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.
52 comments:
This will be quick and so easy to do:
1. Marshal: “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.”
Every President, Obama and Trump: “ "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The Supreme Court and the law of the land: The right to an abortion is a constitutional right of all Americans.
2. Marshal: “Yeah, I don't need to defend him. You need to defend your unChristian behavior.”
Trump: “I moved on her, actually. You know, she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married. I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look. Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
Feo,
There is no Constitutional right for the murder of an unborn child. Even the SCOTUS which made such decision said it was found in a "penumbra" of the Constitution. That is, they read into the Constitution what they wanted, just like they did with finding a right for two same-sex perverts to be "married." There is no right to either one.
Claiming something is an inherent right doesn't make it so.
Frankly, Glenn, regardless of whether or not it's Constitutional, my point was to point out the stupidity of Dan's premise. If I support rape by virtue of my support for Trump's presidency, that means that Dan supports the murder of the unborn by virtue of his support for Obama...and every other leftist politician for that matter. Of course, he and feo are supporters of baby murder anyway, so perhaps the parallel is lost on them. Clearly, Trump, despite his vow to support and defend the Constitution, opposes the murder of the unborn, which makes him far less unworthy of leading the nation than those who run with the lie that we have some God-given right to murder our own children. Somehow, feo thinks he's standing on the moral high ground.
Also inane and idiotic is feo rehashing this now 15 yr old soundbite as if it supports the "predator" narrative. It actually supports my contention that he was a sophomoric womanizer. Again, there's no evidence he ever did a Biden, or a Dodd/Kennedy or a Clinton on any woman. Perhaps he did, but until there's some credible testimony or evidence, it's only a fervent wish of the haters that he did.
And in response to feo's self-loathing, white-white guilt, black-racism comment about black people and the Confederate flag, I offer this:
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/photos-they-black-and-they-proud-the-confederate-flag/by06A6ywMrqi7mYP9A1jmO/
No more off-topic comments by feo will be allowed to stand. I left these because their abject stupidity serves so well.
Why do you guys insist on feeding the troll? If you respond to his off-topic, unsupported comments, he takes that as an invitation. He's under strict rules, special rules created specifically for him. I don't wish to enable comment moderation just because this petulant, racist, fake christian can't even pretend to be a mature adult. If he wants to comment on a topic other than what I've posted, he can do that at his own blog or Dan's. If I respond to his drivel, then you'll know that his comment meets my requirements of him and you can do so as well. Or, you can copy/paste his crap and respond at our own blogs. Thank you for your cooperation. We don't get any from the troll.
Art,
It's rare that I do. In this case, I was asking for clarification of his assertion that there are some rights that "cannot" be abridged, while we are currently seeing far more fundamental and enumerated rights being suspended.
Art,
While I would discourage people from using the confederate flag for protests, and for things of no historical value, because I can see that there are people who will only see it as a racist symbol. I believe that it is a good thing to not do things that will cause others to stumble or that will cause them distress. For me it's just simple respect.
Having said that, I'll point out that the public display symbols of oppressive and racist entities are protected under the first amendment. This may mean exercising self control or going out of one's way to avoid things that cause offense, or you know, showing tolerance.
I can also see that someone who displays the confederate flag might genuinely believe that they are doing it without intending it to be racist. I find it hard to believe at this point that anyone could be that unaware, but I grant that it's possible.
My problem with the flag in this instance is that it the statement it makes doesn't fit with the context. In the case of MI, the governor is actually engaging in a assertion of "states rights", which is a reason given for the Civil War. So to fly a flag that represents the extreme support for "states rights", while protesting "states rights" really doesn't make much sense.
The bottom line is that I don't see any positive in flying the battle flag, or carrying firearms openly at a peaceful protest. It seems to detract from the legitimate points of the protesters and to give people something to focus on other than the point of the protests.
Craig,
I know it can be tempting to respond to feo at times. But from one who knows so little to seek clarification is not likely to result in actually getting it. He just doubles down on stupid.
When one is protesting, one is trying to make a point. The means by which one does this may be clumsy and not entirely effective. However, to stifle one's self in the attempt makes those whole process counterproductive. Simply ask what the point is...how does brandishing the Confederate flag have any relevance...and allow for the response. Is carrying that flag more offensive to those who find it so than the reason the protester carries it is to him? I don't think respecting other people means we must constantly weigh every move we make and every word we say. What respect is there to assume that one who carries such a flag is racist? Seems and offensive assumption to my way of thinking. Just as there are those who find it offensive, so too must people respect the fact that others don't. If someone is trying to be provocative, you might have a point. But until one takes the time to question the suspected provocateur, one mustn't assume. Chill.
I would find it equally unlikely to believe that anyone who has any degree of reverence for the Confederate flag isn't also aware that many others find it offensive. To that I say, "boo hoo". These days, I'm really, really offended by how easily offended people are. Frankly, I don't care. If the offended hasn't the integrity to assume the other person isn't intending offense, then the offended needs counseling and a kick in the ass. Those who truly intend to offend are rarely mistaken for being nice guys.
The only problem I have with people brandishing that flag is how others exploit it to demonize those carrying it as well as all those who are assembled with them. It gives the dishonest left the ammo they need to deflect attention from the actual grievance by painting the protesters with the broad brush of racism. I have no idea why the person or persons who carried such a flag thought it was a good idea to do so. I prefer to believe better unless it is known they are members of some racist group.
As to the firearms, 2nd Amendment privileges were unconstitutionally hindered while idiot Dems released criminals from jails. Carrying the weapons was absolutely relevant to their protests.
Finally, I submit the following for the troll to choke on:
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/photos-they-black-and-they-proud-the-confederate-flag/by06A6ywMrqi7mYP9A1jmO/
Art,
We disagree on this. I'm suggesting that if you are protesting something to make a point, then anything that diverts attention from the point being made is not a good choice.
Like many things, the question isn't whether or not we CAN do something, it's whether or not we SHOULD.
I'm not saying you can't make a case for the firearms, I'm saying that carrying them added nothing to the protest, and I'm saying that carrying them detracted and diverted from the point of the protest.
You can even say that the left and the media are not going to give these folks a fair shake, and therefore it doesn't make any difference. There's a degree of truth to that, but it still doesn't make sense to hand the other side extraneous diversions rather than to focus on the point being made.
Again, what distracts is not always something for which one can account. Who knows what the left will use to deflect attention from the point, thereby allowing them to ignore it and not respond in favor of using whatever distraction they can find or invent to attack the protester. That is THEIR point when the point of the protester is too difficult to counter. Better would be to be prepared to give a full accounting should one be allowed to air one's concerns at all. Better still would be to challenge anyone questioning why to explain why they're concerned in the first place.
Said another way, if I hadn't made it clear thus far, I don't really care who is offended or why unless they can calmly express their concerns in a manner that makes sense. The sad reality is...and we've seen it out of the troll before I deleted his idiocies...the left needs to portray their opponents in the worst light so as to corrupt the perceptions of those they wish to recruit to their cause. It's they who truly need to explain themselves. Actual racists and nazis generally are more than proudly willing to express their vile ideologies to a degree that relieves the observer of any doubts. Simply carrying a Confederate flag isn't enough to honestly infer racism. No one should make that assumption. Those who do aren't my concern.
Another thought to consider, Craig, is our own feo the false priest troll. I've been asking him to prove that I'm a racist for a couple of years at least. He has yet to do so. There's no evidence of any in any comment I've ever posted, so it's not surprising he can't do it. Yet, like the race-hustler he's proven himself to be, he continues projecting that upon me...just like lefties are wont to do.
Art,
You are correct that it's sometimes difficult to predict what will cause distraction. However, in this climate, with this media, there are some things that can be predicted and two of those are the confederate flag and openly carried weapons.
Because of my background, I tend to look at these types of things in terms of how best to effectively get ones point across. In this case, it can be argued that the choices made actually hurt the ability of the protesters to effectively make their points.
That's all I'm saying. If you are trying to make a political point, or trying to close a sale, you want to eliminate anything that gets between you and the intended result. If you choose to introduce distractions, then you can't really complain when your point gets lost.
As far as the "racism" charge it's simply become a tactic that allows the wielder to dismiss someone without actually responding to their case or argument. It's one more word that now means virtually anything people want it to, which renders it effectively meaningless.
Because racism is something internal, it can't be proven only inferred. It's simply a tool to shut down people you disagree with. The point at which it's "racist" to cite actual statistics, or to point out reality, is the point at which the term becomes meaningless. But folx will continue to use it until some other verbal club comes along.
Art,
To be clear. I'm not saying that it's wrong to take your confederate flag or legally owned and carried firearm to a protest, I'm saying that it's stupid and counterproductive.
The troll said:
"I’ve shown you a hundred times how you’re racist.
It’s your racist identity in whiteness that won’t let you see it. Duh."
100 assertions is not evidence nor proof of racism on my part. They stand as no better than 100 fantasies...100 wishes and desperate hopes that you can convince yourself or anyone else that I'm in any way racist or suffering from any degree of racism. For example:
"When you will not hear from black people how the Confederate flag horrifies them, terrifies them, and makes them think of their ancestors, stolen, imprisoned, bred, torn apart, slaughtered ancestors... and you make justifications that it is alright for white people to carry those flags as statements...you are a racist."
The reality is that I have indeed heard such things. But they, like those such as you who fake concern for them, refuse to hear how those who have any reverence for that flag do so for reasons about which you and they couldn't care less, selfishly thinking only of yourself and how you can exploit the notion of slavery and racism to further your agenda. You choose to accuse rather than to listen and understand, consciously refusing to separate racism from that flag so as to stroke your own hatreds.
I make no justifications for racists. I make no justifications for those who cherish that flag. I'm an American and would rather all simply wave Old Glory. There is no Confederacy as they were roundly defeated. There is only the United States of America, so waving any other flag for any other nation, real or imagined, is foolishness in my mind. But as I say to Craig, I'm not about to pretend I know what is in the hearts and minds of those who brandish that flag. Just as some might fly the flag of their state, town, high school or favorite sports team, some fly the Confederate flag and it means to them what it means to them...NOT what assholes like you choose without cause to assert it means to them. That some might take offense is just to damned bad. No one is obliged to live their lives worrying how each and every move they make, word they say or actions they take offends others. Clearly, there is no reciprocating concerns from assholes like you.
Yet even if I did make justifications for those who cling to that flag, those justifications would not make me a racist in any way, even knowing that some black people choose to take offense to it. Not in the least. It's just another wishful assertion on your part because you want to believe you're some advocate for the black race...as if they're better off with assholes like you on their side. God help them if they are, for you offer nothing of substance, nothing of truth and reality. You're an inveterate idiot and I grieve for stupid people like you.
The fact is that between the two of us, the racist is clearly you. You need me to be a racist while I NEVER deal in terms of race because, as Glenn puts that fine, true point on it, there is only one race...the human race and like our president, I deal in terms of American. Either one is or isn't and it doesn't matter what race, nationality, sex or religion one is if one lives by the ideals of this nation.
So go blow that racist crap of yours out your fake-Christian ass. Then go repent of your arrogance and hatred and learn to be a real Christian for once in your pathetic and worthless life. We'll be here waiting for you and God will be, too, for...
And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
Craig,
I totally understand that you think it is counterproductive to carry a Confederate flag to these protests. I'm saying that no one can know why a person might do so until one asks that person. Only then can a true assessment be made. If the protested refuses to make such inquiries and chooses instead to assume ill intent, then it's a clear sign that no true desire to hear and understand any aspect of the protest exists and it wouldn't matter if the person carried a Confederate battle flag or Klingon battle flag. I wouldn't carry one. YOU wouldn't carry one. But in the mind of the person carrying one the intention may be real, sincere and absolutely the best expression of his reason for protesting IN HIS MIND. I take no offense until some other expression by him gives me cause. I choose to assume the best intention until then. I'm FAR more offended by the protested who chooses to focus on that freaking flag rather than the main issue that compelled ALL the others who assembled to protest as if that flag says something about the entire crowd most in that crowd doesn't believe.
To put it another way, I'm damned sick and tired of people taking offense before knowing beyond any shadow of doubt that offense was intended. I've no time or patience for such crap anymore as it is more often than not insincere to say the least.
OK! Back on the internet! Now we can get back to totally on-topic discussion should anyone feel so compelled.
Art,
I don't disagree that it's impossible to truly know the motives of a person without engaging with that person. I'm acknowledging that it's possible the one can display a confederate flag in public without intending it to be racist.
I am saying that while doing so may not be intentionally racist, that isn't the issue. The issue is that it's pointless and stupid. Again, to be clear, I fully support people's right to do stupid things. But I also reserve the right to point out that stupidity and to point out that there are better ways to make a point.
Craig,
I think we're agreed, at least in general, that carrying a Confederate flag is a distraction, mainly because of stupid, dishonest and irrational people...such as feo, who is equal parts all three. The difference is that I would like to know the reason for doing so from the person carrying it. (side bar: all of my comments are still with the Michigan protesters in mind.)
All I know is what I've seen in pictures (one lone Confederate flag mentioned earlier) and read in media reports. None of the media thought it worth their time to inquire as to motives, preferring instead, where they commented at all, to parrot the baseless accusations of the idiot governor of Michigan. With that in mind, I thank the person carrying the flag for exposing more of the governor's true character...unconcerned with the plight of her people, she dismisses them all as being racist simply because a few flags (if there were even more than the one I saw) were carried. And of course, as I mentioned earlier, I saw no nazi symbols brandished that were not clearly characterizing the governor's policies as akin to fascism...which they are. None I saw were identifying those carrying them as nazis themselves. If there was anyone merely carrying a nazi/swastika flag, I didn't see them in any of the many pictures I've seen.
But even so, assume for a moment that only racists were waving Confederate flags and that there were indeed nazis carrying nazi flags and symbols at this protest. Are we to assume that racists and nazis are without the right to join in a protest against the draconian policies of their governor? Does that in any way justify the accusation that all those in the crowd are racists and nazis? And even if that were true, does it negate their concerns about the fascism of the governor?
We DO indeed know the motives of all those in the crowd. They were there to protest the rights infringing policies of Governor Witless, regardless of what they carried with them for the purpose. This is the ONLY assumption any intelligent, honest and rational person should be making without any real evidence to the contrary. I absolutely don't care what asshats like feo and the governor OR the lefty media wants to pretend in order to deflect from the truth of their protests.
Now, given this post has nothing to do with that topic...
I agree that I'd like to hear the rationale behind the carrier of the CSA flag, but for someone to be unaware of the message that they are sending with that flag they'd have to be pretty clueless to life in the US.
Of course you are right that racists and NAZI's have the first amendment right to join these sorts of protests, and that gets into an entirely different set of questions. Is it appropriate to draw conclusions about a large group of people based on the actions of a tiny minority of that group? Is it the responsibility of the majority of the protesters to deny a minority of protesters their right to peacefully assemble? Should the other protesters have beaten the man with the CSA flag senseless and carried him off to the side and destroyed his flag?
Obviously this tactic of broad brushing the crowd based on the actions of a few people, is designed to divert attention away from the actions of the governor and to de legitimize the actions of the protesters as a whole.
Clearly your last paragraph is the crux of the matter. If it's possible to assign motive to a large group based on the actions of a tiny minority (who may not even be well connected to the larger group), then it's possible to demonize or discredit entire groups of people based on the actions of others. We already see this tactic being used on other areas to suggest that "All X should be constrained" because .3% of X do something wrong. It's the shift away from dealing with people as individuals, and toward dealing with people only as members of groups.
"...for someone to be unaware of the message that they are sending with that flag they'd have to be pretty clueless to life in the US."
How sad if some such people exist. However, equally sad would be to revere something that others find offensive despite one's own beliefs. We know that many muslims are offended by the sight of any Jewish or Christian symbol. Personally, I'm not necessarily pleased to see muslim symbols. But I wouldn't assume every muslim looking person at a protest against government overreach is bin Laden. I'm greatly offended by expressions of homosexuality. A rainbow flag at such an event would tend to make my hackles rise. But I wouldn't presume the entire crowd at a protest against government overreach are disordered practitioners of sexually immoral behaviors.
"Should the other protesters have beaten the man with the CSA flag senseless and carried him off to the side and destroyed his flag? "
As it happens, the only arrest at the Michigan protest was over someone grabbing a flag from another. I haven't read of who was grabbing what flag and wondered if it was that one Confederate flag I saw in the pictures. You'd think a reporter would provide that info.
The point of the protest is all that matters, not individual participants and definitely not when the media makes no effort to question individuals (or even groups) about what they're specific reasons for attending might be. As I said at the top, asshats will always gravitate to that which allows them the opportunity to avoid the actual point in order to smear all who attend. If there isn't anything obvious...the proverbial "low hanging fruit"...they'll find or invent something for the purpose.
I guess the armed Black Panthers that showed up to walk through the neighborhood where Ahmaud Arbery was killed aren't threatening anyone or doing anything wrong.
Hint. Since my problem with people legally availing themselves of their right to bear arms is much more about the appearance and the wisdom of the actions, I really have no problem with this, other than with the wisdom and appearance of their choice.
I have absolutely no problem (beyond my opinions about the PR issues) with people who engage in peaceful, non violent, non threatening protest carrying weapons.
Craig,
The Black Panthers (probably "the NEW Black Panthers") are a racist militant group. While they, too, have the right to march and protest...even a death like Arbery's without knowing any facts about what led to it...that is, under the pretense that it was solely the result of abject racism...the fact of their racist militancy makes it an apples to oranges comparison to those who brought their weapons to a protest against government overreach which, I believe, included 2nd Amendment infringement (I could be wrong about the extent of Whitmer's fascism). While the Michigan protesters may have been part of a militia group...one group unnamed in any report I've read thus far and as such whether or not it's a white racist group is also unknown...there's a difference between "militant" and "militia".
I once again reiterate that appearance may be intentional due to the list of grievances of the protesters assembled. If they included 2nd Amendment concerns, the carrying of weapons is understandable. I would also suggest that due to the lack of "social distancing", perhaps few wearing masks and other rejections of Whitmer's idiocies, the chance of arrest may have been mitigated by the presence of weaponry if arrest was a real possibility...a detail about which I have no knowledge regarding Michigan. I do know arrests have been made across the country for not following distancing, masking and/or assembly orders.
Of course they are a racist militant group. Yet, like the NAZI's in Skokie they have the right to march publicly. The real point is whether of not the same people who denigrate the few in MI in all sorts of ways, will say the same things about the NBP's in GA.
Well, Craig, as we can clearly see, one idiot has already failed in that manner.
First, he claims you're equating them, when obviously you're looking to see if idiots like feo will.
Then, he goes on to lie about both groups.
1. I've not seen or read of anything that suggests the intentions of the armed Michigan protesters included intimidating anyone. Nothing. This is because no media people felt the need to actually ask why they armed themselves, when what little we know informs us that they hoped to be interviewed for carrying their weapons. The media, most of whom are as dishonest as feo, chose to run with the accusations that they were nefarious without any actual evidence in support.
2. Those "white" men were there to protest the clear rejection of the democratic process. The governors like Whitmer swear an oath to uphold the constitutions of both their state and their nation. Their edicts are in clear violation of the Constitutionally protected rights and thus are a rejection of the oaths they swore. Now, feo might hope that those for whom he votes will reject the Constitution whenever they need to push their immoral and socialist desires, but most people do not.
3. Armery was absolutely NOT killed because he was black. feo knows absolutely nothing about the case other than what race-hustlers tell him to believe.
4. It will be a special day when race-hustlers warn their own to stop killing each other whenever they feel like it, rather than pretending that there is some vast conspiracy afoot to eliminate all black people. feo is a clear embarrassment to both races...indeed to the human race itself. His comment will not stand because it is off topic. He hasn't posted one comment to this thread that's been ON topic.
Art,
That goes without saying.
1. Obviously making assumptions about the intentions of people that you don't know and who you haven't asked is a bad idea. Yet it's incredibly common.
2. I will say that the question of whether a state governor has the power to limit, deny, or infringe, inalienable rights guaranteed under the federal constitution is an interesting one. It doesn't seem like a state governor has that power, but that's what a lot if this comes down to.
3. I haven't seen any proof at all that indicates that race was a motivation, let alone the primary motivation. But with virtually no evidence I'm not prepared to make absolute statements.
4. Yes, it will be nice when we stop seeing these folks using the deaths of certain blacks as fodder to advance a narrative.
I don't know what would be more pathetic:
feo constantly re-posting inane comments in a failed attempt to present himself as intelligent to thousands of readers who will wonder what the hell is wrong with the guy...
or
feo constantly re-posting inane comments in a failed attempt to present himself as intelligent to the very few readers I have here, all of whom no longer care what the hell is wrong with the guy.
No one cared to read his blog, so he ended it once again. No one cares what he has to say at so many other blogs that they deny him the ability to be heard. It's amazing how easily one can alienate one's self by being as boorish as feo has been.
There are only two blogs that post comments from feo:
1. Dan's blog, because Dan will allow anyone who seems to agree with him, no matter how absurd, arrogant, insulting and non-Christian (Dan not being a real Christian himself), and
2. Here. The problem is that in order to post comments here, feo has his special rules he must follow, but is so prideful, so enamored with his own unjustified image of himself, that he hasn't the class, the integrity, the honor, the Christian nature he likes to pretend he understands, to humble himself until he has convinced me he's actually capable of holding a civil discussion.
I don't know how to close one thread without closing them all to comments. Honorable people will consider this thread closed. feo, lacking any understanding of what honor even is, will undoubtedly re-post his three lame comments again, only to have them deleted again for failing to adhere to his special, and really, really easy to follow rules.
First of all, feo in his wacky defense of his bad behavior ignores the fact that I've made several attempts to engage with him on his blog. He deleted every comment (certainly the vast majority of them), all of which were, unlike his comments here, TOTALLY ON TOPIC AND IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO HIS UNWARRANTED ATTACKS ON CRAIG AND ME. So, as Craig says, what would be the point to continue? feo tried repeatedly to alert us (or me here) of new posts at his blog, and none of them were devoid of personal attacks on us. Now he demands we ask him to open up his blog for serious debate? When has he engaged in it here or anywhere without quickly reverting to his true, non-Christian attacks and arrogance? Stan gave him a foot of rope and he quickly demanded more with which to hang himself. Stan refused to give it to him, so feo thinks it appropriate to post his hateful, condescending attempts at intellectual analysis here, where the topic of the post bears no relation to whatever he thinks Stan was saying.
So yeah, I absolutely want feo to reopen his blog, post his thoughts on whatever he thinks should be discussed, and like an actual man, wait to see who cares to read and/or respond and, like an actual man, deal with the possibility that no one may.
But feo can't bear the thought that no one cares. He can't bear the thought that he is so easily recognized as no better than average...if that...with regards to intellectual depth. He needs to be admired and praised as an intellectual giant and when his positions are criticized for the pap they are, he attacks like the perverse notion of Christian love for which he has no Scriptural basis to provide to support it.
He's been given yet another chance here to act as if he truly wants to engage in discourse, exchange ideas, debate like men...especially men of God...and he immediately reverted to his true self, a petulant child of the playground demanding attention he does nothing to deserve.
And then for this reprobate to pretend that he is acting in kind, when one can easily go back to my first blog posts where he first soiled this blog with his presence, and immediately one will see his arrogance and condescension present without anyone having attacked him personally in any way. Thus, he projects again that which he needs to be true in order to justify behavior for which there is no Scriptural justification, but only his own childishness insisting he is indeed justified. He and Dan certainly make all manner of assertions about us, but neither he nor Dan ever truly prove their assertions have any merit. He can't, for example, prove we demonstrate a lack of love for people. No, he simply asserts it without evidence. Indeed, what he presents as evidence is disconnected from reality, and he NEVER draws any lines, straight or otherwise, between anything we say and the conclusions he pretends are provoked by those things we say.
This is a sad, pathetic little girl who accuses us of "brutalizing" when he supports the murder of millions of unborn, enables lifestyles that have been documented as destructive and supports political figures who have done nothing but cause great harm, while attacking those who have done so much good.
So, I again have deleted his nonsense, none of which are relevant to the post and dare him to open up his blog once again and, like an actual man, await the attention he craves as opposed to throwing his typical tantrums should he not get it.
True to form, feo can't help but be himself and repost his many off-topic comments. I checked his blog and he's done exactly as he's been accused of doing (because it's true)...he's used it to disparage Craig. He did so by simply copy/pasting everything that was said here and is now deleted for being off-topic, so he's doing nothing more than re-litigating that which has been settled...except by him because it won't align with his fantasy world. So sad. So pathetic. Let's see what words of wisdom appear at his blog. No one will check it out, so he'll just come back here and spew his bilge once more. He's desperate for attention, but acts in a manner that assures he won't get any.
Art,
I'll give Dan this. At least he talks a good game when it comes to wanting to have a conversation. He can even engage in one, for a while, without descending into something else.
Clearly we are as welcome at the orifice, as Chris Rock at a Klan rally. Because, as you know, the best way to attract people is to demean them. What's the old saying? "You catch more flies with gasoline than with vinegar."
There are just places where it's a waste of time to comment.
It is interesting that the vast majority of the people I've seen who have deleted, hidden, or otherwise obscured their blog content are people who are theologically and politically liberal. I'm not saying that there's a correlation, but it's interesting.
Art,
I suspect it'll be gone soon, but note the warm and welcoming tone of the above comments, and imagine the type of response you'd get at the orifice.
Craig,
"It is interesting that the vast majority of the people I've seen who have deleted, hidden, or otherwise obscured their blog content are people who are theologically and politically liberal."
Well, clearly feo has been deleted, banned and exiled, as has Dan. But the difference is stark. Those of whom you speak delete because they can't tolerate opinions that are, not only in opposition, but beyond their ability to counter. Easier to delete, AFTER attacking personally with disparaging allegations. This is what we see at Dan's and what has happened in the past at feo's.
In the meantime, those like these two clowns get deleted because of their behavior...behaviors they then project upon their opponents when they're unable to deal with the solid counter-arguments of those opponents. feo, for example, doesn't go two comments before he reverts to his true, fake-Christian self and spew vile hatred and baseless accusations. This results in blog hosts deciding he's not serious about exchanging thoughts and ideas, but only comments to deride others while inflating himself as all that.
I was once banned from a blog run by one of Dan's friends, for rebutting his pro-homosexual arguments in his half-dozen or so posts defending his pro-homosexual position based on the typical Scriptural distortions and corruption common among fake Christians. This dude's excuse was that I was monopolizing the conversation, as if anyone was even obliged to read my comments, much less be obstructed from participating because of it. It was very Dan-like fake outrage.
Interesting that feo's last comment supposes that you were somehow obliged to respond to his comment, which pretty much aligns with the quote of your he used in hopes of proving some goofy point of his. Somehow, he believes there's a significant difference between "freedoms" and "human rights" as regards the context of the discussion at the time. Clearly, you were pointing out that human rights are being denied because of the current covid situation, and this towering intellect misses the obvious once again.
And of course he falsely and without basis insists again that you are "unconsciously" racist (he says the same of me). Yet even if that were true...it clearly hasn't been proven to be so by him at any point ever...it wouldn't be as bad as the overt racism he displays with such routine as to suggest he's on BLM's payroll. He NEVER points out racism by us. He only asserts that it is present to justify his vitriol.
"Marshal is talking about the old blog. On the resurrected one put up for you yesterday he’s stuck a bunch of diversionary anxious self-defense comments on. "
Of COURSE I was speaking of the old blog. I did so before he re-opened it the other day. And what I said was absolutely true, and what was true then is true once again with his new blog. We'll see how long my comments stand, or my ability to post new ones. Thus far, two posts and both are simply meant to attack us...just as we've been saying. He posts responses to Stan here, but he hasn't chosen to post Stan's position there...not that he'd do so with any true support or evidence...just his own self-satisfying and self-serving interpretations.
As to my "bunch of diversionary anxious self-defense comments", clearly they are directly related to what he said in the post, and no less than indirectly related...but related nonetheless. Nothing "diversionary" if I'm dealing with his actual posts! Like so many leftists, he gives no mind to that which the record clearly shows when he makes his hateful remarks. His hate will always manifest. There's nothing we can do about that. But in lieu of an actual, fact-based argument, it's just vitriolic pap. As Craig says, no real reason to go there.
feo is a child crying out for attention. A petulant child who refuses to amend his behavior to get the type of attention he craves. He'll slap a kid on the playground and wonder why he gets no attention...why no one befriends him. He harangues and wonders why no one cares to hear him. So, when ignored, he once again throws a tantrum, continues to post off-topic comments as if he's doing us a favor when he's just like a gnat that constantly annoys. A truly sad and pathetic child with no friends believing he can convince better people he's worthy of inclusion on HIS terms, without regard for the terms of others.
Yeah, I read that already. Yet as with your baseless racist accusation against me, your condescension of Stan also is not justified. You seem to think that merely quoting Scripture serves your hateful opinion, but once again you merely make the assertion that your quotes actually make your case. Later, when time permits, I'll be there to easily shred your vitriol and explain just what I mean. I just hope I can do it in terms your childish mind can understand.
One, two comment exchange, is offered to offset hundreds of comments full of vitriol and condescension. Then it’s promptly offset by more of the same BS.
It must be interesting to go through life with absolutely no self awareness and not the slightest inkling that one’s actions affect how others respond to them.
Art,
Note the common leftist tactic being employed here. The constant references to being “racist”, with no actual proof offered. It’s simply a matter of repeating a lie long enough to brainwash oneself into thinking that the lie has become true. Imagine being so blind as to think that this sort of absurdity is going to encourage conversation.
feo,
If your empty, unjustly-inflated head wasn't taking up so much room, you could shove your blog up your ass for all either Craig or I care. It hasn't seemed to matter since you still play the petulant, attention starved little girl by continually posting your off-topic comments like this crap from May 21, 2020 at 8:11 AM. Let me break it down for you:
"At my blog:"
Then why are you posting this crap here? The reason aligns with everything both Craig and I (hence referred to here as "your betters") have said. No one finds what you have to offer worth the time of day for it's constant condescension, arrogance and hate-heavy style and attitude. I still intend to respond to your latest idiocy there, unless you once again fold the tent like the lying coward you are. Yet if you do indeed close it down before I finish, I'll not care in the least. You will simply prove you have neither integrity, honor or a real passion for discourse for the sake of discourse. You only hope to persuade people that your fantasy of your brilliance is real, despite you not believing it yourself.
"Open, virtual election for Craig and Marshal: Does this blog stay or go?"
Again, your betters don't care. Indeed, I can't conceive it possible your betters could care any less.
"So, this (non)blog re-arose only because Craig was attempting to infer motives behind its disappearance, none of which he could name or establish."
Your betters have routinely named and established what is plain for all to see, even yourself if you had a lick of honesty in your black, lying heart...which you clearly don't. Your motives are as clear as day, but mostly it's simply because no one cares. You've made sure, and continue to make sure, no one cares. You're doing it now with this absurd "vote". Somehow you think you're capable and wise enough to "teach" your betters something of value, and that there's something wrong with your betters (that group really goes well beyond just Craig and myself of course) for not seeing the fiction to which you cling so pathetically.
"Now that he has lost his ground for making a complaint about it's absence AND complaining about its presence, I've won my point."
He did neither, so you won nothing, except more accolades from your only fan...your pathetic and worthless self.
"The blog remains a (non)blog."
And you remain a non-Christian, a non-intellectual and a great non-sense.
"Though Marshal got some delight."
Hardly. Nothing you do brings delight, and my engaging with you at all brings sorrow for your reprobate, unrepentant petulance...your refusal to be a man, a man of honor and integrity and one who does more than claim to be Christian, but actually acts like one. You make all manner of excuse for continually acting like an asshole, going to blasphemous and heretical extremes (as does Dan, for that matter) in pretending there's some Scriptural basis that justifies it. But the truth is really that you're just an asshole. Yet, I continue to keep a stupid hope alive that you will one day actually be that man...be a man at all. All in vain, I'm more certain than ever. If you were in any way a Christian, you would suffer the slings and arrows of any who would attack you personally as a Christian is supposed to...with kindness, love and grace (good hearted snark aside). But you're not a Christian. I don't think you even like Christians.
"SO! You both now get to vote whether this blog should stay or go. And only the two of you can determine its fate. Not me."
Bullshit, lying false priest! This is just pre-emptive justification for ending your blog to which no one wishes to visit because you're such an asshole. I don't have many patrons of my blog. Neither do Craig, Stan, Glenn or even Dan. As much as we'd all likely love a large fan base, none of your betters...or Dan...do it for that, and we certainly don't do it to try to get people to be impressed. We do it to express our thoughts and opinions and/or to engage in lively debate. You're just a small girl demanding attention. You slap the other kids on the playground and then demand that they like you. You need a blog where you can indulge that peculiar and unique-to-you childishness. It's not welcome here.
If you truly believed your own bullshit, you would keep your blog for YOUR reasons...to express YOUR thoughts and opinions and let the chips fall where they may. If you truly believed your own bullshit, you'd acquiesce to the rule that your own behavior has invited upon you for engaging here, confident that your "brilliance" would shine however you may feel handcuffed. It's truly what I'm up against at Dan's, whose rules change constantly every time he is unable to contend with the logic and persuasiveness of an opponent's argument...and the conclusions regarding his that his own words so forcefully compel.
But you DON'T believe your own bullshit. You DON'T have any confidence in anything you say or believe. You're a scared little girl trying to be a big man by bullying arrogance and condescension. But until you say something brilliant, wise, intelligent, you'll never convince your betters that you're OUR better.
"Therefore, this election itself demonstrates that there is zero ulterior motive for, in Craig's lies, "hiding" or "deleting" this non-blog."
This "election" demonstrates only the depths of your insecurity and the desperate hope that anyone cares. Your betters know well why you hide and delete your blog ("non-blog" is crap. It's your blog and you're posturing again.)
"If it is to be a blog that's in your hands entirely."
Coward. Pathetic, girlish coward. Shit. The reality is I know small girls with more courage than you have! It's totally in YOUR sweaty hands as it's YOUR freakin' blog. Your betters don't care.
"You have a week to vote here."
The week's up. No one showed up at the polls, 'cuz no one cares. The reality is this: if the blog goes, you prove your cowardice. If the blog stays, you suggest a desire to be a man. Clearly the former is the case.
"Marshal has had a Depends Adult moment with his emotions."
So now you think I'm emotional, eh? Typical. You see what you need to see. Your betters (that is, pretty much anyone) call that "lying".
"1. "At my blog:" "Then why are you posting this crap here?"
Uh.... you just availed yourself of my blog to re-litigate stuff from here. Hypocrite."
First of all, your crap didn't belong here in the first place. So, as is common of you and your towering intellect, you missed the point.
Second, I haven't done anything at your blog but to respond to what you posted there. That's not "re-litigating" simply because you wrongly posted crap here first. But to whatever extent a comment of mine at your blog wasn't totally on-topic, it would hypocritical of you to not allow it.
"2. "I can't conceive it possible your betters could care any less." "...mostly it's simply because no one cares."
Uh... this emotional leakage of two long, annotated comments right here screams otherwise. Hypocrite."
Again you miss the point. Both of those quotes are saying the same thing, for one thing. There's nothing "emotional" about stating the reality, for another thing. Responding to your latest crap vomit, which was another off-topic posting as is your latest (again demonstrating no class, no honor, nothing akin to so much as understanding what acting like a man looks like) clearly screams truth to you and you clearly can't handle truth, it being anathema to you.
"3. "Nothing you do brings delight, and my engaging with you at all brings sorrow" I know. As light overcomes dark, the dark is not delighted at all; just immense sorrow."
Illuminating your own bad behavior and falseness is not bringing light to darkness. You ARE darkness, as your ongoing manifestation of your fake-Christianity so plainly demonstrates. THAT brings sorrow and your fraudulence is obvious in the daylight and the night.
"4. "Though Marshal got some delight." "Hardly."
Uh... you commented there. Multiple times. Hypocrite."
I responded to this idiocy already. Pay attention, Brainless.
"5. "This is just pre-emptive justification for ending your blog" That's an open lie."
No. It's an obvious fact. Can your brilliance not do better than Dan's "nyuh uh" strategy?
"6. "If you truly believed your own bullshit, you would keep your blog for YOUR reasons...to express YOUR thoughts and opinions and let the chips fall where they may."
Uh... I have friends for that."
"Friends" or is that just what YOU call them, while they cherish your time apart? If you actually have "friends" for that, why do you come here to bore us to death with your weak attempts to impress? You have "friends" for that. I'm sure they'll be totally sporting woodies to hear you pontificate as if you know anything.
"I'm sorry you don't have a wider world like normal people."
No. You're just sorry, and I'm saddened by that.
"New post at my blog. Dedicated in sympathy."
There you go screaming for attention again! I've never seen anyone like your betters...or even Dan...feel any need to advertise a new post. Those of us who are interested simply stop by to see what's new. Clearly you fear there is no interest. Probably the smartest thought you ever had.
Now why don't you just go sit with your binky and wait to see if anyone cares.
The purpose of the half-staff flag is not for mourning victims of disease. Too often it is lowered to half staff for other than designed to be. What is deplorable are fools like Feo who make everyone a hero.
https://www.ushistory.org/betsy/faq3.htm
This shows the flag code and what the half-staff is for, even though this rule has been violated by various presidents.
Feo is shown to be in error and he spews insults. He's just like Trump and all the others who call the various medical workers "heroes," diminishing the real meaning of the word. When everyone is a hero, no one is a hero.
Oh, please, Glenn. Don't disparage our president by saying feo is just like him. feo isn't half the man Trump is, nor is he anywhere near as intelligent or honest.
Art,
I meant Feo was like Trump and so many others in this ONE category -- make everyone heroes and violate the flag code just because people died of certain illnesses. But nothing is done to honor the millions of aborted people, or the many who die of cancer daily, or traffic accidents, etc. They put COVID-19 deaths in a special category of honor.
I get that. It's just that I go out of my way not to offend anyone or anything by equating them in any way with the likes of feo. For example, how insulting to fecal matter to call feo a piece of shit.
"Wrong spot, idiot."
"Wrong spot, idiot."
"Wrong spot, idiot."
"Wrong spot, idiot."
Why does the troll continue to post here what I responded to at his own blog...answers he then deleted? Answer: Because that's what pathetic, insecure trolls do. He knows no one but me goes to his blog, so he posts here all his comments that won't see the light of day there or at any other blogs. Except I continue to delete them because they have nothing to so with the post, something that is among the reasons for which he'd be deleted.
In all the time since I finally upheld my word to reinstate him, this pathetic child has totally failed to abide any of the conditions his childish behavior invited upon him. Many would say, "well, just enable comment moderation!" But I'm not going to let this sorry fake dictate by demand or misbehavior how I run my blog. I'm good with deleting him, or even letting his nonsense stand so as to let any who visit see what an asshole he prefers being, as MY whim dictates. He'll continue to be the fake Christian he continually proves himself to be, accusing and attacking his betters without so much as a coherent, fact-based argument that justifies it. There's nothing that can be done about that until Blogger provides more options for dealing with trolls like him.
He's such sadly pathetic individual who seeks to wear out his welcome...that being the only thing he's really good at doing. Imagine not only working to be the biggest asshole conceivable, but succeeding so well!
A man who has to erase his own words bringing judgment in himself isn’t a man. Doesn’t know what it is to be a man. Behaves as best you can as a creature.
Given what he just wrote, and what he wrote previously, Marshal is utterly blind to his hypocrisy:
Marshal: “ If you were in any way a Christian, you would suffer the slings and arrows of any who would attack you personally as a Christian is supposed to...with kindness, love and grace (good hearted snark aside). But you're not a Christian. I don't think you even like Christians.“
Marshal has thoroughly corrupted his faith and character. He’s dead set on being a stone cold liar.
Who are you trying to convince...yourself? There's no hypocrisy in what I've said, and again, even if there was, my statement would still be true of you:
“ If you were in any way a Christian, you would suffer the slings and arrows of any who would attack you personally as a Christian is supposed to...with kindness, love and grace (good-hearted snark aside). But you're not a Christian. I don't think you even like Christians.“
Where's the hypocrisy? Am I really attacking you in the manner you've attacked me and all others who have opposed your goofy opinions and perversions of Scripture, your lies about the president and conservatives and Republicans or any other nonsensical expression you've ever made (as if you've ever made any other)? No. Look at your last sentence:
"Marshal has thoroughly corrupted his faith and character. He's dead set on being a stone cold liar."
Aside from the hilarious projection, where have I lied? And how have I thoroughly corrupted my faith and character by speaking the truth? As I said earlier, it's not me who claimed such a superior grasp of the Christian faith that I'm entitled to disparage those with whom I disagree. It's not I who sees something I dislike and assert that it stands as evidence of some character flaw. No. When I call you an asshole, I can point to any number of comments of yours, including the last you re-posted YET AGAIN, (though not those I've deleted of course) and can easily point to that which proves the charge. YOU can't do that. Your ongoing accusation of racism is a case in point. Among the recent deletions are one or two that you use for the charge, yet there's no explanation for what makes the charge legitimate. You can't do it, because it's not true and nothing I've ever said stands as ammo for you.
No, false priest. You lie as to why I delete you and pretend it's because I'm trying to hide something. No one here buys it, and no one who chooses to peruse years of my posts and comments would ever agree with you. So again, who are you trying to convince? No one but yourself, and you don't believe your sorry ass, either. Nice try, Sparky.
Oh, and speaking of a man who has to erase words, you've been deleting my words at your blog rather than putting on your big-boy pants and engaging like a man. Instead, you in your petulance prefer to post your off-topic drivel here where no one is reading them anyway. You're like freakin 12 years old. Borrow a pair of testicles and act like a man.
Post a Comment