Ducky Dan has posted an incredibly goofy comment in two places. One was in the comment section of a recent post of mine, https://marshallart.blogspot.com/2022/06/double-standard-dan.html on July 2, 2022 at 9:54 AM, and at the same time thought it good enough to make a post of it at his blog here: https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2022/07/stay-away-from-conspiracy-theorists.html. Thus, you can reference his "thoughts" at either for your convenience. I'm going to respond and as there is so much "Dan" within it, it could take more than one post. We'll see how it goes. Let's begin:
Dumbass...I mean, Ducky Dan starts of with this laugher:
"One thing that we all have to keep in mind is that today's conservatives are especially in need of being forced to support their claims precisely because so many conservatives have bought into so many conspiracy theories."
This statement alone could be enough to do a post, but I'll try to be succinct. When progs use the term "conspiracy theory", it is a pejorative meant to diminish, disparage or otherwise demonize the typically center-right individual who is speaking as well as what that individual is saying. The prog wants anyone who might be exposed to what is said by a center-right individual to immediately discount what is said as untrue and unworthy of honest consideration. What is said by the center-right person may indeed be untrue or inaccurately presented, but the prog won't take the chance of finding out, because progressives are liars who can't bear truth and reality when truth and reality isn't convenient or conducive to their goals.
A "conspiracy" is an unlawful, harmful, or evil plan formulated in secret by two or more persons. What Dan will go on to list are actual acts being perpetrated out in the open by those he supports, though Dan will misrepresent them in one way or another, or attribute to conservatives in general that which hardly anyone really believes or into which anyone takes serious interest. In short, anything a prog wishes to avoid confronting he will often label a conspiracy "theory", as if it can't be pointed out or to with a reasonable degree of certainty.
And of course, Dan speaks of "today's" conservatives as if he has any idea what conservatism is or looks like, and thus what a conservative...of any period in American history...believes.
"From the way out there types like Q-Anon and the Great Replacement Theory nuts to the more day-to-day insane theories like"
I've never met anyone, or read of anyone, who puts much weight or credence into what Q has ever reported. Indeed, "According to a USA Today/Suffolk University poll, only 4 percent of Trump voters have a favorable view of QAnon." ---https://www.westernjournal.com/new-poll-shatters-lefts-qanon-narrative-4-trump-supporters-believe/.
And while Dan likes to pretend only the right thinks about the so-called "Great Replacement Theory", the truth is the left has promoted the reality of demographic change in America, as well as expressed a level of happiness at the thought that "white men" will soon be in the minority. What's more, the left has expressed joy at the notion their power in this country will increase as a result:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOUurr_a9hs (Jump to 5:00 mark)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz_fc93YYkg
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/05/the_new_racial_hatred.html
The left wants to pretend talking about demographic change is not the same as the GRT, but that's exactly what the GRT is, though it's worse than merely racial makeup, but more about political power. The left prefers the focus stays on race because that's what they do.
Now let's look at Dan's list of so-called "conspiracy theories":
"The gov't wants to take my guns away"
This is no "theory". Lefty liars will pretend they're only looking to regulate..."common sense gun control" they call it. But as we've seen with buffoons like "Beto" O'Rourke say, "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." after demonstrating the will to lie about the purpose of the AR-15 as a military weapon...a common tactic of the lying left.
https://www.lifezette.com/2022/06/democrats-admit-to-planning-to-take-your-guns/
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/must-see-5-specific-times-democrats-wanted-confiscate-guns/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/beto-orourke-guns-democratic-debate/index.html
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/this-democratic-congressman-wants-to-take-your-guns-away-at-least-hes-honest
https://conservative-daily.com/todays-action-alerts/details-how-democrats-plan-to-take-your-guns (how policies will make it hard to purchase and maintain possession of firearms)
https://lidblog.com/take-away-all-our-guns/ (includes other ways the left has openly lied)
There are tons of examples of Dems and lefties seeking to take away guns from the American people, either directly or incrementally.
"The election was stolen"
This is one of Dan's favorites. He points to this all the time as if it is absolutely settled that the 2020 presidential election was the most secure and perfect election ever in the history of elections. But Dan has never done anything more than to provide examples of people saying the election was fair, or there was no evidence of a stolen election, or that there was no evidence there was enough cases of fraud to change the outcome...yada, yada, yada. But what liars like Dan can't do is prove that claims of fraud and irregularity have been confirmed as false, because so very few claims have ever been adjudicated. He can't dare discuss states like Georgia and Pennsylvania who had altered their election rules without the authority of their legislatures as both their state constitutions and the US Constitution demand. He can't dare discuss how Big Tech and leftist media suppressed stories detrimental to Biden and how such affects perceptions among the electorate. These and other of the many pieces of evidence for the just claim need to be scrutinized to have any way of knowing whether or not there was enough fraud and malfeasance to overturn the outcome. What's more, there are still stories dealing with various forms of voter fraud being reported. We may never learn the truth, but it's far from a "conspiracy theory" to claim the election was stolen. It's more a certainty.
""Election fraud" in 2016 cost Trump the popular vote"
Not something over which too many got worked up, but not a "conspiracy theory", either.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/
https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-vindicated-study-shows-57-million-illegals-joseph-curl
https://cblwomen.org/how-many-illegals-vote/
https://conservativefiringline.com/many-illegals-voted-2016-presidential-election/
But then, why wouldn't illegals vote? They had Obama's welcome to do so:
https://www.unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/treason-obama-tells-illegals-ok-vote/
"*The gov't is being taken over by a cabal of HOllywood pedophile liberals
*Hillary Clinton and Democrats were running a child-peddling operation out of a pizza joint in DC"
I put these two together since they're really the same "theory" which was attributed to "Q", which is not particularly regarded as worthy of consideration by no more than about 4% of Trump supporters...which means a far, far fewer amount of Americans in general, but also of conservatives in general, since there are a goodly portion of conservatives who are "NeverTrumpers". Then again, given the growth of lefties who defend pedophilia, and the Epstein/Maxwell case which failed to investigate clientele, it wouldn't be a stretch to consider this might be more truth than "theory".
I'm going to cut it off there for now. I'll pick this up again later. But we can see that what Dan regards as "conspiracy theory" is just what I suggested, that it is no more than a means to stifle and ignore concerns of the right. More importantly with regard to Ducky Dan, he has no true argument against any of these claims except to dismiss them in this way. It helps him sleep at night to believe the leftist crap is protected.
11 comments:
The Right has been right about one "conspiracy" theory after another -- Wuhan lab, Hunter's laptop, etc. You'd think the "Christian" Leftists would lay low on that attack.
Well, it depends upon what's described as a "conspiracy theory". The left applies it to all manner of positions held by the right, and they don't care how many on the right hold one...they will simply pretend it's common to all. At the same time, so many of our beliefs are proven to be true that the default should be to consider a new one true as well until it can be proven false. The left?...not so much.
But then, why wouldn't illegals vote? They had Obama's welcome to do so:
https://www.unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/treason-obama-tells-illegals-ok-vote/
This is just another lie from Fox News. Obama did not encourage undocumented aliens to vote. He encouraged legal citizens to vote, even if they might have family or friends who are undocumented aliens.
Here is a transcript of the relevant portion of the interview:
RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?
OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.
RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.
OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don’t want people voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you’re not just speaking for yourself. You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school…
RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.
OBAMA: … who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote. But they’re counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.
Obama makes it perfectly clear that those undocumented family members and friends “can't legally vote.” What made it possible for Fox to push this lie was the interviewer using the word “citizen” to refer to undocumented aliens “because they contribute to this country.” Obama, of course, properly used “citizen” to refer to people who are legally entitled to vote. Fox distorted Obama's statement to make it look like he was urging non-citizens to vote.
Hence the popular meme: “Is that true or did you hear it on Fox News?
I have a simple rule: the more I want to believe something I read, the more carefully I check it out to see whether it is really true. In this case, the multiple fact-checking articles I found were probably sufficient for me to believe that Fox was lying. On the other hand, I knew that I really wanted this to be just another Fox News lie, so I decided to watch the original interview just to make sure that the fact checkers were accurately reporting what Obama said. They were, and you can see it starting at the 3:20 mark of the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLLt-a6dI_0
The problem with Dan and "the election was stolen" is that Hillary is still whining that the 2016 election was stolen, and the 2016 DFL primary was definitely stolen from Bernie.
I think that the 2020 election was definitely tampered with, but I'm not sure that it was stolen.
FYI, Dan ignores the many "conspiracy theories" that have been proven to actually be True. He used the Whitmer "kidnapping" hoax for years to try to prove his theory about "right wing" violence.
Like so many things Dan is obsessed with conspiracy theories on the right, while ignoring those on the left. He's obsessed with making literally everything into a partisan issue where it's all about how bad the right is.
Nice try, Vinny, but the interviewer clearly stated that she regards the illegals "citizens" "because they contribute to this country". Obama's first response to her question is affirmation..."when you vote, you are a citizen yourself". The first time he refers to illegal voting, he says, "family members, friends, classmates of yours in school…(snip)… who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote." He doesn't ever refer to illegal aliens/undocumented aliens as those who can't vote illegally. Certainly not specifically. And many actual Americans are not legally able to vote, such as those not of age, those who are felons. But while you need to think that he was not accurately represented by anyone following that interview, it was not because he spoke clearly about who he meant. Indeed, his actual words...as YOU'VE presented them...do not suggest what you need to believe (and I would like to believe) he meant.
I also have a simple rule: if a lefty/Democrat/socialist/"progressive" isn't clear, he's likely being deceptive. Fox was NOT "lying". They were reporting accurately what Obama said. I again point to your own presentation of the specific portion of the interview to support that position. After all, Vinny...it should've been a simple thing for "the smartest guy in the room" to be explicitly clear as to whether or not undocumented aliens are legally entitled to vote. He wasn't.
Craig,
Dan really has no factual, truth based way to defend anything he supports, so demonizing the other side is his method. Stifle, cancel, delete, ignore...disparage as "conspiracy theory"... and fewer people will hear the truth and have nothing to consider as true but what liars like Dan have to offer.
Nice try, Vinny, but the interviewer clearly stated that she regards the illegals "citizens" "because they contribute to this country."
So what? She can regard undocumented aliens as anything she wants.
Obama's first response to her question is affirmation
Actually, the first response to her question is “Not true.” That's not an affirmation: it's a negation.
He doesn't ever refer to illegal aliens/undocumented aliens as those who can't vote illegally. Certainly not specifically.
Of course he does. He says “If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.” Then he explains what that greater reason is: “You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school who may not have a voice, who can’t legally vote.”
I also have a simple rule: if a lefty/Democrat/socialist/"progressive" isn't clear, he's likely being deceptive.
My rule is a much better one than yours. My rule seeks to mitigate confirmation bias. Your rule puts confirmation bias on steroids, especially for people who aren't very bright. A stupid person is likely to find many things unclear, even if they are perfectly clear to a more intelligent person. If the stupid person simply treats things he doesn't understand as lies when they come from someone with a different political view, he guarantees that he is never going to learn anything.
When I find something unclear, I consider the possibility that I may not fully understand the issue and that I may have to investigate matters more. I also consider the possibility that the speaker simply did not articulate his position very well, especially if he is speaking extemporaneously, as in an interview. In that case, I look at other statements he has made on the same topic to see whether they shed any light on the unclear statement.
[I]t should've been a simple thing for "the smartest guy in the room" to be explicitly clear as to whether or not undocumented aliens are legally entitled to vote.
If the question had been whether undocumented aliens are legally entitled to vote, I suspect that his answer would have been a very clear “no, undocumented aliens are not legally entitled to vote.” That wasn't the question, though, and it's such an obvious point that Obama probably didn't think that anyone but an idiot would need it be stated explicitly.
"So what? She can regard undocumented aliens as anything she wants."
It's not what she calls them, it's what they are...ineligible to vote in American elections. Look at how she begins, and let's note she lists three categories of people, each of which we can take individually and not change what she's saying:
"Many of the millennials — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting."
"Many of the Dreamers — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting."
Now here's the salient point about which better people regard as most noteworthy with regard to Obama's response to it:
"Many of the undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting."
Thus, she refers to illegal aliens being fearful of voting. Well, given it's illegal, they should be fearful, but the implication is that she believes they do and should be allowed to vote in American elections...which is illegal.
"Actually, the first response to her question is “Not true.” That's not an affirmation: it's a negation."
How disappointing. My memory of you prior to your return to this blog was of a more intelligent, honest person. But then, I am getting on in years, so...
Your comment is crap. This is what prompted his "Not true" response:
"So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?"
Obumble then replies: "Not true." Oh? Why is that, Barry? "...the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself." He's attaching voting as that which makes one a citizen...it's right there in his response...when it's first being a legal citizen which provides one with the eligibility to vote in American elections.
"Of course he does. He says “If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.”"
But as an addendum to what he said prior, this doesn't indicate being undocumented means one can't vote. Indeed, what comes before it makes this an encouragement for illegals to vote, as he implies they have a greater reason to vote, being undocumented, in order to get their "needs" met by doing so.
"Then he explains what that greater reason is: “You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school who may not have a voice, who can’t legally vote.”"
Once again, there are Americans who can't legally vote, such as underage people and those with felonies or are incarcerated. When I vote, I spoke for my kids who couldn't legally vote.
"My rule is a much better one than yours. My rule seeks to mitigate confirmation bias."
AS if you succeed in your search. That's funny. Then you go on to say this, which is in abject conflict with that "rule":
"Your rule puts confirmation bias on steroids, especially for people who aren't very bright."
My rule is based on what's been proven true regarding the lying of the people I listed. They have proven it doesn't pay to take anything they say at face value. And while I'm open to hearing how those like you might try to contradict sources I find reliable, there too the track record isn't in your favor. With your politicians and media favorites, that track record is horrendous. One can't be very bright to not see what's so glaringly clear.
"A stupid person is likely to find many things unclear, even if they are perfectly clear to a more intelligent person."
You, Dan and his diaper stain prove that with incredible regularity. But I'm a patient man and willing to help you work through it.
"If the stupid person simply treats things he doesn't understand as lies when they come from someone with a different political view, he guarantees that he is never going to learn anything."
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear and thus not noting with whom I'm dealing, as you didn't understand. When the left speaks, the safe money is on what's said by the lefty being stupid, false or an outright lie. That doesn't mean I just let it lie. I'm fully cool with waiting for or seeking out more info...which inevitably proves my suspicion was correct. Indeed, I invite the leftists to argue in defense of what was said in order that they might prove their case, were they keen on doing so rather than just criticizing me for not buying in without question. More to your point, I learn a great deal by my openness, though usually I'm forced to seek out the truth myself because the lefty won't provide evidence. Or worse, they provide bad evidence as you've done in defending Obama above.
"When I find something unclear, I consider the possibility that I may not fully understand the issue and that I may have to investigate matters more."
Well, let me pat you on the back for doing the basics.
"I also consider the possibility that the speaker simply did not articulate his position very well, especially if he is speaking extemporaneously, as in an interview. In that case, I look at other statements he has made on the same topic to see whether they shed any light on the unclear statement."
It would have been helpful had you provided a quote from Obrother where he states in no uncertain terms that illegal aliens...or "undocumented 'citizens'"...are not eligible to vote in American elections. Would've saved us both a lot of time and keystrokes. But he was clear enough in the interview you cited. He's not all that concerned about illegals voting.
"If the question had been whether undocumented aliens are legally entitled to vote, I suspect that his answer would have been a very clear “no, undocumented aliens are not legally entitled to vote.” That wasn't the question, though, and it's such an obvious point that Obama probably didn't think that anyone but an idiot would need it be stated explicitly."
Nice try, Vinny, but she was explicit about undocumented being citizens because they allegedly contribute to this country. But then, so have those who DON'T overstay their visas, or even those who simply visit friends who live here. While they're here, they contribute. That doesn't make them citizens. This "smartest guy in the room" should have stopped her right there and made that correction. Indeed, her question was intended to get the "all's clear" from Obumf**k that her beloved undocumented won't be deported. THAT was the point of her question and anyone who isn't keen on defending either invaders or Obama wouldn't pretend otherwise. THAT was the obvious point to which he should have addressed his attention. As if that wasn't enough, he and your are arrogant asses if either of you truly believe only "idiots" would need that reassurance from him. Those you and he would like to believe are idiots are far more astute about what he's tried to do to this country. Thus, he needs to be more specific than most...which is true of every Dem these days. Y'all can't be trusted.
My memory of you prior to your return to this blog was of a more intelligent, honest person.
I wish that I could return the compliment, but I really can't remember anything you've ever written that suggested any deeper analysis than “liberals bad—conservatives good.”
Projecting, I see. Nice.
Post a Comment