shouldn't pray to the God for Whom you have no true devotion, and certainly not after presuming you can do His job.
But from the above arrogance, you go on to make your demands, as if they change the point. Nonetheless, here we go:
"THEN, apologize for your various comments and maybe you can comment here and try to offer something rational, rather than something ignorant."
Until you find spine enough to demonstrate in what way my comments are ignorant or irrational...which means something more than simply asserting such because you don't like and can't counter what I say...then my comments are neither.
"Their words ARE relevant. Of course. Just ask and listen to black people and other rational people."
Again, just saying someone agrees with you doesn't make it so. An actual argument in defense of the proposition might. Give it a try. My argument is coming below.
"That you want to pretend that their words are not still relevant because racism has been "solved" and things are all better now, does not make it so."
Not in the least an accurate reflection of anything I've ever said, here or elsehwere.
"I'll give you ONE chance to give a review on the whole poem and tell me what you think it means."
It's no mystery. In nutshell, it's simply saying what others have said and continue to say, which is that the ideals of American...the intention of what America was meant to be...haven't been realized. Not at all a unique sentiment. Most anyone can say it and not be wrong, except by doing so it demands a perfection the speaker himself hasn't attained, either. But of course, despite Hughers mostly speaking as a black man, the poem doesn't speak only on behalf of the black community. Like the typical leftist...and he was a socialist for sure, if not a full on communist...he was a social justice warrior and speaks for that cause with this poem. Again, no mystery here.
"Why is this poem still so relevant and powerful today?"
This question is problematic. It assumes I find it either. I'm not sure you could find a majority of black people today even know who the guy is, much less know of this particular poem. Certainly YOU find it both, yet you have to ignore the many advances in race relations (and other areas of American life) in order for it to be "still so relevant". I'm sure you have no problem doing that. Powerful and relevant for whom? I mean besides yourself and other socialists? The America of today is not the America of Hughes' time. The conditions for the black community is not at all the same now as then. I doubt that Hughes, like King, would not wonder what the hell the typical black activist is whining about.
"What makes it a classic poem?"
Again, "classic" to whom? Certainly to social justice warriors, poets, perhaps and no doubt those among the leftist black variety. But like those who influenced him as a writer and poet, his preference for "speaking normally" or in the character of the average person made him stand out and accessable. It spoke to the conditions of the time from the perspective of a black leftist.
"Do you think that it was ever a relevant poem, or was Hughes way off in his assessment of US history?"
Most poems are relevant to somebody. This one was likely relevant to other leftists of his day more than to others who weren't leftists. Like similar works of all eras, it was certainly worthless to those who took a rosier view of life and/or America...that is, those who are honest enough to acknowledge American isn't perfect, but still honestly recognize what it was meant to be, was at the time, and what it can be. The thing is, here was a guy who lived during a time when racism was far more prevalent and blatant, and he earned his living doing what he loved to do. Yet, poems like this are his whining about how bad a place American is. He had none of the MANY advantages available to black people today, and STILL succeeded tremendously...writing poems!!! (among other things of course) That would suggest his assessment, as indicated by this poem, is a bit off.
" Show me that you're not coming from a place of ignorance on Hughes..."
It's typical that you regard disagreement with you as "coming from a place of ignorance", as if you're opinions and position come from a place of great wisdom. You don't feel the need to back up that attitude because that would take effort and and actual argument that is coherent and fact-based. You want to believe that I've never heard of the guy simply because I don't hold him in the same high regard as you, especially in your bulshit pro-BLM, "Art's a racist" mode. The fact is that I wouldn't need to know who he was to have an opinion of his work and whether or not it is relevant to today. Unlike you, I can defend my opinion.
"...on what basis would we consider your crazy hunches that it's no longer relevant to be relevant?"
On the basis I mentioned already. The conditions now are far improved over what the conditions were back in the days of either Hughes or King. Of this there is no debate. What lies at the heart of current whining is the false excuse of "racism", not a true "systemic" racism or even the blatant, widespread racism of their time. If this were not true, how can test scores for black students of Harlem in the 1930 be equal to and sometime better than whites of nearby schools? How could most black children be familiar with their fathers, since they were still living at home with Ma? How could the out-of-wedlock childbirth rate be better than whites? Yet today, none of this is the case in an America with FAR less racism (most whites bending over backwards to avoid having anyone think they're racist), equal opportunity laws, affirmative action, welfare up the wahzoo, and a host of other "legs up" available BECAUSE one is black. And you want to tell me this poem is still relevant today? That the King speech you posted is still relevant today? Tell me how.
Now go ahead and delete this you pathetic, lying coward. It's far easier than "listening" or having a conversation you pretend to want to have with those who reject the BLM, white guilt, white privilege bullshit narrative.
Friday, June 12, 2020
Continuing The Conversation
Self-loathing, white-guilt, fake Christians like feo and Dan Trabue tell us we need to "listen to black voices". What they mean, of course, even while denying it, is that we should listen to those black voices they find personally compelling...voices that not only move them personally, but validate their own far left notions about race in America. They say this as if we haven't been listening for decades...since the time of Martin Luther King Jr. we've been listening. There's been so much listening since that time that a host of policies have been implemented to address the concerns listed by those voices. And still it's not enough. It will never be enough for some, for some like to pretend they're furthering King's work, while in reality they share in the responsibility for the conditions about which contemporary "black voices" now refer.
I will be getting into some of King's words another time. Words the above mentioned fakes have presented to make their white-guilt, pseudo-privileged, pseudo-sanctimonious arguments. But for now, I am presenting a number of black voices that do not buy into what the fakes and their fake black leaders are selling. They have better in mind for the black race and have stats and facts to back up their positions...something we never get from those to whom the two fakes insist we must listen. What follows requires time, because most of what I've chosen is more than a few minutes long. Close to an hour for a couple, a bit more or less for others. Yet what you'll hear is a perspective that the fakes dismiss as "outliers", which isn't necessarily untrue. But these "outliers" aren't speaking from emotion and myth and indoctrination handed down from a time when things should have been far worse but yet from which so many transcended nonetheless, leaving the majority of "voices" from today without excuse...because things are so much better. Take the time if you really want to prove you care, lefty fakes. Facts, truth and reality changed a few of those that are highlighted below. In no particular order, I begin:
Talk about a guy who was down with the narrative!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Y35EpOiFc&feature=emb_rel_end
This next person is quite young as of the time of this interview. He says a few things that make me believe he's still on his journey, but he's clearly very intelligent and may alter those points of concern. Overall, I dig him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R6kUiKQkxc
The kids really need to listen to this black voice. He's speaking to them!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9wWF1_YFBA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2hqL5KkHc
The great Walter Williams also had his journey from leftist to intelligent. The first two cover some of the same things, but are both worth the time for those who claim it's important to listen to black voices...and actually mean it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtzqsoM7-q4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZGvQcxoAPg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_serzVQbU
It wouldn't be right to not include something by the great Thomas Sowell, a black voice that, like Williams, even black people need to hear and study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5csE8q9mho
The following I added because the interviewer could be Dan or the troll. He's trying hard to get Washington to validate his white-guilt perceptions of the black struggle. Denzel won't have any of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tXLCkDOaD4
Some more from Denzel and others
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjJRfuVPRuY
Larry Elder on Ice Cube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzdzAaFsZks
-----This last one brings up an interesting question, one I've heard expressed a couple of times recently: for all the black celebrities and politicians, and all the "white privileged", white-guilt celebrities and politicians, how many of them live within the black communities where all the systemic racism is plaguing the people? None of them do. At best, they go in and pass out handouts of one form or another, (with some trying to actually mentor kids now and then...however that looks to them) but they all continue to support the same type of politicians who have done nothing for the last fifty years or more to actually improve things.-----
But I digress. The voices above differ from those to whom Dan would have us listen by actually having real evidence and data to support their changes of heart. They are truly "woke" in a way the asshats only pretend to be, and it's brought them hatred from those who find the truth to be inconvenient. These people would have the voices Dan and feo find compelling to bring forth their evidence for what they believe and insist we believe, too. It never happens.
And here's something else that won't happen. Neither of the fakes...Dan and the troll...will watch these videos and bring forth anything that will truly contradict what these brilliant voices say.
I will be getting into some of King's words another time. Words the above mentioned fakes have presented to make their white-guilt, pseudo-privileged, pseudo-sanctimonious arguments. But for now, I am presenting a number of black voices that do not buy into what the fakes and their fake black leaders are selling. They have better in mind for the black race and have stats and facts to back up their positions...something we never get from those to whom the two fakes insist we must listen. What follows requires time, because most of what I've chosen is more than a few minutes long. Close to an hour for a couple, a bit more or less for others. Yet what you'll hear is a perspective that the fakes dismiss as "outliers", which isn't necessarily untrue. But these "outliers" aren't speaking from emotion and myth and indoctrination handed down from a time when things should have been far worse but yet from which so many transcended nonetheless, leaving the majority of "voices" from today without excuse...because things are so much better. Take the time if you really want to prove you care, lefty fakes. Facts, truth and reality changed a few of those that are highlighted below. In no particular order, I begin:
Talk about a guy who was down with the narrative!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Y35EpOiFc&feature=emb_rel_end
This next person is quite young as of the time of this interview. He says a few things that make me believe he's still on his journey, but he's clearly very intelligent and may alter those points of concern. Overall, I dig him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R6kUiKQkxc
The kids really need to listen to this black voice. He's speaking to them!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9wWF1_YFBA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi2hqL5KkHc
The great Walter Williams also had his journey from leftist to intelligent. The first two cover some of the same things, but are both worth the time for those who claim it's important to listen to black voices...and actually mean it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtzqsoM7-q4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZGvQcxoAPg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq_serzVQbU
It wouldn't be right to not include something by the great Thomas Sowell, a black voice that, like Williams, even black people need to hear and study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5csE8q9mho
The following I added because the interviewer could be Dan or the troll. He's trying hard to get Washington to validate his white-guilt perceptions of the black struggle. Denzel won't have any of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tXLCkDOaD4
Some more from Denzel and others
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjJRfuVPRuY
Larry Elder on Ice Cube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzdzAaFsZks
-----This last one brings up an interesting question, one I've heard expressed a couple of times recently: for all the black celebrities and politicians, and all the "white privileged", white-guilt celebrities and politicians, how many of them live within the black communities where all the systemic racism is plaguing the people? None of them do. At best, they go in and pass out handouts of one form or another, (with some trying to actually mentor kids now and then...however that looks to them) but they all continue to support the same type of politicians who have done nothing for the last fifty years or more to actually improve things.-----
But I digress. The voices above differ from those to whom Dan would have us listen by actually having real evidence and data to support their changes of heart. They are truly "woke" in a way the asshats only pretend to be, and it's brought them hatred from those who find the truth to be inconvenient. These people would have the voices Dan and feo find compelling to bring forth their evidence for what they believe and insist we believe, too. It never happens.
And here's something else that won't happen. Neither of the fakes...Dan and the troll...will watch these videos and bring forth anything that will truly contradict what these brilliant voices say.
Saturday, June 06, 2020
The Conversation Begins. I'm MORE Than Willing To Have It.
Eric Holder once asserted that we are a nation of cowards when it comes to talking about race. White-guilt wieners insist along with the race-hustlers that we must listen to black voices. But who are the real cowards when it comes to such discussions, and who is it who is not truly listening?
For years we've been hearing those black voices tell us all sorts of things with regard to why they're so downtrodden. For years we've been told it is the white people and their privilege that is the cause. Yet, where's the evidence? If we're to listen, why can we not question what we're told?
I think it's clear that for the most part, what is said is mostly a matter of what is perceived to be true rather than what is. Yet when we speak in response, when will the other side listen? It seems they don't want to. Here's an example:
Recently, Drew Brees reiterated his position that kneeling during the national anthem is something he can't support, that it is disrespectful to the flag. The response to this is that it's not about the flag. OK. But it is about the nation for which it stands, and the original kneeler who so much provoked the current "conversation" we're "too cowardly" to have said otherwise:
"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."
Clearly, it's about the flag and the nation for which it stands. Or isn't it? I guess when people say it's about the flag, then it no longer is. In any case, we hear what he's saying, and what he's saying is crap. No one is oppressing black people and people of color. Oh wait!!! Let me insert the caveat here: "Sure, there are still racists and always will be." There. Got that crap out of the way...as if it's in any way supportive of the "America is racist" bullshit!
To finish up the true objection to kneeling during anthems, it continues like this: Football (or whatever professional sport) is the job. The team owner, as well as the league, is the employer. The people in the stands and watching on TV are the customers. See where I'm going with this?
---No one comes to a game to see some schmuck protest, nor are they concerned with whatever it is he's protesting. It's not the time for it. Those that think one shouldn't get upset with a brief protest like kneeling during the anthem, that it's not too much to ask for one to be allowed to do so, can pound sand up their ass. How about if I show up to your birthday party and start preaching, or get up on a soapbox and pontificate about this, that or the other? It's not the time or place and regardless of my sincere concerns about whatever the hell it is that bothers me, it would be appropriate to be told to shut the hell up and keep it to myself for another more appropriate time.
---The right to protest does not give one liberty to protest absolutely anywhere at any time. The Constitutional right to free speech refers to that which critiques the government, and as such, the appropriate place to protest is at the local governmental office, like the city, state or federal capitol. Not a freakin' football game, concert or awards show. At those venues, no one cares.
---Asshat professional athletes have money enough to pay for other methods of expressing their ignorance and falsehoods, as well as legitimate grievances. They can form organizations to foment unrest and the perpetuation of falsehoods or they can contribute their big bucks to already formed organizations that are already doing that.
---Asshat professional athletes and entertainers can use some of that wealth they've accumulated by being citizens of such a depraved, oppressive and racist nation to learn a few facts, study the issue and get educated before the open their big mouths and prove just how freakin' stupid they are.
Our own false-priest turd, feo, tried to post an off-topic comment which was a quote from Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:
""So, maybe the black community's main concern right now isn't whether protesters are standing three or six feet apart or whether a few desperate souls steal some T-shirts or even set a police station on fire, but whether their sons, husbands, brothers and fathers will be murdered by cops or wannabe cops just for going on a walk, a jog, a drive."
Another stupid man, because this is exactly the lie believed by so many as if they need to do so in order to be in the club. Those who don't abide it are "Oreos", "House niggers", "Uncle Toms". Cops do NOT go around murdering black people, and they certainly don't do so "just for going on a walk, a jog, a drive". It's patent nonsense put forth as true, and it is no more than an excuse for other issues. "He only stopped me because I'm black."
Here's the thing: Because of such asinine assertions, white people, by and large, go WAY, WAY, WAY the hell out of their way to avoid giving any impression that they're racist. (Even racists likely do so!) But it's fruitless to make such an effort. Assholes will continue to accuse just as one of them, feo, does constantly. Yet it shows how much effort is already been put forth by most white people...that is, the vast majority of them. Some even go so far as to stupidly apologize for it despite never personally exhibiting any sign or symptom of a racist nature. OH, the assholes will say, YOU don't even KNOW you're racist. Very convenient. Very much a lie told by liars.
So this is the beginning of my conversation on race. There will most definitely be more to come. And we will see how it's not really a conversation they want. It's something far more insidious.
For years we've been hearing those black voices tell us all sorts of things with regard to why they're so downtrodden. For years we've been told it is the white people and their privilege that is the cause. Yet, where's the evidence? If we're to listen, why can we not question what we're told?
I think it's clear that for the most part, what is said is mostly a matter of what is perceived to be true rather than what is. Yet when we speak in response, when will the other side listen? It seems they don't want to. Here's an example:
Recently, Drew Brees reiterated his position that kneeling during the national anthem is something he can't support, that it is disrespectful to the flag. The response to this is that it's not about the flag. OK. But it is about the nation for which it stands, and the original kneeler who so much provoked the current "conversation" we're "too cowardly" to have said otherwise:
"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."
Clearly, it's about the flag and the nation for which it stands. Or isn't it? I guess when people say it's about the flag, then it no longer is. In any case, we hear what he's saying, and what he's saying is crap. No one is oppressing black people and people of color. Oh wait!!! Let me insert the caveat here: "Sure, there are still racists and always will be." There. Got that crap out of the way...as if it's in any way supportive of the "America is racist" bullshit!
To finish up the true objection to kneeling during anthems, it continues like this: Football (or whatever professional sport) is the job. The team owner, as well as the league, is the employer. The people in the stands and watching on TV are the customers. See where I'm going with this?
---No one comes to a game to see some schmuck protest, nor are they concerned with whatever it is he's protesting. It's not the time for it. Those that think one shouldn't get upset with a brief protest like kneeling during the anthem, that it's not too much to ask for one to be allowed to do so, can pound sand up their ass. How about if I show up to your birthday party and start preaching, or get up on a soapbox and pontificate about this, that or the other? It's not the time or place and regardless of my sincere concerns about whatever the hell it is that bothers me, it would be appropriate to be told to shut the hell up and keep it to myself for another more appropriate time.
---The right to protest does not give one liberty to protest absolutely anywhere at any time. The Constitutional right to free speech refers to that which critiques the government, and as such, the appropriate place to protest is at the local governmental office, like the city, state or federal capitol. Not a freakin' football game, concert or awards show. At those venues, no one cares.
---Asshat professional athletes have money enough to pay for other methods of expressing their ignorance and falsehoods, as well as legitimate grievances. They can form organizations to foment unrest and the perpetuation of falsehoods or they can contribute their big bucks to already formed organizations that are already doing that.
---Asshat professional athletes and entertainers can use some of that wealth they've accumulated by being citizens of such a depraved, oppressive and racist nation to learn a few facts, study the issue and get educated before the open their big mouths and prove just how freakin' stupid they are.
Our own false-priest turd, feo, tried to post an off-topic comment which was a quote from Kareem Abdul-Jabbar:
""So, maybe the black community's main concern right now isn't whether protesters are standing three or six feet apart or whether a few desperate souls steal some T-shirts or even set a police station on fire, but whether their sons, husbands, brothers and fathers will be murdered by cops or wannabe cops just for going on a walk, a jog, a drive."
Another stupid man, because this is exactly the lie believed by so many as if they need to do so in order to be in the club. Those who don't abide it are "Oreos", "House niggers", "Uncle Toms". Cops do NOT go around murdering black people, and they certainly don't do so "just for going on a walk, a jog, a drive". It's patent nonsense put forth as true, and it is no more than an excuse for other issues. "He only stopped me because I'm black."
Here's the thing: Because of such asinine assertions, white people, by and large, go WAY, WAY, WAY the hell out of their way to avoid giving any impression that they're racist. (Even racists likely do so!) But it's fruitless to make such an effort. Assholes will continue to accuse just as one of them, feo, does constantly. Yet it shows how much effort is already been put forth by most white people...that is, the vast majority of them. Some even go so far as to stupidly apologize for it despite never personally exhibiting any sign or symptom of a racist nature. OH, the assholes will say, YOU don't even KNOW you're racist. Very convenient. Very much a lie told by liars.
So this is the beginning of my conversation on race. There will most definitely be more to come. And we will see how it's not really a conversation they want. It's something far more insidious.
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Shotgunned Thoughts On The Current State Of Affairs
I'm about as fed up as one can be with this whole COVID-19 nonsense. There's just too much that has been unnecessarily imposed upon the American people, unjustly imposed, unconstitutionally imposed. When Donald Trump was elected president, imbeciles began a #Resist movement (an impotent movement...a bowel movement...but a movement nonetheless) as if Trump was some sort of despot. But now, when despotism and fascism is apparent in various Dem controlled states, these pathetic imbeciles are silent. It's astounding.
---I recently had someone scold me over a comment I made about the sheep who aren't #Resisting, comparing them to those who hopped on the boxcars taking them to the showers. The Jewish-in-heritage-only woman doesn't see the similarities between the incremental encroachment of nazi oppression and what we're seeing now with the suspension of Constitutional rights by Dem governors. We may not get to the point of jackbooted police state tactics, but we're seeing that which led to it and there's no reason why anyone should abide any of it or any degree of it. It's wrong and it's absolutely unAmerican to infringe upon our clearly enumerated Constitutional rights.
---I agree with those who see all this as the best means by which the left can persuade the populace that Trump is worth deposing come election time. The longer they extend the oppression, the more difficult it will be for the economy to recover. That's clearly the plan. I don't think it will work. Open things up and the economy will come roaring back because this virus thing is not an economic policy. That which Trump set forth that led to our economic boom is still in place and the effects of his policies will then be unshackled and the result will be the same.
---I also believe that Dem governors presiding over states economically devastated by years of Democratic malfeasance are looking to exploit this virus situation as a means by which they can suck federal tax dollars that can then be used to cover all the fiscal damage they've done...all the debt they've racked up...that came before the virus. Dems are economic idiots.
---I cannot stand the many commercials and PSA's that are exploiting this situation. The whole "we're in this together" line is crap, given we're forced to distance ourselves from each other. And then to run commercials and ads of people happily "making the best of it" is outrageously deceitful, given the reports of increases in suicides, spousal and child abuse, substance abuse, etc. The whole thing is unnatural, both as Americans and simply as human beings. We crave being together and doing things together and socializing and visiting and touching and hugging. Masks, gloves, distancing...these are all unnatural and, totally unreliable for achieving the goals purported to be the reason they're imposed upon us.
---It is a lie that those who reject masks or distancing are being selfish. Neither are confirmed as necessary or effective in protecting us from infection. There are at least two studies that indicate that no stay-at-home, social distancing policy has had any effect on the time-line of virus spread. It's presence and duration are unchanged by such policies and thus, there's no need to have imposed them. I get that in the beginning it made sense to play it safe. But we're way passed the point at which we learned what is effective and what isn't. And we're still finding things that prove masks and distancing are unnecessary for the vast majority of the populace.
---Worse than the commercial exploitation, is the many attempts to have celebrities appeal to us to continue the worthless practices, as if they are impacted to the extent the average citizen is. I am personally still enjoying the novelty of the new place into which the Mrs and I moved, but that novelty is wearing off quickly while being denied freedom. The luxury in which movie, TV and sports stars live is not at all the same, nor is the fact that they have the funds to sustain them for far longer periods of time than are those whose jobs were criminally considered "non-essential". I don't need some asshat to sing to me from their living room as if it is a free concert that enhances my imprisonment. They are far worse sheep who insist that I be sheep as well.
---While on the one hand it's hard not to regard people walking outside or driving alone while wearing masks to be absolute morons, I have to remind myself that many have been induced into abject fear that they are moments away from contracting the Black Plague. This is evil to have done this to the populace. They have stolen reason and threw it out the window.
---There is no problem by the usual suspects to highlight cases of severe suffering by those few who have the worst cases of infection and then die. This is exploited to rationalize the many idiotic prohibition unconstitutionally imposed upon the public. This tactic suggests that there is no worse way to die and thus, we must hide. Bullshit. Is it worse than being murdered? Worse than burning alive? Worse than jumping out of the World Trade Center rather than being burned alive? Is it worse than dying of cancer? Are there any people who, dying of cancer, pneumonia...the flu...comfort themselves by saying, "At least it's not COVID-19?"
---What we're experience is the worst case of "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" that we've seen in some time. Who the hell asked them? I never asked my evil governor to keep me healthy. Not THAT obese SOB! I have never asked anyone for such assistance (not even my doctor, really) and DEFINITELY not the government, who has no business meddling in health care in the first place.
---Some of the most egregious acts of government overreach includes the prosecution of small business owners who decide to ignore unjust orders to remain closed because they need to suppport their families, the attacks on churches who try to bend over backwards to serve their flocks while upholding idiotic health policy mandates (most of which have no real effect on who gets sick or not), the harassment of families in parks playing with their own children. These are but a few of the examples that should elicit a real #Resist attitude in those who hate Trump. Cowards all.
---I ignore requests to wear masks where I can. Now and then there are things I must have and in order to get them I don my kerchief AFTER walking in and take it off upon paying for the product. More often than not I go without. I understand that some businesses are forced to comply with corporate dictates, who believe themselves forced to comply with despotic government dictates. Others are trying to consider those who have been made to fear for their lives, and thus they cater to them by mandating customers wear masks. That's sad, because it's actually enabling the despots as well as enabling irrational fear.
---Life is risk. We have ALWAYS been at risk for contracting infections that can lead to our demise. This will always be the case. As more data continues to roll in, we find that this virus is really no different than the annual flu. Sure. It might be a bit more contagious, and it might be a real pain in the ass to experience. But all disease left untreated can get really bad and possibly lead to death. All disease impacts people differently depending upon the strength of their immune systems. This one is no more or less than the others nor is there justification for the reaction under which we all continue to suffer. In my life I've dealt with mononucleosis, swine flu, pneumonia (twice) and various strains and severity of flu. While the last ten years has been among the most healthy decades of my 65 years, even with a mild case of emphysema nagging me as well. God will take me when He's good and ready. I'll not live in fear of disease but instead will continue to take reasonable precautions. This crap has to end...NOW!
---I recently had someone scold me over a comment I made about the sheep who aren't #Resisting, comparing them to those who hopped on the boxcars taking them to the showers. The Jewish-in-heritage-only woman doesn't see the similarities between the incremental encroachment of nazi oppression and what we're seeing now with the suspension of Constitutional rights by Dem governors. We may not get to the point of jackbooted police state tactics, but we're seeing that which led to it and there's no reason why anyone should abide any of it or any degree of it. It's wrong and it's absolutely unAmerican to infringe upon our clearly enumerated Constitutional rights.
---I agree with those who see all this as the best means by which the left can persuade the populace that Trump is worth deposing come election time. The longer they extend the oppression, the more difficult it will be for the economy to recover. That's clearly the plan. I don't think it will work. Open things up and the economy will come roaring back because this virus thing is not an economic policy. That which Trump set forth that led to our economic boom is still in place and the effects of his policies will then be unshackled and the result will be the same.
---I also believe that Dem governors presiding over states economically devastated by years of Democratic malfeasance are looking to exploit this virus situation as a means by which they can suck federal tax dollars that can then be used to cover all the fiscal damage they've done...all the debt they've racked up...that came before the virus. Dems are economic idiots.
---I cannot stand the many commercials and PSA's that are exploiting this situation. The whole "we're in this together" line is crap, given we're forced to distance ourselves from each other. And then to run commercials and ads of people happily "making the best of it" is outrageously deceitful, given the reports of increases in suicides, spousal and child abuse, substance abuse, etc. The whole thing is unnatural, both as Americans and simply as human beings. We crave being together and doing things together and socializing and visiting and touching and hugging. Masks, gloves, distancing...these are all unnatural and, totally unreliable for achieving the goals purported to be the reason they're imposed upon us.
---It is a lie that those who reject masks or distancing are being selfish. Neither are confirmed as necessary or effective in protecting us from infection. There are at least two studies that indicate that no stay-at-home, social distancing policy has had any effect on the time-line of virus spread. It's presence and duration are unchanged by such policies and thus, there's no need to have imposed them. I get that in the beginning it made sense to play it safe. But we're way passed the point at which we learned what is effective and what isn't. And we're still finding things that prove masks and distancing are unnecessary for the vast majority of the populace.
---Worse than the commercial exploitation, is the many attempts to have celebrities appeal to us to continue the worthless practices, as if they are impacted to the extent the average citizen is. I am personally still enjoying the novelty of the new place into which the Mrs and I moved, but that novelty is wearing off quickly while being denied freedom. The luxury in which movie, TV and sports stars live is not at all the same, nor is the fact that they have the funds to sustain them for far longer periods of time than are those whose jobs were criminally considered "non-essential". I don't need some asshat to sing to me from their living room as if it is a free concert that enhances my imprisonment. They are far worse sheep who insist that I be sheep as well.
---While on the one hand it's hard not to regard people walking outside or driving alone while wearing masks to be absolute morons, I have to remind myself that many have been induced into abject fear that they are moments away from contracting the Black Plague. This is evil to have done this to the populace. They have stolen reason and threw it out the window.
---There is no problem by the usual suspects to highlight cases of severe suffering by those few who have the worst cases of infection and then die. This is exploited to rationalize the many idiotic prohibition unconstitutionally imposed upon the public. This tactic suggests that there is no worse way to die and thus, we must hide. Bullshit. Is it worse than being murdered? Worse than burning alive? Worse than jumping out of the World Trade Center rather than being burned alive? Is it worse than dying of cancer? Are there any people who, dying of cancer, pneumonia...the flu...comfort themselves by saying, "At least it's not COVID-19?"
---What we're experience is the worst case of "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" that we've seen in some time. Who the hell asked them? I never asked my evil governor to keep me healthy. Not THAT obese SOB! I have never asked anyone for such assistance (not even my doctor, really) and DEFINITELY not the government, who has no business meddling in health care in the first place.
---Some of the most egregious acts of government overreach includes the prosecution of small business owners who decide to ignore unjust orders to remain closed because they need to suppport their families, the attacks on churches who try to bend over backwards to serve their flocks while upholding idiotic health policy mandates (most of which have no real effect on who gets sick or not), the harassment of families in parks playing with their own children. These are but a few of the examples that should elicit a real #Resist attitude in those who hate Trump. Cowards all.
---I ignore requests to wear masks where I can. Now and then there are things I must have and in order to get them I don my kerchief AFTER walking in and take it off upon paying for the product. More often than not I go without. I understand that some businesses are forced to comply with corporate dictates, who believe themselves forced to comply with despotic government dictates. Others are trying to consider those who have been made to fear for their lives, and thus they cater to them by mandating customers wear masks. That's sad, because it's actually enabling the despots as well as enabling irrational fear.
---Life is risk. We have ALWAYS been at risk for contracting infections that can lead to our demise. This will always be the case. As more data continues to roll in, we find that this virus is really no different than the annual flu. Sure. It might be a bit more contagious, and it might be a real pain in the ass to experience. But all disease left untreated can get really bad and possibly lead to death. All disease impacts people differently depending upon the strength of their immune systems. This one is no more or less than the others nor is there justification for the reaction under which we all continue to suffer. In my life I've dealt with mononucleosis, swine flu, pneumonia (twice) and various strains and severity of flu. While the last ten years has been among the most healthy decades of my 65 years, even with a mild case of emphysema nagging me as well. God will take me when He's good and ready. I'll not live in fear of disease but instead will continue to take reasonable precautions. This crap has to end...NOW!
Tuesday, May 05, 2020
Fini
This shouldn't take too long.
"Your first step will come when you learn to recognize what you can't even admit and perhaps don't even see."
This is funny. The following is what Dan thinks I should be seeing:
"
By attacking these women with your hateful, rape-sympathizing slurs, you are extending an attack to all women."
This one line is chock-full of distortions and absurdity.
a) I'm not "attacking" anyone, including the two whores/sluts whose "honor" Dan thinks he's defending. To call a spade a spade is not attacking the spade. Whores and sluts is simply what they are based on their own testimonies. Are those the words they used? Not to my knowledge. But again, a rose by any other name....Again, there's no word to describe women who do what they do that makes it any less wicked and no more acceptable. The proverbial "hooker with a heart of gold" is still a hooker.
b) Describing a sinner by her sin is not hateful. It's a statement of fact...nothing more, nothing less. There's no emotion involved as there is no emotion necessary. It simply is. Nor, to prevent the charge, is it a judgement. It's not as if they haven't admitted to indulging in the sinful behaviors that warrant the terms.
c) Calling whores and sluts, "whores" and "sluts" has nothing to do with rape. Nothing. But Dan needs it to be so. He's far too invested, far too "given over" to his hatred for Trump that he needs as much justification as he can muster in order to pretend his hatred is somehow righteous...as if hatred ever is when directed to another human being. And when anyone disagrees with his hatred, questions his rationalizations, he then must attack them also as being supportive of all the evil to which he attributes to Trump. "Whore" and "slut" are not words used for those who have been raped. The word for them is "victim". That rapists may refer to their victims as whores, sluts or any other word does not mean those words do not have proper applications, regardless of how badly Dan needs that to be so.
d) By properly describing the character of these two women, I'm not attacking them (except with truth/fact/reality) and much, much less women in general. Again, more absurdity of a level matched only by Dan's sock-puppet, feo. This lame angle is an attempt to portray me as painting all women with a broad (no pun intended) brush despite my focus being on two specific women. It's simply one more thing Dan needs to be true in order to not face the reality that his defense of these two women is moronic.
"By defending Trump, you are defending all sexual predators."
So Dan needs to believe, but the reality is that I have not defended Trump's sexual immorality at all. EVER! And here, I'm not defending Trump in any way. Here, I'm attacking Dan's hateful attacks on Trump because they're so ludicrous. Dan needs to regard Trump as negatively as possible. That's why he uses loaded terms such as "sexual predator". There's no evidence that he's ever engaged in any sexual behavior that wasn't consensual. There's only allegations, and as regards the two innocent whores/sluts in question, there's only the allegation that he engaged in a adulterous affair with their willing selves. "Predator" is an incredibly strong term for a guy who just likes to get laid with any woman he finds attractive. There's no proof that he's ever been involved with anything more than a "it takes two to tango" situation. If the women are willing...consenting...there's no more predation on his part than there is on theirs...which is every bit as likely, particularly with the two in question.
"By giving him a pass (in your vote for him and his defense of him), you are defending all sexual predators."
By giving Obama a pass in your vote for him and your defense of him, you are defending all baby murderers. This is a truer statement than Dan's of me.
"So, THAT is why your attacks on these women will not stand. Not here and not with men and women of good moral reasoning."
Well, there's very little of that where Dan is concerned as we've seen quite clearly over the years! Dan and "good moral reasoning" do not go together at all.
"I will thank you for taking the time to answer some simple questions and do so relatively directly."
("relatively"???) " I am sorry, however, that you entirely miss the point."
Didn't miss the point at all. I've been mocking it all through my last post and this one!! Your point is idiotic, false and without basis in actual fact...radical feminist studies in a nutshell.
"You admit you do not know these women or their history. And yet, your ignorance and cowardice allows you to attack them in the same way that sexual predators and rapists do. You do not know these women."
I do indeed admit I do not know these women or their history. Neither do you. I DO know that they are both what I called them because of their histories clearly known to us. I don't need to know every detail of their past lives to know them by their fruits. At the same time, you know nothing of Trump's history and think you are still justified in labeling him in all manner of progressive Christian grace-embracing ways with far less fact to justify it. As sinful a life as he has led...and seemingly admitted to living...you go far, far beyond that to over hype just how bad it might never have been. I do nothing more than point out that these two women are more than admitted whores and sluts, there's actual film and pictures to prove it! And despite this disparity...despite there being more tangible proof of their sinfulness, you take their word over Trump's denial, which is what led to all this nonsense of yours. Now you're boxed into another one of your corners and you're attacking me in your attempt to extricate yourself. Just keep embracing that grace, fraud!
"Jesus did not condemn the "woman caught in adultery," nor did he use abusive oppressive slurs towards her. He did the opposite."
THIS again! This perversion of Scripture!! This abject lie! Jesus didn't condemn the woman because He had no authority to do so as a mere man (He has authority to do so as God if the woman ignores His encouragement to "sin no more"). From the lips of Christ, what could be more "oppressive" than to be recognized as a sinner?? To say Christ didn't condemn her is not the same as pretending she wasn't the adulterous she was (according to the text). You continue to mistake "condemnation" with "labeling". They are not the same at all. In order to condemn, one must be guilty of something for which some form of condemnation is appropriate, even if the decision to condemn is withheld. He never said or implies that she wasn't an adulteress worthy of condemnation. He just didn't condemn her. In the same way, I haven't condemned anyone, either...including the two whores/sluts in question. It seems you think being called an "adulteress" is not an oppressive thing to call a woman. I'm sure you could call any of the women in your life such a thing and they'll be cool with it, right? I'm sure you can call any woman you're certain actually IS guilty of that sin an adulteress and SHE'D be cool with it, right? You're an idiot. To condemn is to pass sentence...here, a stoning. To condemn is NOT to identify the crime or to label the perpetrator of the crime the term that applies.
I don't need to know the history of a murderer to justly refer to such a person as a murderer if it is a fact that the person committed murder. To acknowledge such a person is a murderer is not a condemnation. It is simply a statement of fact. I don't need to know the history of these two women to know what they are, either, for that, too, is a fact as such, acknowledging that fact is not condemnation. If I have made either the women or the murderer victims, I have victimized them with facts. The following is not in any way a fact:
"And if that fails, then recall the other words of Jesus:
For I was oppressed, poor, marginalized, a victim of rape and harassment by sexual predators... and you did nothing to help. Indeed, you attacked me with vulgar words and accusations while defending the rapist who attacked me."
What Gospel is this from specifically, Dan? Cite chapter and verse or admit you're engaging in your typical blasphemy. Every time you dare to paraphrase Christ in order to push your agenda, you commit blasphemy by your willful perversion. And to do so in order to lie about me (or whomever) makes it worse. And this is to say nothing of the fact that the above are NOT "the other words" of Christ. While you attack Trump, you expose just how corrupt you are.
Yeah, I don't need to defend him. You need to defend your unChristian behavior.
"Your first step will come when you learn to recognize what you can't even admit and perhaps don't even see."
This is funny. The following is what Dan thinks I should be seeing:
"
By attacking these women with your hateful, rape-sympathizing slurs, you are extending an attack to all women."
This one line is chock-full of distortions and absurdity.
a) I'm not "attacking" anyone, including the two whores/sluts whose "honor" Dan thinks he's defending. To call a spade a spade is not attacking the spade. Whores and sluts is simply what they are based on their own testimonies. Are those the words they used? Not to my knowledge. But again, a rose by any other name....Again, there's no word to describe women who do what they do that makes it any less wicked and no more acceptable. The proverbial "hooker with a heart of gold" is still a hooker.
b) Describing a sinner by her sin is not hateful. It's a statement of fact...nothing more, nothing less. There's no emotion involved as there is no emotion necessary. It simply is. Nor, to prevent the charge, is it a judgement. It's not as if they haven't admitted to indulging in the sinful behaviors that warrant the terms.
c) Calling whores and sluts, "whores" and "sluts" has nothing to do with rape. Nothing. But Dan needs it to be so. He's far too invested, far too "given over" to his hatred for Trump that he needs as much justification as he can muster in order to pretend his hatred is somehow righteous...as if hatred ever is when directed to another human being. And when anyone disagrees with his hatred, questions his rationalizations, he then must attack them also as being supportive of all the evil to which he attributes to Trump. "Whore" and "slut" are not words used for those who have been raped. The word for them is "victim". That rapists may refer to their victims as whores, sluts or any other word does not mean those words do not have proper applications, regardless of how badly Dan needs that to be so.
d) By properly describing the character of these two women, I'm not attacking them (except with truth/fact/reality) and much, much less women in general. Again, more absurdity of a level matched only by Dan's sock-puppet, feo. This lame angle is an attempt to portray me as painting all women with a broad (no pun intended) brush despite my focus being on two specific women. It's simply one more thing Dan needs to be true in order to not face the reality that his defense of these two women is moronic.
"By defending Trump, you are defending all sexual predators."
So Dan needs to believe, but the reality is that I have not defended Trump's sexual immorality at all. EVER! And here, I'm not defending Trump in any way. Here, I'm attacking Dan's hateful attacks on Trump because they're so ludicrous. Dan needs to regard Trump as negatively as possible. That's why he uses loaded terms such as "sexual predator". There's no evidence that he's ever engaged in any sexual behavior that wasn't consensual. There's only allegations, and as regards the two innocent whores/sluts in question, there's only the allegation that he engaged in a adulterous affair with their willing selves. "Predator" is an incredibly strong term for a guy who just likes to get laid with any woman he finds attractive. There's no proof that he's ever been involved with anything more than a "it takes two to tango" situation. If the women are willing...consenting...there's no more predation on his part than there is on theirs...which is every bit as likely, particularly with the two in question.
"By giving him a pass (in your vote for him and his defense of him), you are defending all sexual predators."
By giving Obama a pass in your vote for him and your defense of him, you are defending all baby murderers. This is a truer statement than Dan's of me.
"So, THAT is why your attacks on these women will not stand. Not here and not with men and women of good moral reasoning."
Well, there's very little of that where Dan is concerned as we've seen quite clearly over the years! Dan and "good moral reasoning" do not go together at all.
"I will thank you for taking the time to answer some simple questions and do so relatively directly."
("relatively"???) " I am sorry, however, that you entirely miss the point."
Didn't miss the point at all. I've been mocking it all through my last post and this one!! Your point is idiotic, false and without basis in actual fact...radical feminist studies in a nutshell.
"You admit you do not know these women or their history. And yet, your ignorance and cowardice allows you to attack them in the same way that sexual predators and rapists do. You do not know these women."
I do indeed admit I do not know these women or their history. Neither do you. I DO know that they are both what I called them because of their histories clearly known to us. I don't need to know every detail of their past lives to know them by their fruits. At the same time, you know nothing of Trump's history and think you are still justified in labeling him in all manner of progressive Christian grace-embracing ways with far less fact to justify it. As sinful a life as he has led...and seemingly admitted to living...you go far, far beyond that to over hype just how bad it might never have been. I do nothing more than point out that these two women are more than admitted whores and sluts, there's actual film and pictures to prove it! And despite this disparity...despite there being more tangible proof of their sinfulness, you take their word over Trump's denial, which is what led to all this nonsense of yours. Now you're boxed into another one of your corners and you're attacking me in your attempt to extricate yourself. Just keep embracing that grace, fraud!
"Jesus did not condemn the "woman caught in adultery," nor did he use abusive oppressive slurs towards her. He did the opposite."
THIS again! This perversion of Scripture!! This abject lie! Jesus didn't condemn the woman because He had no authority to do so as a mere man (He has authority to do so as God if the woman ignores His encouragement to "sin no more"). From the lips of Christ, what could be more "oppressive" than to be recognized as a sinner?? To say Christ didn't condemn her is not the same as pretending she wasn't the adulterous she was (according to the text). You continue to mistake "condemnation" with "labeling". They are not the same at all. In order to condemn, one must be guilty of something for which some form of condemnation is appropriate, even if the decision to condemn is withheld. He never said or implies that she wasn't an adulteress worthy of condemnation. He just didn't condemn her. In the same way, I haven't condemned anyone, either...including the two whores/sluts in question. It seems you think being called an "adulteress" is not an oppressive thing to call a woman. I'm sure you could call any of the women in your life such a thing and they'll be cool with it, right? I'm sure you can call any woman you're certain actually IS guilty of that sin an adulteress and SHE'D be cool with it, right? You're an idiot. To condemn is to pass sentence...here, a stoning. To condemn is NOT to identify the crime or to label the perpetrator of the crime the term that applies.
I don't need to know the history of a murderer to justly refer to such a person as a murderer if it is a fact that the person committed murder. To acknowledge such a person is a murderer is not a condemnation. It is simply a statement of fact. I don't need to know the history of these two women to know what they are, either, for that, too, is a fact as such, acknowledging that fact is not condemnation. If I have made either the women or the murderer victims, I have victimized them with facts. The following is not in any way a fact:
"And if that fails, then recall the other words of Jesus:
For I was oppressed, poor, marginalized, a victim of rape and harassment by sexual predators... and you did nothing to help. Indeed, you attacked me with vulgar words and accusations while defending the rapist who attacked me."
What Gospel is this from specifically, Dan? Cite chapter and verse or admit you're engaging in your typical blasphemy. Every time you dare to paraphrase Christ in order to push your agenda, you commit blasphemy by your willful perversion. And to do so in order to lie about me (or whomever) makes it worse. And this is to say nothing of the fact that the above are NOT "the other words" of Christ. While you attack Trump, you expose just how corrupt you are.
Yeah, I don't need to defend him. You need to defend your unChristian behavior.
Sunday, May 03, 2020
Just Getting It Off My Chest
This might be long, so I'll make extra effort to keep it from being too boring. That means snark and mockery whilst reiterating my point regarding the appropriate and justified use of the terms "whore" and "slut" relative to two particular women whose character and behavior provide that justification which makes the terms appropriate. In doing so, I'll be referring to the post and subsequent comments found here-----> http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2020/03/to-all-women-i-love-and-admire.html Some may ask, "Why bother?" The answer is simple. "Cuz". What's more, I seem to have a lot of time on my hands thanks to another Democratic asshat governor. So, let's begin:
"We really SHOULD have a female running to beat Trump, this WAS the year and I'm sorry it's looking like it's not turning out that way. They clearly were the better candidates."
Well, considering how low the bar, that's not saying much at all. But more importantly, leave it to a lefty to think sex is a worthy criterion for selecting a candidate for any office, be it public or private sector. It's the very same lunacy that got us eight years of presidential impotence immediately prior to the surprisingly effective and America improving Donald Trump. I'd be interested to know exactly which of the feminine fakes Dan had in mind, or if he is even more a loon and would have accepted any one of them. As to "clearly the better candidates", that's debatable anyway, as the most "normal" of the leftist choices likely was Andrew Yang. Again, a low bar.
Dan then launches into a his poetry with artwork of "strong women", at the top of which is a series of "x's". Are these kisses? The predator!!! The poem ends with:
"It IS your life. Live it by your rules. This poet stands with you and your choices."
After all these years, we know that Dan backs a woman's choice to murder her own unborn, to engage in immoral sexual behavior because to embrace grace means enabling sinfulness. Nothing says "embracing grace" like joyfully celebrating women losing their souls. Ain't he sweet?
But it gets better with more direct attacks on me personally, so this is where it gets really fun! To wit:
"Marshal, who is banned until such time as he apologizes for using abusive/oppressive language about women, not surprisingly is trying to comment here suggesting that the pervert/sexual predator Trump is a better option than all these Democrat candidates including the women."
Again, there is no apology anywhere in the works since I've done nothing wrong whatsoever. I wasn't speaking about "women" when I chose those appropriate and justified words in my response to his troll, feo. No. I was referring to two specific women as mentioned in an earlier post. Thus, Danny-boy is acting like the corrupt press he defends by perverting the truth. But as if that isn't enough, this is the same Dan Trabue who rationalizes in the most blasphemous way his use of profane and obscene language at the blogs of others. But then, his hypocrisy is legendary. He pretends he's a champion of women. So let's look at that:
1. He ignores the millions of females murdered in the womb at the hands of their own mothers.
2. He ignores the physical, emotional and spiritual harm inflicted upon women who choose abortion over raising the child they invited into existence by their indulgence in sexual self-gratification.
3. He enables true sexual predators who rely on the legal ability of women and girls to get abortions in order that they can freely abdicate their responsibility for their part in bringing that child into existence.
4. He enables those suffering from mental disorders that result in lesbian behaviors and homosexual behaviors, which often result in a married women with children losing her husband and the father of their children in order to satisfy his disordered desires.
5. He enables those suffering from sexual identity disorder which puts women at risk by allowing men to make use of women's facilities, women's shelters and women's privileges in housing, business and other areas where a woman's sex grants aid and assistance in order to compete with men.
6. He enable those men who "identify" as women to compete in athletic events in direct competition with women, including combat sports, which denies women a fair chance at winning.
7. He assumes, due to his putting irrational value in radical feminist studies, that women who indulge in sexually immoral acts never do so because they are immoral, but because someone like Donald Trump abused them earlier in life. Kinda blows that "strong woman" poem all to hell, doesn't it?
8. He'll pretend we live in a "rape culture", because his cherished radical feminist studies tell him we do, yet will attack good Christian men who encourage women and girls to dress modestly so as not to arouse the prurient interest of sexual predators that lurk around every corner.
Yeah. That's real concern for women, ain't it? But he'll go on attacking Trump despite having no more concrete knowledge but that he has cheated on his wives to have consensual sex with other women who have no way of legitimately saying they didn't know he was married. Yeah. Right.
And I'm not "suggesting" that Trump is the better choice than that entire field of Democratic clowns, male OR female. I'm stating a fact based on their track records and policy proposals versus the less than full term of proven effectiveness and fulfilled campaign promises. And I can now include his handling of this COVID-19 issue, which has been pretty damned good given the bad info he's had to overcome.
Dan then "prays" for me, or at least composes a prayer he might pray, that my eyes be opened to what I've done by supporting Trump's presidency and re-election. Of course, there's no telling to whom he's praying given his "theology" strongly suggests he isn't a big fan of the God or Jesus Christ, but only uses those names to pose as a Christian. The real Dan shows up in his alternative prayer:
"Lord, may you afflict those pervert-defending conservative men with a painful, debilitating case of genital leprosy in the weeks leading up to the election and continue it until such time as sexual predators like Trump-and those who defend them, like Marshal-are no longer in a position to oppress and imperil women and other human beings."
Wow! Talk about a lying con man!!! Dan truly makes Trump look like a piker!! This is a guy who supports women candidates who support the murder of the unborn!! And he dares talk about imperiling women and other human beings!!! Trump's got nothing on Dan or his preferred choices for president, whomever they may be. Is there even a thing called "genital leprosy"? Sounds painful. With grace-embracers like Dan, who needs satanists?
At this point, Dan goes on to reiterate that I'm not welcome without apologizing for calling a couple of sluts "sluts", while he says all manner of unjustified things about me and Trump. Yeah, Trump's a womanizer. But we have no credible accusations that he's done any real "predatory" acts. We only know he ogled naked girls and sought sex with other women not his wife. And the fact that the two women in question are proven whores and sluts confounds his attempts to demonize Trump beyond reason. No. He has to pretend that despite their character and behaviors being beyond question, the fact that I don't know the women personally somehow prohibits me from calling them what their character and behaviors justifies. He tries to pretend the actual words I use are somehow worse in describing them than any other, OR, he's insisting that despite their blatant and unquestioned immorality, they are not to be called ANYTHING that describes their immorality...while he calls me and other Trump supporters all manner of nasty things, and Trump worse things. And when having pointed out this double standard, he defaults to this nonsense about the history of oppressed women under the of oppressive men and rape cultures, yada, yada, yada...as if somehow that excuses sexually immoral behavior by women.
My favorite part is the insistence that the use of words like "whore", "slut" and the like are the domain of men, yet I've provided studies (at least one by a woman) that validate my contention that women are just as likely, if not more so, to use those words to describe other women than are men.
Despite the easily proven truth that I have only used the terms in reference to two specific women, Dan continues insisting...lying...that I used it to speak of all women. And he laughingly tries to insist that women are somehow harmed, insulted or in any way oppressed by their merely hearing those words, and mocks me for my still ongoing polling of women which, to date, has yet to find a woman or girl who is so personally traumatized.
He tells me to look at the data, the research, to listen to experts in the field (BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!). And I read all the "data, research and experts" he provided and I don't find radical feminists to be reliable about anything the report. In turn, as I said, I provided counter research that doesn't agree in the least, other than to say what I've said: that women who are NOT whores or sluts are insulting and hurt by being referred to in those terms, and actual whores and sluts are inconvenienced by having their true character revealed where they hoped to have kept it hidden. Dan wants to pretend that what I say is merely my personal rationalizations, some kind of fantasy, a product of some ego he thinks is out of hand. But then, he'll say anything to protect his hateful position on Trump and he's not above exploiting women to do so. Indeed, with champions of the fairer sex like Dan, who needs women-haters!!!
Quite frankly, his continued assertion that I side with sexual predators, that I am somehow aligned with those who assault and harm women would justify my kicking his ass if he said such to my face. Fortunately, as a Christian, I would simply challenge him to a bout rather than to stomp him in the street. Otherwise, I would continue to challenge him to support his crap with more than radical feminist studies he finds so compelling. I prefer REAL science and REAL research, not leftist crap sandwiches that have no basis in reality.
Jeez! This IS getting long!!!
He goes on and on with more nonsense about ME ignoring reality, but reality includes the fact that jokers like him are the reason both sexual predation AND sexual immorality of women continues. I promote Christian values and virtue. Dan excuses those who do not practice such things, as if he is doing God's work by NOT pointing out the sinfulness of an immoral woman's behavior. Yeah. THAT will get her into Paradise all right! So Dan asks me some questions and the last comments he allowed were my responses to them. Then he responds to those as stupidly as one might imagine:
"YOU KNOW NOTHING about these women and their history."
IT DOESN'T MATTER IN THE LEAST! But I do know enough of their history that the terms are appropriate appellations given their careers, history and testimony with regard to Trump. They acted of their own accord to engage in all of it. By Dan's Trump-hating motivations, there is no one that can be convicted if their past is less than fairy tale. That's Dan-level bullshit. Apparently he's unfamiliar with the adage, "old enough to know better."
"You ignore the reality that research shows that many women who have ended up in "adult businesses" are there in part due to their oppressive/harassment/assault in their history and, in part, due to the objectification of women by men in power."
I ignore nothing, such as the fact that no "research" Dan presented showed that "many" women "end up" in sex-trades because of a harsh past, but only that his "research" shows that some women did. It didn't poll all that many women to justify the use of the term "many" and regardless, it doesn't mean we should assume that in any whore or slut, and not in the case of the two in question. Dan simply wants that to be the case. More as evidence of Dan's dishonesty, he wants ME to assume that because he needs as large a list of Trump victims as possible to justify his attacks on Trump. Without these whores, the list is chopped down to...what...22 accusers about whom Dan knows less than I do? No. Dan doesn't WANT to know their histories because to find that, say, Stormy Daniels was simply as horny as Trump but nowhere near as entrepreneurial that porn was her path to easy living...well...that just won't do.
"In spite of that reality, you're willing to assume the very worst of these women and deny the oppression of women writ large at the hands of men like Trump and those, like you, who defend them."
First of all, there's no reality but only Dan's presumption that these women suffered earlier in life so as to justify ignoring the fact that they're whores and sluts. I, in the meantime, assume nothing about them that is not absolutely certain, proven and affirmed by their own testimonies. Secondly, Dan just wanted somewhere he could say "writ large" because he thinks it sounds cool. BUT, Dan ignores that their known history is "writ large" enough to know they're whores and sluts. In the meantime, Dan continues to slander me as a defender of rapists and sexual oppressors simply because I voted for a guy who was the lesser of two evils...by a long shot...promised that which all conservatives wanted out of a president, then delivered on those promises in a way unprecedented in American politics and is thus worthy of a second term. Dan supports baby killers and thinks I'm the bad guy.
"I am not blind to what I suspect was the great psychological harm that was most likely done to him by his parents and those around him in his upbringing. He is very clearly a man with a damaged soul/psyche. I can and do feel sympathy for Trump, the man. In the same way that I can find some sympathy for other pedophiles and rapists who were damaged by others growing up."
Dan's not the first asshat to think he's capable of psychoanalyzing from afar. He's just the dumbest and as such the most arrogant. I have no idea what Trump's childhood was like. I've never seen nor heard of anything that suggests it wasn't happy and nurturing. And I have no reason to believe Dan give's a flying rat's ass about Trump except to see him out of office replaced by one of his baby-murdering, LGBT enabling, high taxing, economy and culture destroying leftist asshole alternatives. That's how Dan rolls. He does this in the guise of a Christian, without knowing what that word actually means, as evidenced by his obsessive hatred of the man.
"NONETHELESS, in a world of competing sympathies, we must always side with the oppressed, the marginalized and the harmed over and against those who are doing the oppressing, the harming."
Not in the realm of sin. We don't say to one, "oh, you had a hard life, your sin is OK" while saying to another, "your life was easy, your sin in reprehensible". No. Sin is sin and Dan is an idiot. These two women were not oppressed when they willfully chose to have sex with a married man. They certainly weren't by Trump. And while we know with unquestioned certainty of the immorality of these two women, we...DAN...has not credible evidence that Trump is guilty of harming any women, except for ogling some naked chicks and cheating on his wives with willing co-conspirators. This is the guy who expects ME to apologize when he's far more guilty of lying about me, Trump and of supporting true oppressors of women...far more egregious oppressors given what they do to the unborn...while I have done no worse than state the facts.
All of Dan's shit is simply because he can't truly defend his hateful attitude toward a president who is far more effective than the Barry Obumble who accomplished nothing of note.
Dan stupidly encourages me to take classes in the same radical feminist studies where he earned his skirt. But I prefer truth, reality, facts, evidence...NOT bullshit half-assed leftist nonsense that has done nothing for the cause of women except to lead them to immorality and despair. Dan, however, needs to study Scripture...not with "progressive" "christians", but with real Christians who put God's will above earthly concerns. Dan's a baby-killer supporter. This is true and beyond a doubt given the people he's supported for president. Thus, Dan is complicit in the murder of the unborn. This is far more true than any suggestion that I support or defend sexual predators. I've NEVER suggested I support such things in any way. Dan has openly stated he no longer considers abortion immoral. More women have been harmed by abortion than by womanizing rich dudes.
So, this really HAS been a long post, and I have just a bit more to add before I'm finished with Dan's whiny, bullshit, pearl-clutching, fake outrage about calling two whores/sluts what they are.
"We really SHOULD have a female running to beat Trump, this WAS the year and I'm sorry it's looking like it's not turning out that way. They clearly were the better candidates."
Well, considering how low the bar, that's not saying much at all. But more importantly, leave it to a lefty to think sex is a worthy criterion for selecting a candidate for any office, be it public or private sector. It's the very same lunacy that got us eight years of presidential impotence immediately prior to the surprisingly effective and America improving Donald Trump. I'd be interested to know exactly which of the feminine fakes Dan had in mind, or if he is even more a loon and would have accepted any one of them. As to "clearly the better candidates", that's debatable anyway, as the most "normal" of the leftist choices likely was Andrew Yang. Again, a low bar.
Dan then launches into a his poetry with artwork of "strong women", at the top of which is a series of "x's". Are these kisses? The predator!!! The poem ends with:
"It IS your life. Live it by your rules. This poet stands with you and your choices."
After all these years, we know that Dan backs a woman's choice to murder her own unborn, to engage in immoral sexual behavior because to embrace grace means enabling sinfulness. Nothing says "embracing grace" like joyfully celebrating women losing their souls. Ain't he sweet?
But it gets better with more direct attacks on me personally, so this is where it gets really fun! To wit:
"Marshal, who is banned until such time as he apologizes for using abusive/oppressive language about women, not surprisingly is trying to comment here suggesting that the pervert/sexual predator Trump is a better option than all these Democrat candidates including the women."
Again, there is no apology anywhere in the works since I've done nothing wrong whatsoever. I wasn't speaking about "women" when I chose those appropriate and justified words in my response to his troll, feo. No. I was referring to two specific women as mentioned in an earlier post. Thus, Danny-boy is acting like the corrupt press he defends by perverting the truth. But as if that isn't enough, this is the same Dan Trabue who rationalizes in the most blasphemous way his use of profane and obscene language at the blogs of others. But then, his hypocrisy is legendary. He pretends he's a champion of women. So let's look at that:
1. He ignores the millions of females murdered in the womb at the hands of their own mothers.
2. He ignores the physical, emotional and spiritual harm inflicted upon women who choose abortion over raising the child they invited into existence by their indulgence in sexual self-gratification.
3. He enables true sexual predators who rely on the legal ability of women and girls to get abortions in order that they can freely abdicate their responsibility for their part in bringing that child into existence.
4. He enables those suffering from mental disorders that result in lesbian behaviors and homosexual behaviors, which often result in a married women with children losing her husband and the father of their children in order to satisfy his disordered desires.
5. He enables those suffering from sexual identity disorder which puts women at risk by allowing men to make use of women's facilities, women's shelters and women's privileges in housing, business and other areas where a woman's sex grants aid and assistance in order to compete with men.
6. He enable those men who "identify" as women to compete in athletic events in direct competition with women, including combat sports, which denies women a fair chance at winning.
7. He assumes, due to his putting irrational value in radical feminist studies, that women who indulge in sexually immoral acts never do so because they are immoral, but because someone like Donald Trump abused them earlier in life. Kinda blows that "strong woman" poem all to hell, doesn't it?
8. He'll pretend we live in a "rape culture", because his cherished radical feminist studies tell him we do, yet will attack good Christian men who encourage women and girls to dress modestly so as not to arouse the prurient interest of sexual predators that lurk around every corner.
Yeah. That's real concern for women, ain't it? But he'll go on attacking Trump despite having no more concrete knowledge but that he has cheated on his wives to have consensual sex with other women who have no way of legitimately saying they didn't know he was married. Yeah. Right.
And I'm not "suggesting" that Trump is the better choice than that entire field of Democratic clowns, male OR female. I'm stating a fact based on their track records and policy proposals versus the less than full term of proven effectiveness and fulfilled campaign promises. And I can now include his handling of this COVID-19 issue, which has been pretty damned good given the bad info he's had to overcome.
Dan then "prays" for me, or at least composes a prayer he might pray, that my eyes be opened to what I've done by supporting Trump's presidency and re-election. Of course, there's no telling to whom he's praying given his "theology" strongly suggests he isn't a big fan of the God or Jesus Christ, but only uses those names to pose as a Christian. The real Dan shows up in his alternative prayer:
"Lord, may you afflict those pervert-defending conservative men with a painful, debilitating case of genital leprosy in the weeks leading up to the election and continue it until such time as sexual predators like Trump-and those who defend them, like Marshal-are no longer in a position to oppress and imperil women and other human beings."
Wow! Talk about a lying con man!!! Dan truly makes Trump look like a piker!! This is a guy who supports women candidates who support the murder of the unborn!! And he dares talk about imperiling women and other human beings!!! Trump's got nothing on Dan or his preferred choices for president, whomever they may be. Is there even a thing called "genital leprosy"? Sounds painful. With grace-embracers like Dan, who needs satanists?
At this point, Dan goes on to reiterate that I'm not welcome without apologizing for calling a couple of sluts "sluts", while he says all manner of unjustified things about me and Trump. Yeah, Trump's a womanizer. But we have no credible accusations that he's done any real "predatory" acts. We only know he ogled naked girls and sought sex with other women not his wife. And the fact that the two women in question are proven whores and sluts confounds his attempts to demonize Trump beyond reason. No. He has to pretend that despite their character and behaviors being beyond question, the fact that I don't know the women personally somehow prohibits me from calling them what their character and behaviors justifies. He tries to pretend the actual words I use are somehow worse in describing them than any other, OR, he's insisting that despite their blatant and unquestioned immorality, they are not to be called ANYTHING that describes their immorality...while he calls me and other Trump supporters all manner of nasty things, and Trump worse things. And when having pointed out this double standard, he defaults to this nonsense about the history of oppressed women under the of oppressive men and rape cultures, yada, yada, yada...as if somehow that excuses sexually immoral behavior by women.
My favorite part is the insistence that the use of words like "whore", "slut" and the like are the domain of men, yet I've provided studies (at least one by a woman) that validate my contention that women are just as likely, if not more so, to use those words to describe other women than are men.
Despite the easily proven truth that I have only used the terms in reference to two specific women, Dan continues insisting...lying...that I used it to speak of all women. And he laughingly tries to insist that women are somehow harmed, insulted or in any way oppressed by their merely hearing those words, and mocks me for my still ongoing polling of women which, to date, has yet to find a woman or girl who is so personally traumatized.
He tells me to look at the data, the research, to listen to experts in the field (BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!). And I read all the "data, research and experts" he provided and I don't find radical feminists to be reliable about anything the report. In turn, as I said, I provided counter research that doesn't agree in the least, other than to say what I've said: that women who are NOT whores or sluts are insulting and hurt by being referred to in those terms, and actual whores and sluts are inconvenienced by having their true character revealed where they hoped to have kept it hidden. Dan wants to pretend that what I say is merely my personal rationalizations, some kind of fantasy, a product of some ego he thinks is out of hand. But then, he'll say anything to protect his hateful position on Trump and he's not above exploiting women to do so. Indeed, with champions of the fairer sex like Dan, who needs women-haters!!!
Quite frankly, his continued assertion that I side with sexual predators, that I am somehow aligned with those who assault and harm women would justify my kicking his ass if he said such to my face. Fortunately, as a Christian, I would simply challenge him to a bout rather than to stomp him in the street. Otherwise, I would continue to challenge him to support his crap with more than radical feminist studies he finds so compelling. I prefer REAL science and REAL research, not leftist crap sandwiches that have no basis in reality.
Jeez! This IS getting long!!!
He goes on and on with more nonsense about ME ignoring reality, but reality includes the fact that jokers like him are the reason both sexual predation AND sexual immorality of women continues. I promote Christian values and virtue. Dan excuses those who do not practice such things, as if he is doing God's work by NOT pointing out the sinfulness of an immoral woman's behavior. Yeah. THAT will get her into Paradise all right! So Dan asks me some questions and the last comments he allowed were my responses to them. Then he responds to those as stupidly as one might imagine:
"YOU KNOW NOTHING about these women and their history."
IT DOESN'T MATTER IN THE LEAST! But I do know enough of their history that the terms are appropriate appellations given their careers, history and testimony with regard to Trump. They acted of their own accord to engage in all of it. By Dan's Trump-hating motivations, there is no one that can be convicted if their past is less than fairy tale. That's Dan-level bullshit. Apparently he's unfamiliar with the adage, "old enough to know better."
"You ignore the reality that research shows that many women who have ended up in "adult businesses" are there in part due to their oppressive/harassment/assault in their history and, in part, due to the objectification of women by men in power."
I ignore nothing, such as the fact that no "research" Dan presented showed that "many" women "end up" in sex-trades because of a harsh past, but only that his "research" shows that some women did. It didn't poll all that many women to justify the use of the term "many" and regardless, it doesn't mean we should assume that in any whore or slut, and not in the case of the two in question. Dan simply wants that to be the case. More as evidence of Dan's dishonesty, he wants ME to assume that because he needs as large a list of Trump victims as possible to justify his attacks on Trump. Without these whores, the list is chopped down to...what...22 accusers about whom Dan knows less than I do? No. Dan doesn't WANT to know their histories because to find that, say, Stormy Daniels was simply as horny as Trump but nowhere near as entrepreneurial that porn was her path to easy living...well...that just won't do.
"In spite of that reality, you're willing to assume the very worst of these women and deny the oppression of women writ large at the hands of men like Trump and those, like you, who defend them."
First of all, there's no reality but only Dan's presumption that these women suffered earlier in life so as to justify ignoring the fact that they're whores and sluts. I, in the meantime, assume nothing about them that is not absolutely certain, proven and affirmed by their own testimonies. Secondly, Dan just wanted somewhere he could say "writ large" because he thinks it sounds cool. BUT, Dan ignores that their known history is "writ large" enough to know they're whores and sluts. In the meantime, Dan continues to slander me as a defender of rapists and sexual oppressors simply because I voted for a guy who was the lesser of two evils...by a long shot...promised that which all conservatives wanted out of a president, then delivered on those promises in a way unprecedented in American politics and is thus worthy of a second term. Dan supports baby killers and thinks I'm the bad guy.
"I am not blind to what I suspect was the great psychological harm that was most likely done to him by his parents and those around him in his upbringing. He is very clearly a man with a damaged soul/psyche. I can and do feel sympathy for Trump, the man. In the same way that I can find some sympathy for other pedophiles and rapists who were damaged by others growing up."
Dan's not the first asshat to think he's capable of psychoanalyzing from afar. He's just the dumbest and as such the most arrogant. I have no idea what Trump's childhood was like. I've never seen nor heard of anything that suggests it wasn't happy and nurturing. And I have no reason to believe Dan give's a flying rat's ass about Trump except to see him out of office replaced by one of his baby-murdering, LGBT enabling, high taxing, economy and culture destroying leftist asshole alternatives. That's how Dan rolls. He does this in the guise of a Christian, without knowing what that word actually means, as evidenced by his obsessive hatred of the man.
"NONETHELESS, in a world of competing sympathies, we must always side with the oppressed, the marginalized and the harmed over and against those who are doing the oppressing, the harming."
Not in the realm of sin. We don't say to one, "oh, you had a hard life, your sin is OK" while saying to another, "your life was easy, your sin in reprehensible". No. Sin is sin and Dan is an idiot. These two women were not oppressed when they willfully chose to have sex with a married man. They certainly weren't by Trump. And while we know with unquestioned certainty of the immorality of these two women, we...DAN...has not credible evidence that Trump is guilty of harming any women, except for ogling some naked chicks and cheating on his wives with willing co-conspirators. This is the guy who expects ME to apologize when he's far more guilty of lying about me, Trump and of supporting true oppressors of women...far more egregious oppressors given what they do to the unborn...while I have done no worse than state the facts.
All of Dan's shit is simply because he can't truly defend his hateful attitude toward a president who is far more effective than the Barry Obumble who accomplished nothing of note.
Dan stupidly encourages me to take classes in the same radical feminist studies where he earned his skirt. But I prefer truth, reality, facts, evidence...NOT bullshit half-assed leftist nonsense that has done nothing for the cause of women except to lead them to immorality and despair. Dan, however, needs to study Scripture...not with "progressive" "christians", but with real Christians who put God's will above earthly concerns. Dan's a baby-killer supporter. This is true and beyond a doubt given the people he's supported for president. Thus, Dan is complicit in the murder of the unborn. This is far more true than any suggestion that I support or defend sexual predators. I've NEVER suggested I support such things in any way. Dan has openly stated he no longer considers abortion immoral. More women have been harmed by abortion than by womanizing rich dudes.
So, this really HAS been a long post, and I have just a bit more to add before I'm finished with Dan's whiny, bullshit, pearl-clutching, fake outrage about calling two whores/sluts what they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)