Just Getting It Off My Chest

This might be long, so I'll make extra effort to keep it from being too boring.  That means snark and mockery whilst reiterating my point regarding the appropriate and justified use of the terms "whore" and "slut" relative to two particular women whose character and behavior provide that justification which makes the terms appropriate.  In doing so, I'll be referring to the post and subsequent comments found here-----> http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2020/03/to-all-women-i-love-and-admire.html  Some may ask, "Why bother?"  The answer is simple.  "Cuz".  What's more, I seem to have a lot of time on my hands thanks to another Democratic asshat governor.  So, let's begin:

"We really SHOULD have a female running to beat Trump, this WAS the year and I'm sorry it's looking like it's not turning out that way.  They clearly were the better candidates."

Well, considering how low the bar, that's not saying much at all.  But more importantly, leave it to a lefty to think sex is a worthy criterion for selecting a candidate for any office, be it public or private sector.  It's the very same lunacy that got us eight years of presidential impotence immediately prior to the surprisingly effective and America improving Donald Trump.  I'd be interested to know exactly which of the feminine fakes Dan had in mind, or if he is even more a loon and would have accepted any one of them.  As to "clearly the better candidates", that's debatable anyway, as the most "normal" of the leftist choices likely was Andrew Yang.  Again, a low bar.

Dan then launches into a his poetry with artwork of "strong women", at the top of which is a series of "x's".  Are these kisses?  The predator!!!  The poem ends with:

"It IS your life.  Live it by your rules.  This poet stands with you and your choices."

After all these years, we know that Dan backs a woman's choice to murder her own unborn, to engage in immoral sexual behavior because to embrace grace means enabling sinfulness.  Nothing says "embracing grace" like joyfully celebrating women losing their souls.  Ain't he sweet?

But it gets better with more direct attacks on me personally, so this is where it gets really fun!  To wit:

"Marshal, who is banned until such time as he apologizes for using abusive/oppressive language about women, not surprisingly is trying to comment here suggesting that the pervert/sexual predator Trump is a better option than all these Democrat candidates including the women."

Again, there is no apology anywhere in the works since I've done nothing wrong whatsoever.   I wasn't speaking about "women" when I chose those appropriate and justified words in my response to his troll, feo.  No.  I was referring to two specific women as mentioned in an earlier post.  Thus, Danny-boy is acting like the corrupt press he defends by perverting the truth.  But as if that isn't enough, this is the same Dan Trabue who rationalizes in the most blasphemous way his use of profane and obscene language at the blogs of others.  But then, his hypocrisy is legendary.  He pretends he's a champion of women.  So let's look at that:

1.  He ignores the millions of females murdered in the womb at the hands of their own mothers.
2.  He ignores the physical, emotional and spiritual harm inflicted upon women who choose abortion over raising the child they invited into existence by their indulgence in sexual self-gratification.
3.  He enables true sexual predators who rely on the legal ability of women and girls to get abortions in order that they can freely abdicate their responsibility for their part in bringing that child into existence.
4.  He enables those suffering from mental disorders that result in lesbian behaviors and homosexual behaviors, which often result in a married women with children losing her husband and the father of their children in order to satisfy his disordered desires.
5.  He enables those suffering from sexual identity disorder which puts women at risk by allowing men to make use of women's facilities, women's shelters and women's privileges in housing, business and other areas where a woman's sex grants aid and assistance in order to compete with men.
6.  He enable those men who "identify" as women to compete in athletic events in direct competition with women, including combat sports, which denies women a fair chance at winning.
7.  He assumes, due to his putting irrational value in radical feminist studies, that women who indulge in sexually immoral acts never do so because they are immoral, but because someone like Donald Trump abused them earlier in life.  Kinda blows that "strong woman" poem all to hell, doesn't it?
8.  He'll pretend we live in a "rape culture", because his cherished radical feminist studies tell him we do, yet will attack good Christian men who encourage women and girls to dress modestly so as not to arouse the prurient interest of sexual predators that lurk around every corner.

Yeah.  That's real concern for women, ain't it?  But he'll go on attacking Trump despite having no more concrete knowledge but that he has cheated on his wives to have consensual sex with other women who have no way of legitimately saying they didn't know he was married.  Yeah.  Right.


And I'm not "suggesting" that Trump is the better choice than that entire field of Democratic clowns, male OR female.  I'm stating a fact based on their track records and policy proposals versus the less than full term of proven effectiveness and fulfilled campaign promises.  And I can now include his handling of this COVID-19 issue, which has been pretty damned good given the bad info he's had to overcome.

Dan then "prays" for me, or at least composes a prayer he might pray, that my eyes be opened to what I've done by supporting Trump's presidency and re-election.  Of course, there's no telling to whom he's praying given his "theology" strongly suggests he isn't a big fan of the God or Jesus Christ, but only uses those names to pose as a Christian.   The real Dan shows up in his alternative prayer:

"Lord, may you afflict those pervert-defending conservative men with a painful, debilitating case of genital leprosy in the weeks leading up to the election and continue it until such time as sexual predators like Trump-and those who defend them, like Marshal-are no longer in a position to oppress and imperil women and other human beings."


Wow!  Talk about a lying con man!!!  Dan truly makes Trump look like a piker!!  This is a guy who supports women candidates who support the murder of the unborn!!  And he dares talk about imperiling women and other human beings!!!  Trump's got nothing on Dan or his preferred choices for president, whomever they may be.  Is there even a thing called "genital leprosy"?  Sounds painful.  With grace-embracers like Dan, who needs satanists?

At this point, Dan goes on to reiterate that I'm not welcome without apologizing for calling a couple of sluts "sluts", while he says all manner of unjustified things about me and Trump.  Yeah, Trump's a womanizer.  But we have no credible accusations that he's done any real "predatory" acts.  We only know he ogled naked girls and sought sex with other women not his wife.   And the fact that the two women in question are proven whores and sluts confounds his attempts to demonize Trump beyond reason.  No.  He has to pretend that despite their character and behaviors being beyond question, the fact that I don't know the women personally somehow prohibits me from calling them what their character and behaviors justifies.  He tries to pretend the actual words I use are somehow worse in describing them than any other, OR, he's insisting that despite their blatant and unquestioned immorality, they are not to be called ANYTHING that describes their immorality...while he calls me and other Trump supporters all manner of nasty things, and Trump worse things.  And when having pointed out this double standard, he defaults to this nonsense about the history of oppressed women under the of oppressive men and rape cultures, yada, yada, yada...as if somehow that excuses sexually immoral behavior by women.

My favorite part is the insistence that the use of words like "whore", "slut" and the like are the domain of men, yet I've provided studies (at least one by a woman) that validate my contention that women are just as likely, if not more so, to use those words to describe other women than are men. 

Despite the easily proven truth that I have only used the terms in reference to two specific women, Dan continues insisting...lying...that I used it to speak of all women.  And he laughingly tries to insist that women are somehow harmed, insulted or in any way oppressed by their merely hearing those words, and mocks me for my still ongoing polling of women which, to date, has yet to find a woman or girl who is so personally traumatized.

He tells me to look at the data, the research, to listen to experts in the field (BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!).  And I read all the "data, research and experts" he provided and I don't find radical feminists to be reliable about anything the report.  In turn, as I said, I provided counter research that doesn't agree in the least, other than to say what I've said:  that women who are NOT whores or sluts are insulting and hurt by being referred to in those terms, and actual whores and sluts are inconvenienced by having their true character revealed where they hoped to have kept it hidden.   Dan wants to pretend that what I say is merely my personal rationalizations, some kind of fantasy, a product of some ego he thinks is out of hand.   But then, he'll say anything to protect his hateful position on Trump and he's not above exploiting women to do so.   Indeed, with champions of the fairer sex like Dan, who needs women-haters!!!

Quite frankly, his continued assertion that I side with sexual predators, that I am somehow aligned with those who assault and harm women would justify my kicking his ass if he said such to my face.  Fortunately, as a Christian, I would simply challenge him to a bout rather than to stomp him in the street.  Otherwise, I would continue to challenge him to support his crap with more than radical feminist studies he finds so compelling.  I prefer REAL science and REAL research, not leftist crap sandwiches that have no basis in reality.

Jeez!  This IS getting long!!!

He goes on and on with more nonsense about ME ignoring reality, but reality includes the fact that jokers like him are the reason both sexual predation AND sexual immorality of women continues.   I promote Christian values and virtue.  Dan excuses those who do not practice such things, as if he is doing God's work by NOT pointing out the sinfulness of an immoral woman's behavior.   Yeah.  THAT will get her into Paradise all right!  So Dan asks me some questions and the last comments he allowed were my responses to them.  Then he responds to those as stupidly as one might imagine:

"YOU KNOW NOTHING about these women and their history."

IT DOESN'T MATTER IN THE LEAST!  But I do know enough of their history that the terms are appropriate appellations given their careers, history and testimony with regard to Trump.  They acted of their own accord to engage in all of it.  By Dan's Trump-hating motivations, there is no one that can be convicted if their past is less than fairy tale.  That's Dan-level bullshit.  Apparently he's unfamiliar with the adage, "old enough to know better."

"You ignore the reality that research shows that many women who have ended up in "adult businesses" are there in part due to their oppressive/harassment/assault in their history and, in part, due to the objectification of women by men in power."

I ignore nothing, such as the fact that no "research" Dan presented showed that "many" women "end up" in sex-trades because of a harsh past, but only that his "research" shows that some women did.  It didn't poll all that many women to justify the use of the term "many" and regardless, it doesn't mean we should assume that in any whore or slut, and not in the case of the two in question.  Dan simply wants that to be the case.  More as evidence of Dan's dishonesty, he wants ME to assume that because he needs as large a list of Trump victims as possible to justify his attacks on Trump.  Without these whores, the list is chopped down to...what...22 accusers about whom Dan knows less than I do?  No.  Dan doesn't WANT to know their histories because to find that, say, Stormy Daniels was simply as horny as Trump but nowhere near as entrepreneurial that porn was her path to easy living...well...that just won't do.

"In spite of that reality, you're willing to assume the very worst of these women and deny the oppression of women writ large at the hands of men like Trump and those, like you, who defend them."

First of all, there's no reality but only Dan's presumption that these women suffered earlier in life so as to justify ignoring the fact that they're whores and sluts.  I, in the meantime, assume nothing about them that is not absolutely certain, proven and affirmed by their own testimonies.    Secondly, Dan just wanted somewhere he could say "writ large" because he thinks it sounds cool.    BUT, Dan ignores that their known history is "writ large" enough to know they're whores and sluts.  In the meantime, Dan continues to slander me as a defender of rapists and sexual oppressors simply because I voted for a guy who was the lesser of two evils...by a long shot...promised that which all conservatives wanted out of a president, then delivered on those promises in a way unprecedented in American politics and is thus worthy of a second term.  Dan supports baby killers and thinks I'm the bad guy.

"I am not blind to what I suspect was the great psychological harm that was most likely done to him by his parents and those around him in his upbringing.  He is very clearly a man with a damaged soul/psyche.  I can and do feel sympathy for Trump, the man.  In the same way that I can find some sympathy for other pedophiles and rapists who were damaged by others growing up."

Dan's not the first asshat to think he's capable of psychoanalyzing from afar.  He's just the dumbest and as such the most arrogant.  I have no idea what Trump's childhood was like.  I've never seen nor heard of anything that suggests it wasn't happy and nurturing.  And I have no reason to believe Dan give's a flying rat's ass about Trump except to see him out of office replaced by one of his baby-murdering, LGBT enabling, high taxing, economy and culture destroying leftist asshole alternatives.  That's how Dan rolls.  He does this in the guise of a Christian, without knowing what that word actually means, as evidenced by his obsessive hatred of the man.

"NONETHELESS, in a world of competing sympathies, we must always side with the oppressed, the marginalized and the harmed over and against those who are doing the oppressing, the harming."

Not in the realm of sin.  We don't say to one, "oh, you had a hard life, your sin is OK" while saying to another, "your life was easy, your sin in reprehensible".  No.  Sin is sin and Dan is an idiot.  These two women were not oppressed when they willfully chose to have sex with a married man.  They certainly weren't by Trump.  And while we know with unquestioned certainty of the immorality of these two women, we...DAN...has not credible evidence that Trump is guilty of harming any women, except for ogling some naked chicks and cheating on his wives with willing co-conspirators.  This is the guy who expects ME to apologize when he's far more guilty of lying about me, Trump and of supporting true oppressors of women...far more egregious oppressors given what they do to the unborn...while I have done no worse than state the facts.

All of Dan's shit is simply because he can't truly defend his hateful attitude toward a president who is far more effective than the Barry Obumble who accomplished nothing of note.

Dan stupidly encourages me to take classes in the same radical feminist studies where he earned his skirt.  But I prefer truth, reality, facts, evidence...NOT bullshit half-assed leftist nonsense that has done nothing for the cause of women except to lead them to immorality and despair.  Dan, however, needs to study Scripture...not with "progressive" "christians", but with real Christians who put God's will above earthly concerns.  Dan's a baby-killer supporter.  This is true and beyond a doubt given the people he's supported for president.  Thus, Dan is complicit in the murder of the unborn.  This is far more true than any suggestion that I support or defend sexual predators.  I've NEVER suggested I support such things in any way.  Dan has openly stated he no longer considers abortion immoral.  More women have been harmed by abortion than by womanizing rich dudes.

So, this really HAS been a long post, and I have just a bit more to add before I'm finished with Dan's whiny, bullshit, pearl-clutching, fake outrage about calling two whores/sluts what they are.