Is it wrong to defend Hitler against false charges against him? It would seem so to listen to those on the left. How about unsubstantiated, unproven charges? Again, the left would have us do so.
According to my understanding of our American ideals (as set forth by our founders and supported by Christian principle), it is no less a lie when false charges are brought against an evil person that against the good.
The recent dust up over the Roy Moore candidacy is the perfect example. Let's assume that Roy is as racist, homophobic and...well...whatever else people thought of him before the allegations leveled against him in the eleventh hour of the race for the Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions. Do these flaws justify our knee-jerk acceptance as truth those allegations of sexual impropriety from forty years ago?
Now consider: from how I understand things, Roy Moore's "racism" is based on two things.
1. Some comment he made about how long it's been since America was great (or something to that effect). He said it goes way back to the days of slavery. This has led lefties to say that he wants us to return to slavery today. Yeah. I know. It's absurd to pretend that one means the other.
2. His position on the election of muslims in government. Based on the teachings of islam, I fully agree that such is a risky proposition. Our founders agreed. They, too, saw islam as incompatible with our way of life. That's not racist. That's pragmatic, realistic, logical. Incredibly common sensible.
Moore's "homophobia" is also based on his understanding of the facts about homosexuality. I've posted several posts dealing with the many lies upon which the LGBT agenda is based, and Moore simply has similar common sense positions.
It is not hate to deal in realities. One isn't necessarily hateful of another who is not worthy of selection for the baseball team. In the same way, one isn't hateful, or bigoted, of someone who isn't worthy of elected office or a marriage license based on truths used to reach the conclusion. Lefties would insist, however, that holding those positions are proofs of hate...because it's just easier to so insist.
The second point leads to a third area that led to Moore's rep as a bad dude: Decisions he made as a judge.
1. He opposed the Obergefell decisions as that which forces Alabaman county clerks to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But Moore understands two things of great importance here:
a) Those clerks are not working for the federal government, but the Alabaman governments (state, county, municipal) and are beholden to them, not the SCOTUS.
b) The SCOTUS is not authorized to make law.
2. He stood firmly behind his decision to place a Ten Commandments monument on public property. There is no Constitutional breech at play in doing so. Nothing in the Constitution forced him to remove the monument. Only those with a bad understanding of the first amendment did.
So these are the main areas of contention between Moore and those who use these situations to justify their hatred for him. How dare he stand in the way of saintly homosexuals!!! How dare he question the motives of angelic muslims who by their faith can lie at any time!!! How dare he have a sound understanding of Constitutional principles!!! The hatred that these positions provoked in the leftists meant that this guy could not fart out loud without being accused of some great evil.
Now come the allegations of sexual improprieties just before the actual vote was to take place. "We find the women credible" they said, without any actual reason to do so. No counter testimonies speaking to his character in a positive way would ever be considered credible now, and they weren't. There's no way to verify that the allegations were true, but solely due to already bad sentiment against him, Moore was guilty. And his crimes were made worse by the purposeful use of words chosen specifically to inflame negative passions against him. It's not enough to say that Moore dated young women, most of whom were over the age of consent. Let's call him a pedophile!!
During the course of this "scandal", I found two or three articles that spoke to Moore's upbringing and background, the application of the term "credible" to the women making the worst allegations, and one that listed a dozen women who offered themselves as character witnesses for Moore, some of them going back to those days forty years ago. None of it mattered once the allegations were out there marketed with the worst possible embellishments by those "reporting" them.
Falsehood wins. And those of us who insisted we wait until something akin to proof could be found were also victims of falsehood, as we were labeled as defending "a pervert", as if he was actually proven to be one. And we're the ugly ones. This is the character of the left today. Whatever it takes to push the agenda. Whatever it takes to demonize and defeat the opposition. Lies will do the trick nicely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
I don't know why Moore thought the "great days of America" were back in the time of slavery, but I do know that what he said was not "We should go back to slavery." If they read what he said, it was that slavery was the one downside of America back then. But, then, when they hate -- Trump, Moore, Christians, whatever -- they will only hear what they want to hear, won't they?
I’m considering a very similar post. But, to this post, it’s not defending Moore if you point out the flaws in the case against him. My point has never been that I believe he’s guilty, but that him continuing with the cloud would be bad for both him and the election.
To make the leap from pointing out flaws and reality, to claims of support/defense is in itself a lie.
...as demonstrated with stunning clarity at Dan’s blog this morning.
Not one of my most well written posts, given that I'm under the weather (nothing like a head cold for Christmas ), but you both get the point. Opposing false claims, even about those exposed as evil, does not equate to defending the evil doer.
Exactly, that’s clearly true. But the other side is the willingness to engage in falsehood and embrace falsehoods if it furthers ones political agenda.
See Dan’s recent post. It’s clearly slanted in its take on the situation and (aside from the childishness of the male genitalia references) skirts around the edges of the truth.
In this case, the self evident truths are as follows.
1. Jerusalem has been the Capitol of Israel for much of its existence.
2. Jerusalem has never been a Capitol of any sort when occupied by Muslim conquerors.
3. There has never been a nation of Palestine.
4. One reason for #3 is the refusal of the Arab world to accept a two state solution in 1948, but to engage in multiple wars of extermination and genocide.
5. The US passed legislation recognizing the obvious reality decades ago.
6. The US disproportionately funds the UN, and gets treated like crab by the UN and it’s members and “diplomats”.
7. What is wrong with considering how other countries treat the US when considering future dealings with those countries.
By focusing on the TDS aspect instead of the reality aspect, don’t you end up with the equivalent of a lie?
Lying to protest lying is like having sex to protest sexual promiscuity.
Just as a point of reality: Our "great days" were NOT back in the time when slavery was going on, when women had no rights to vote and limited rights generally, when women were oppressed, when minorities were oppressed. You can't opine that those were "the good ol' days" when all that messed up crap was going on. At the very best you could say, "Well, at least back then (when women had few job options and few rights or legal standing), the divorce rate was lower..." or limited and specific qualified claims like that.
But a good, moral, rational person can not look at how messed up things were for minorities and women and say those were the good ol' days.
Craig, you're criticizing my post this morning where I said using one's money to bully poorer people into going along with you is an affront on decency and democracy... are you actually defending this? I keep thinking that yes, we CAN agree on some basic limits and notions, like "using your money to buy influence and sway free thought is wrong!" and then you all seem to attack this basic decent notion.
Damn, boys. Damn.
You’re right, of course. There were absolutely zero redeeming qualities to US society during the founding period. Personally I think the whole constitution and bill or rights was an ok thing. I’m even sympathetic to the thought process that had they abolished slavery during that time period, that it would have blown the concept of a United States completely.
Of course, if you look at what Moore actually said, as opposed to the version you’d prefer, that’s what he said. He said that despite (the evil) of slavery that the US was great during its early years. But, the reality isn’t inflammatory enough to justify the expletive filled rants, so ignore it.
Oh, Moore lost. Move on.
As to your post this morning.
1. To divorce the response from what was being responded to is intellectually lazy and intellectually dishonest.
2. All sorts of people use all sorts of things to persuade people to do things. Some, like ISIS and ANTIFA use force. Others, like the so-BO administration use the force of government. Others, like businesses, politicians, and affinity groups use money. The use of force and government is certainly unseemly and possibility evil, the use of money is not intrinsically wrong or evil.
Oh, they didn’t actually say what you said they did. They said, that they’ll consider this vote when making decisions regarding how to deal with those countries going forward. Certainly that could mean money, but. not necessarily.
Trabue wouldn't know truth if it bit him on the nose. He has proven too many times to be a pathological liar. Which is normal for LEFTISTS, since they only way they ever get anywhere is by lying.
As the year turns I am thankful I have never traded my faith for illusory power like Marshall, Craig, Glenn, and so many white Judaizers.
“For Those Who Have Traded Faith for Power, There’s a Comeuppance Ahead”
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/167814
That's funny, feo Dolezal. As if your faith in your false god has any worth. But you hang on to your self-loathing, white guilt racism. You wouldn't be quite the same false priest we've come to regard with such sadness and pity. May the One True God, the birth of His Only Begotten Son just celebrated, grant you the epiphany you so desperately need.
Craig,
It seems your comments aren't posting here now, either. See if they're posting to your own blog.
I really think blogger sucks.
FeoDolezal is again bearing false witness. I've never put my faith in anything illusory, and I sincerely doubt Marshall or Craig have either. What IS illusory is the false Christ and false God people like Feo and Trabue make up to worship because they don't like the real God and Christ of the Bible.
The two of them have a hard time with the realities of Biblical teaching, so they distort and misrepresent until what's left is more palatable to each of them peesonally. feo then has the gall to insist his heresies are the work of the Holy Spirit. In the meantime, they pretend our adherence to actual teaching is some mindless and wooden literalism, thereby distorting that concept as well.
Here’s one moral conservative that puts you three immoral sell outs to shame.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/14/the-gop-is-americas-party-of-white-nationalism/
Max Boot (born September 12, 1969) is a Russian-American author, consultant, editorialist, lecturer, and military historian. He worked as a writer and editor for Christian Science Monitor and then for The Wall Street Journal in the 1990s. He is now Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Longtime Conservative Says Trump's Election Caused Him To Re-think White Privilege
http://n.pr/2qjPQAL
Like Dan, you seem to think opinion equates to evidence. Sorry to disappoint. Also like him, you believe because one refers to himself, or is referred to by others as a conservative, then the opinion is somehow to be regarded as more valid. Yet, neither one of you alters your position on the sinfulness of all homosexual relationships despite the opinions of six pro-homosexual Biblical scholars and theologians I've presented on more than one occasion. Neither of you are concerned with facts and truth where either are in conflict with your twisted world view.
You idiot.
“Indeed, we find evidence for this in the Founding Father’s 1821 autobiography, where he happily recorded that a final attempt to add the words “Jesus Christ” to the preamble of his legislation failed. And this failure led Jefferson to affirm that he had intended the application of the Statute to be “universal.”
By this he meant that religious liberty and political equality would not be exclusively Christian. For Jefferson asserted in his autobiography that his original legislative intent had been “to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan [Muslim], the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”
By defining Muslims as future citizens in the 18th century, in conjunction with a resident Jewish minority, Jefferson expanded his “universal” legislative scope to include every one of every faith.
Ideas about the nation’s religiously plural character were tested also in Jefferson’s presidential foreign policy with the Islamic powers of North Africa. President Jefferson welcomed the first Muslim ambassador, who hailed from Tunis, to the White House in 1805. Because it was Ramadan, the president moved the state dinner from 3:30 p.m. to be “precisely at sunset,” a recognition of the Tunisian ambassador’s religious beliefs, if not quite America’s first official celebration of Ramadan.”
https://theconversation.com/why-jeffersons-vision-of-american-islam-matters-today-78155
Bigoted, lying idiot.
“In his seminal Letter on Toleration (1689), John Locke insisted that Muslims and all others who believed in God be tolerated in England. Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the "Mahamdan," the Jew and the "pagan." Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."
In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan." George Washington suggested a way for Muslims to "obtain proper relief" from a proposed Virginia bill, laying taxes to support Christian worship. On another occasion, the first president declared that he would welcome "Mohometans" to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen" (see page 96). Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded "the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians," a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810...
In 1783, the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, cited a study showing that "Mohammadan" morals were "far superior to the Christian." Another New Englander believed that the "moral principles that were inculcated by their teachers had a happy tendency to render them good members of society." The reference here, as other commentators made clear, was to Islam's belief, which it shared with Christianity, in a "future state of rewards and punishments," a system of celestial carrots and sticks which the Founding generation considered necessary to guarantee good social conduct.”
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html
Would you like to try and explain just how your last comment has any relevance at all to the subject of this post? Or would you prefer I delete the comment just because you're so pathetic?
Here are a couple of more rational understandings of our founding fathers and Jefferson in particular, with regard to islam:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4622
The above is actually a two-parter. Look for the link for part two right before the references. Have your momma explain it to you.
https://counterjihadreport.com/tag/denise-spellberg/
The above has two short pieces dealing with revisionist history like that which you need to believe is true. One even deals with that state dinner you think means Jefferson was diggin' him some islam.
I weep at how pathetic you are.
I just noticed your second link, Rachel! You'll be happy to know that the first link I posted deals directly with that drivel. It's almost tangibly painful how pathetic you are!
Again, explain the relevancy of your comments or I will delete them all. In the meantime, know that nothing you've posted means that the founders regarded islam as any kind of moral equal to Christianity. The sources you cite, like all those you cite, leave out significant details in order to promote their revisionism. My sources fill in the blanks.
You seem to think, as do your sources, that the founders were making some relativistic comparison between islam and Christianity, that somehow by allowing that muslims could practice their faith (or that atheists could practice none) that islam was held in equal regard with Christianity. That's idiotic and unsupported by the facts, and the certainly unsupported by the cherry-picked facts you present now.
But before you respond stupidly as you always do to what I've now said, explain the relevancy of any of this to the topic of the post lest I delete any further comments by you. You do not get to dictate the direction of my threads. You're lucky I allow you to post anything at all. While I prefer never to delete at all, you are worthy of exception given your low character. Don't test me.
I don’t waste my time testing imbeciles. You failed years ago. As here, too: I surprise you can’t remrmber your own hateful shit - even you can only take so much of you.
“Based on the teachings of islam, I fully agree that such is a risky proposition. Our founders agreed.”
Lying bigot.
Well, then. I clearly supported my premise. Your citations of historical revisionists cherry-picking out of context quotes do little to support yours. Thus, I have not lied, and acknowledging the truth regarding the danger to the world of islam still does not constitute bigotry. But you keep on trying to prove your bigoted opinion of me is justified. I love comedy.
And don’t any of you idiots ask again why women don’t immediately report abuse by powerful men.
“Authorities in Alabama said Friday they had launched an arson investigation after the home of a woman who accused Roy Moore of groping her nearly two decades ago burned to the ground Wednesday.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/05/roy-moore-accusers-home-burns-down-arson-suspected.html
We don't have to ask. We know why. Are you now suggesting Moore burned it down, or that it was connected to her accusations? Won't be able to read link for a while. I'm sure it doesn’t support your hateful and unsupported opinions about center-right people.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (SCOTUS 1811 to 1845):
The real object of the [First] Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give a hierarchy [a denominational council] the exclusive patronage of the national government.
The founders saw the Christian faith as the nationally-recognized religious belief, and documentary evidence supports this. What they didn't want was a specific denomination as a government system, such as Lutheranism in German, Anglicanism in England, Catholicism in most of Europe. Which is why it was never unconstitutional for the government to purchase Bibles for the Indians in the recently acquired Northwest Territories, and why the Bible was used in public schools, etc. It was the mid-20th Century liberal judicial activism which re-interpreted the Constitution for their personal agendas.
The real statements by founding fathers in regards to Islam are always denigrating about the barbaric Muslim religion.
Now that I've read feo's last link, it seems like he's on his last leg. This clearly had nothing to do with Moore, nor likely anything whatsoever to do with the woman's claim against Moore. But as usual, the slightest hint is enough for the fake Christians like feo to pretend there's a connection.
Glenn,
Apparently there are (or maybe only "is") new attempts to make islam in American as old as American itself, as if it had anything to do with making the nation what it would become. These sources seem to take anything that is said as if it is meant to praise the "religion of peace". One to which feo linked merely made a statement that it would be better for one to believe in the muslim faith than to be an atheist. Faint praise indeed. If atheists had a core set of beliefs, such a statement couldn't be made. islam at least has that...so long as everyone else is muslim, too.
Understanding that Mother Superior and Glenn are par excellence bigoted haters and accustomed to ignoring voting outcomes, this won’t mean much. To honorable conservatives, it would.
“Indeed, we find evidence for this in the Founding Father’s 1821 autobiography, where he happily recorded that a final attempt to add the words “Jesus Christ” to the preamble of his legislation failed. And this failure led Jefferson to affirm that he had intended the application of the Statute to be “universal.”
By this he meant that religious liberty and political equality would not be exclusively Christian. For Jefferson asserted in his autobiography that his original legislative intent had been “to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan [Muslim]...”
Feo is again lying and slandering me by calling me a bigot. He is the real bigot against anyone who speaks truth.
No one has ever denied that that founding fathers believed everyone should be free to practice their religion. The point was that the founding fathers considered Christianity to be the religion of the nation. And Islam was not to be considered a religion, because it isn't -- it is a political/religious ideology, mixing religion and politics as one unit, and which has as its goal the subjugation of the world to Islam, which is why Justice Story said they weren't even to be "countenanced." And while Judaism, etc, were to be permitted freedom to practice their faith, they were not to be "advanced" over Christianity.
Try to stick with what is actually stated versus what you want to be said.
There is no bigotry here, you false priest liar, but from yourself and your white self-loathing (for which you need professional help and a true Christian to guide you). You don't understand "honorable" any more than you understand much of anything.
You continue to post quotes as if anyone can take your word for their meaning, deprived as they are from the context from which you ripped them. Your cowardice in continually denying us links to their sources gives us all we need to know about your abuse of the words from either the author or the founders to which the author refers.
And any honest person would do more than simply write the opinion of the author in pretending what Jefferson asserted in his autobiography. He'd actually provide Jefferson's own words in making that assertion. No. There's no reason to trust either the author or YOUR understanding of either the author or Jefferson. You have shown now true example of your alleged higher intellect, and your constant accusations of hatred and bigotry on our part do no more than highlight your own black heart and lying soul.
Furthermore, to suggest that any founder had a problem with a muslim running for political office is not what is put forth by anyone, Roy Moore included. At the same time, that they have the right does not mean that anyone is denied the right to deny the muslim simply due to the muslim's religious beliefs. The law might say "no religious test" for qualification to run and/or hold office. But no law can prohibit the voter from denying the muslim...or anyone else...on that basis. Indeed, there is far more from the founders that suggest they encouraged the populace to consider only those who demonstrated a good grasp of Christianity (you'd have never made it then anymore than you could now). Anyone who is honest (again, you don't qualify) knows that islam is totally incompatible with the American ideal, and thus a muslim candidate is best left to find other ways of serving his country (assuming he cares about his country enough to serve it without the influence of islamic dictates) than political office.
Finally, it is not surprising that you, like most leftist lunatics, continually refer to Jefferson as if he was the only founder of this nation...and infallible at that. You continue to be pathetic.
Ooohhh, you white men are so funny with your lies.
“What you really need to do is go back in the ’30s, when they outlawed all types of drugs in Kansas (and) across the United States,” Alford said. “What was the reason why they did that? One of the reasons why, I hate to say it, was that the African Americans, they were basically users and they basically responded the worst off to those drugs just because of their character makeup, their genetics and that.”
“As the Garden City Telegram reported, State Rep. Steve Alford (R) told an all-white crowd that marijuana was criminalized during the prohibition era in the 1930’s primarily because of black marijuana use...”
"Ooohhh, you white men are so funny with your lies."
So says one of the most egregious examples of lying white guys...feo...whose comment stands as another example of off topic crap, totally irrelevant to anything, especially given the fact that he had to go back 80 years for the example...as if change hasn't occurred in all that time. What a racist liar feo is!! May God grant him the epiphany he so desperately needs!
feo's last has been deleted. If we want to see examples of racism, we'll just review feo's own comments. No one who visits this blog is more racist that he, a self-loathing, white-guilt suffering false priest.
And thereby Marshall incarnates how the Right lies: denial, diversion, attempted erasure of news and facts. Point proved: Marshall lies. The Right lies. How easy it is to break your dignity when your such a hater.
Just like his master.
“President Donald Trump, who recently said he would announce the “MOST DISHONEST & CORRUPT MEDIA AWARDS OF THE YEAR,” has been awarded the title of the world’s most oppressive leader toward press freedom by the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Trump claimed the journalism organization’s top prize for “overall achievement in undermining global press freedom,” and joins four other leaders, including strongmen like Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who “have gone above and beyond to silence critical voices and weaken democracy,” the Committee to Protect Journalists said Monday.”
No need for anyone to respond to feo's nonsensical posts. I will be deleting them when I'm home in front of my computer. I am, however, filing feo's deleted comments for purposes of reference or future blog posts. I figure that if he insists on lying about what I delete, most of which are untrustworthy for any number of reasons, I can repost them in their entirety to prove my case against him.
It goes to matter that you cover up truths at home, Marshall: God knows your lies.
But your - all of two - friends realize you want to censor them?
The US funded the El Salvador civil war for ten years. Now the Republican Party is betraying the refugees we created. A gutless betrayal; at the very least of Reagan.
You have no idea what I do at home. Suggesting you do counts as one more lie you tell. So thanks for providing more evidence that supports my premise that lefties are liars. You're a pip.
Keep in mind, that God is also well aware of these lies you're telling now, as well as those you've been telling here for years...such as your lies about abortion, homosexuality, racism, and that you actually have two brain cells to rub together.
...and why would I delete the comments of conservative visitors here? They're not the people lying. That's you and Dan.
The following is a comment from Craig that didn't post. What the hell is going on with Blogger?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig said,
Let’s see. You have someone who routinely struts up controversy, engages in personal attacks against you and other commenters, and drives conversations off into all sorts of random directions. The question isn’t why you’ve deleted a tiny percentage of his comments, it’s why you’ve not deleted more.
What's odd is that I got that comment of Craig's in my email showing that it was a new comment!
Should we be surprised that Craig cannot keep up with all the directions in which Marshall and the Republican Party lies? No. Who can?
He blames me, which only serves to categorize the camp he chooses: diversionary lying denial camp. But everything I’ve put here are examples of lies and deceit. Including Marshall’s attempt to censor Craig’s participation by saying, “oh, no need to respond... I’ll delete.” So much like Trump who now, after libeling the Republican slate of candidates, Ms Clinton, Mr Obama, his own staff... now wants libel laws to shut people up. Marshall and Trump: kissing cousins.
Republicans are running four convicted criminals for office.
“WASHINGTON ― When Joe Arpaio, the former Maricopa County sheriff, announced his Senate candidacy on Tuesday, he became the fourth viable Republican 2018 congressional candidate who’s been convicted of a crime. And like two of the other GOP cons running for office, he has cited his criminal record as a partial justification for his candidacy....
The other convicted criminals running for office as Republicans are Don Blankenship, the former head of the coal mining company Massey Energy who is running in the Republican primary to challenge West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D); former Rep. Michael Grimm, who is challenging incumbent Rep. Dan Donovan (R-N.Y.) to reclaim the Staten Island congressional seat he once held; and Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-Montana), who is running for re-election.“
I'm going to respond to feo's latest nonsensical comments, though I don't expect the explaining things to the false priest will do any good. Afterwards, I'll entertain no more off topic comments intended to support falsehoods to which he clings.
"And thereby Marshall incarnates how the Right lies: denial, diversion, attempted erasure of news and facts"
So you pathologically need to believe.
However, to deny lies is not a lie.
I don't know what you mean by diversion, except to say that you do this so routinely one might come to believe you get paid to do it. These comments of yours are all diversionary, particularly since you insist on never explaining their relevance to the actual topic.
I haven't erased "news and facts", except where the "news and facts" had no relevance to the topic of the blog post. Worse, however, is that you submit your "news and facts" for no other reason than to falsely accuse...your stories of racism are meant to accuse the right of lying about being racist or that racism still exists. The fact is that no one here who is center-right has ever maintained that racism no longer exists, or that even there exists center-right racists. They simply don't exist in as large a percentage as among feo's side of the divide...feo being a great example of a racist himself.
Anecdotal examples can be scraped together by either side to make a point. Doing so doesn't prove your doltish premises.
The bit about the Committee to Protect Journalists is comedic gold. Journalists, most of whom hate Trump with the same degree of lunacy as does feo and Dan, are leftist in numbers ranging over 90%. I've provided for Dan links that describe how Trump has been far more open to far more journalism sources...left AND right...as well as all the many ways that Obama truly attacked the press...to a degree that makes Trump's criticisms completely insignificant. Those lying leftists at the Committee to Protect "Journalism" likely never considered awarding Obama in the same way, though he is proven to have been far more deserving. feo, being the false priest, also likely never took second 1 to research Obama's dealings with the press...because feo's a partisan hack as well as a liar.
Regarding Salvadorans. The people referred to...people about whom feo doesn't give a flying rat's ass except to poorly use the story to slam better people than he'll ever be...are those who were granted a TEMPORARY welcome due to specific reason. Once that reason has been resolved, they were required to return to their countries. This policy of "temporary protected status" was never meant as a means to circumvent standard immigration procedures. But now, like all other non-standard immigration methods, this situation is being used to demonize those who insist the rules under which the Salvadorans were given this status be respected. The lying left, like feo, believe these people should have a never ending extension to our hospitality and generosity and now pretend that they are being treated horribly simply for expecting they fulfill their end of the deal. This isn't racism, despite the lies of feo and his ilk. It isn't breaking up families. And it is absolutely NOT "betrayal", except by those who have betrayed their hosts in refusing to abide the agreement they made. It is respect for the law, which the left hasn't the character to do when it isn't convenient. Instead, they'll make up lies, which feo happily repeats...because he's a liar.
As for "betrayal", feo knows all about that as he betrays the God he pretends to worship with all the heresies he abides.
"Republicans are running four convicted criminals for office."
A stupidly desperate attempt to make whatever point feo believes he's making. We could go back and forth all say with criminal behavior by politicians from both sides of the aisle. Right now, however, few on the right beat out the two main criminals...Obama for his rejection of Constitutional principles and Hillary for her treason as Sec of State.
"Should we be surprised that Craig cannot keep up with all the directions in which Marshall and the Republican Party lies?"
No one cares whether or not feo and his head lice are surprised by anything. But there's no evidence that Craig is incapable of keeping up with anything I do, except why I waste time with feo's sorry act. It's really more of a question as to why anyone would bother pay attention to anything you post, given the level of stupidity, lies and unjustified arrogance inherent in every comment.
Also, and this continues to this day, feo has yet to prove I've lied about anything, despite his chest-puffing posturing as if he has. Sad and pathetic is the false priest.
"...Marshall’s attempt to censor Craig’s participation..."
Here's yet another lie, because feo just can't help himself. I've made no attempt at all. I merely relieved anyone from thinking they need to defend me against your lying attacks. Craig can take up the cause if he so chooses, as that's up to him. Unlike you, liar, there's no need to give slack to those around are no ropes. He's totally free having proven himself to be of good character in discourse.
The main point of my post, which feo spent not one keystroke addressing, is the standard operating procedure of the left to falsely frame any topic, issue or situation. In that I used primarily the Moore case as my example. feo continues with that method by trying to use stories..."facts and news"...to make his case. But being the liar he is, and in the manner typical of leftists in general, he uses them deceitfully because the premise itself is false.
He has no case. The deletions will continue.
It's not the quotes you use, false priest, but the false purpose for using them. Basically, you're trying to refute the point of my post by posting what you think are lies by center-right figures. But that isn't the point of my post...that some on my side might not be perfect. The point is the the routine, standard operating procedure of falsehoods, lies, distortions, misrepresentations and other less than honest tactics of you and your side of the divide. I stand by that, while you do nothing to refute it...because you can't. Instead, you engage in it yourself. And thus the deletions will continue.
Here are two liars for you. They were either lying then, or they're lying now.
Post a Comment