Since that fateful day when we learned the 2020 election was stolen from the best president we've had in decades, I've hoped to have a running series of posts dealing with the consequence of so many having rejected Donald Trump back then. That "consequence" is none other than Joe Biden: Destroyer. In my "discussions" on social media, evidence is plentiful of those most moronic of TDS sufferers that actually believe we are still somehow better off by having denied Trump a second term. It amazes me anyone could ever so much as hint as such a thing, even jokingly. There's no way to describe just how stupid that position is, and by "stupid", I mean that in the most unambiguous and direct manner possible, with all the hurt feelings which it should provoke. Those who rejected Trump are deserving of scorn and derision at the very least for the harm which has befallen the nation since that dark day.
But there's a struggle to decide just how to proceed with the plan here. Every time I feel like I have an idea of just what Biden blunder should be the subject of a post, more serious blunders take place or are revealed. It makes one's head spin to consider all the ways he's caused harm and all the nuances within each of those ways which have manifested or will manifest. There's just so much. From the arming of the Taliban with weapons far more destructive than what he wants to take from us, to the arming of the Ukranians with weapons far more destructive than what he wants to take from us, to the tax dollars each of just those two questionable acts cost us. The running up of the debt to the running up of the price of just about every damned thing the average American would want or need to buy.
And then there's his lying. This guy lies in a way only a Louisville moron would pretend Donald Trump lied, but for real and in ways far more damaging. For example, a routine lie of Biden's is the "Putin Price Hike" or the "Putin Gas Price Hike". This buffoon creates an inflationary nightmare and blames it boldly on Putin...which leads to another lie, which is that Putin is the great evil of our time, while between Biden and Xi Jinping, Vlady only comes in third at best. And between Biden and Xi, I have to give the prize to Stutterin' Joe because his stupidity (gosh, I hope it's stupidity!) has greased the skids for everything Xi, and for that matter Putin, hope to do.
So I'm beginning to believe it's enough to state the obvious and leave it at that. That opens me up to lame criticisms, but absolutely won't lead to any evidence that Biden's elevation to the Big Chair was in any way intelligent or pleasing to God. The harm we all now suffer is due to that moronic rejection of Trump. That's not even debatable, and it has manifested in so many ways I'm now left with this inability to choose just how to go about commenting. I'm sure to leave out so much as there is so much wrong. We'll see how this plays out. I just needed to express my frustration.
45 comments:
Biden's gaslighting lies ("Putin's price hike") are so ham-fisted and choreographed that not even the Democrats believe them. He is despicably evil and destructive, and those who put him in office -- including the NeverTrump "conservatives" -- are to blame.
As with Dan, I find it hard to determine whether I believe Biden's intentionally acting from his immoral character, or if he is just a moron. As with Dan, I take the easy way out and assume it's a combination of the two. That determination is nowhere near as important as the consequences of his actions and in-actions.
I can't help but wonder why anyone would think that someone with a demonstrated history of lying and plagiarism was going to magically change once he became president.
No, Craig. Trump's the lying con man. Biden's making things better.
Dan,
But that's the problem isn't it? When you have two candidates with a demonstrated Truth deficit, it makes it hard for people who value Truth to support either one.
That wasn't Dan, Craig...that was me mocking Dan. In choosing between Trump or Biden, the notion of both demonstrating a "truth deficit" is not completely accurate. There's a difference between outright lying and engaging in hyperbole or asserting a believed point which might not be true.
That you all see these two men - one basically good but way imperfect and the other the single demonstrably, measurably most overtly corrupt, dishonest and vulgar/perverted president in our lifetime - as somehow comparable is part of the problem.
And that isn't Trump hatred. It's just reality. Historians, conservatives, rational people across the board recognize the departure from ANYTHING like acceptable in Trump whereas, Biden is just another flawed human. You're comparing apples and rotten oranges and failing to understand the chasm of difference between the two.
Your partisanship has made you blind.
More's the pity.
May your eyes be opened one day and I hope it's not too long. Living in a state of delusion is a serious problem.
July 19, 2022 at 8:28 PM
If either of the two...Trump or Biden...can be referred to as "good", it would clearly be Trump for a host of reasons you have neither the honesty to admit, nor the integrity to seek out for yourself. But those of us with at least a shred of honesty and a hint of integrity (and certainly I'm demonstrating a modicum of modesty given how clearly we're possessed of far more of both than a lying, fake Christian like you...who possesses nothing but evil rebellion) can easily acknowledge Trump's shortcomings of character and still see he's far more a "good" man than Biden on so many levels.
But yes, your opinion is nothing BUT clear and unvarnished hatred for Trump, as if you have an actual legitimate reason beyond partisan hackery. You're far too devoid of morals and character to even comment on such a thing. You're not "good" enough to wipe Trump's backside.
I should point out, that Dan's moronic comment is just the latest example of him overstating the flaws of someone he hates, while minimizing the flaws of one he doesn't. It's typical Dan dishonesty and a common tactic which fools no one.
He then goes on to cite "historians" who have no historical context to judge Trump. That is, honorable historians don't judge a president based on partisan crap, which those Dumbass Dan cites does. He also cites "conservatives" as if because someone has a rep as a conservative that he can't be an irrational Trump-hater suffering from TDS, like Dumbass Dan. It would be something to have those George Will types questioned now about which they'd rather see in office. I'd wager to a man they'd all prefer Trump if there was no third option they were allowed to choose. After all, they're Trump-haters, not stupid lefties.
The most pernicious lie in the trio is "rational people". No Dan. Rational people would never choose Biden over Trump, especially after the last two years. Trump made life better in America. Biden's been a total, unmitigated disaster...far worse than even I thought possible. But this unassailable fact was not necessary to know prior to the campaign for Nov 2020 that Biden was a worthless piece of shit of a Dem politician. He had almost 50 years of no notable achievements...and by saying "notable achievements", I'm being generous with a degree of grace of which Dan is incapable. Trump, on the other hand, had proven himself to be far more capable than anyone imagined. I worried for the first year that "the REAL Trump" would arise and cause calamity. It never happened. And even acknowledging not every move was golden, there was enough gold throughout his presidency that more than justified a second term. With dickheads like Dan Trabue, we as a nation weren't worthy of him.
Dan wants to pretend Trump is a liar. No one lies like Biden. Trump's a freakin' carnival barker. Biden's a liar...much like Dan. Trump is flawed. Biden's criminal.
Art,
My bad, I knew it was you but I typed the wrong name.
At the risk of stirring the pot here, I see both you and Dan doing essentially the same thing. You're both ignoring or minimizing the long documented history of lying in your guy because you support them. It's interesting to see how people cling to a couple of old, rich, white guys, who have a history of lying as if they are the very best that America has to offer. It's clear that Trump, despite his many flaws, was a better president that Dan will ever admit. It's also clear that Biden is a much worse president than Dan will ever admit. If forced to choose between only those two for our next president, I'd choose Trump. Fortunately, rational people have the opportunity to exchange these two buffoons for better candidates in 2024.
Craig,
You've said something to this effect before...comparing me to Dan. It's crap. I don't minimize a damn thing about Trump. I'm well aware of his flaws and find them to be insignificant compared to his overall great work as president. I don't see which of his flaws have made anything worse and not sure any of them have lessened the effectiveness of his beneficial policies. At what point do Americans take responsibility for allowing Trump flaws to interfere with their choice to support or oppose him? Is...or was...Trump the best America had...or has...to offer? At the time he was elected, it was indeed a concern. Given his work as president, he demonstrated he qualified for that mantle in ways few considered possible. To even question this is an indictment on those who do.
At this point in time, I would insist as many do that Ron DeSantis may be the best American has to offer for the next president, though I think it's a certainty he won't be running. It's out of character for him to do so given he seems intent on a second term as Florida governor and I don't see him stepping down to run for president in the middle of it. If he chooses not to run for reelection, then he's likely going to run for president, in which case he will hold the title as best we have to offer.
Trump, being basically just a regular guy with lots of greenbacks, is exactly what most people in the nation's early days would've suggested is presidential material: one of us. Given the quality of the average American, he's no more or less buffoonish, but he's no buffoon. His record proves that quite nicely. So it seems he's a better president than you're willing to admit as well. But I won't put you in Dan's class. Truly rational people want someone who can be effective in improving the state of the nation. Trump did that. Rational people would irrational to reject him for any reason other than the response of NeverTrumpers and leftist liars again spending four years obstructing him. But that's not on him.
Feel free to rip him for something he actually does wrong. Being himself...and especially in as transparent a manner as a guy like him tends to be...is what most people prior to his election insisted they wanted.
So now once again I'm compelled to object to how he is characterized rather than to discuss or debate his policies. How shitty that we might be better off with a lesser replacement because the nation can't get it's collective heads out of their collective asses where Trump's manner is concerned. It blows my mind to think what great things could've been accomplished had so many chosen to worry about their own behavior instead of irrelevant crap about Trump's.
Craig...
"At the risk of stirring the pot here, I see both you and Dan doing essentially the same thing. You're both ignoring or minimizing the long documented history of lying in your guy because you support them. "
At the risk of pointing out the obvious:
1. All presidents have told lies, stretched the truth and twisted facts. ALL of them. That is not desirable, but it's not unusual.
2. One can recognize how it is not desirable in a president to twist facts or otherwise be less than truthful, while noting it's a common occurrence. It happens regularly when politicians and just regular people are trying to make a point and they may embellish or spin or otherwise be less than honest.
3. The crucial difference is, IF when presented with facts, the politician or person in question says, "Well, yes, of course the facts. I was just trying to make a point and... " whatever... as long as they can recognize the facts when presented with them, I'm inclined to give grace towards all of humanity that may be less than truthful.
4. Trump is an outlier. Trump is historically corrupt and dishonest.
And the problem is in trying to present him as in any way somehow comparable to other presidents and politicians when it comes to the historic, document, unprecedented level of his corruption and dishonesty.
Craig and Marshal defend this historic corruption and/or just fail to understand the chasm of difference between Trump and any other normal politician or person. The Trump apologists (and this DEFINITELY includes people like Craig, but not reasonable conservatives like George Will, Liz Cheney, etc) will be judged harshly by history.
I know that Trump apologists like to dismiss expert evaluations of Trump as "it's too soon for historians and scholars to assess Trump's legacy..." but I wonder if you all and your children will STILL be saying that 25, 50 years from now when it's fairly universally acknowledged the level of Trump's perversion and corruption and threat to a Free Republic? Will there EVER come a time when you'll finally say, "Yes, the experts knew what they were talking about!"?
Craig...
"It's clear that Trump, despite his many flaws, was a better president that Dan will ever admit."
That's like saying that, despite his many flaws, that complete corrupt and dishonest despot was a better leader than you'll ever admit. There are lines that should not be crossed or accepted. Trump crossed them regularly and that you are blinded to the deep level of his perversion does not speak well of you or other Trump apologists.
"It's also clear that Biden is a much worse president than Dan will ever admit."
Biden was the last of my choices for the Democrats. I actively campaigned/advocated for ANY of the others over him. But he isn't/wasn't an utterly corrupt and entirely untrustworthy candidate.
That you fail to understand the differerence/distinction does not speak well of you.
It's not a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. It's a matter of saying, "here's a tremendously flawed candidate who is, at least, not entirely unqualified" and "but here is a corrupt man who is not fit for the office and whose election will DO DAMAGE to the office and the nation." As we have seen in the case of Trump.
Inflation is largely beyond the control of presidents/politicians, as long as they take reasonable steps.
An epidemic is largely beyond the control of politicians, as long as they take reasonable steps.
The more serious problems that Biden faces are largely products of concerns that were not in his power to prevent or that were already inflamed by the previous set of policies he inherited. Reasonable people can see that. We don't like the inflation and the continuing epidemic, but it's the reality. Trump sure isn't going to fix them and to suggest he could (if anyone is suggesting that), they're as delusional as Trump.
Marshal...
"Trump, being basically just a regular guy with lots of greenbacks"
While, you must have an EXTREMELY low view of regular guys with lots of greenbacks.
Trump is not like any regular, normal, rational adult I know of.
He is, on the other hand, very comparable to amoral, chaos-loving narcissists I've read about.
If he is "normal" in your circle of friends, man, you need a new circle of friends.
Laughing and boasting about ogling teen aged girls, laughing and boasting about grabbing women by the crotch, mocking the disabled, attacking women with sexist, misogynistic attacks, being entirely dishonest and unconcerned with facts and truth, being an extremely wealthy man who cheats his employers and his charities out of money, attacking immigrants, etc, etc... these are NOT normal behaviors amongst my decent, moral and rational liberal, progressive, LGBTQ, Drag Queen and other friends and colleagues. Not even amongst my conservative friends.
If that's "normal" or "regular guy" to you, get a new norm. That's sick, not normal.
What does it say to you that my Drag Queen friends (people you love to attack and demonize as apparently the worst of the worst) are more moral and rational than what you think of as "regular guys..."?
Sick, sick, sick.
I will say this and I suspect Craig and I can both agree on the point:
The democrats would be foolish to run Biden in 2024. Biden would be selfish to choose to try to remain in office in 2024. I'm hopeful that he'll ll do the right thing and step down for health reasons or whatever, making room for someone else to give it to try.
Likewise, the GOP would be especially foolish (not to mention, immoral) to try to run trump again. However, I have no hope that trump would, on his own, choose not to run. The man is a walking ego.
"Craig and Marshal defend this historic corruption and/or just fail to understand the chasm of difference between Trump and any other normal politician or person. The Trump apologists (and this DEFINITELY includes people like Craig, but not reasonable conservatives like George Will, Liz Cheney, etc) will be judged harshly by history."
Once again, it seems strange to bitch about people telling lies, then to lie to make the point.
The extent of my "apology" for Trump is that I've addressed his flaws, and having addressed them, focused on his successes and failures in terms of his policies and official acts. Of course, I did the same thing with P-BO, and am doing the same thing with Biden. But why deal with reality, when you can make up your own fantasy world and live there.
Shockingly enough, I agree with Dan that a rerun of Trump/Biden (I love how he tries to dehumanize Trump by not capitalizing his name) would be an example of both political parties demonstrating that they've run out of worthy candidates.
I agree than Trump is too narcissistic to take himself out of the running.
Art,
The fact that you (as charitably as possible) fail to see how Trumps flaws negatively affected his presidency simply provides more evidence to support my conclusion.
Much like Dan's comment from 9:58.
"Inflation is largely beyond the control of presidents/politicians, as long as they take reasonable steps."
Of course the problem is that Biden took steps that made inflation worse. Primarily by increasing the money supply. Printing money devalues the currency, and drives inflation. His obsessive desire to stick to his campaign promise to destroy the oil/gas industry, even to the extent of begging the Saudis to increase production instead of encouraging domestic production increases has also made things worse.
"An epidemic is largely beyond the control of politicians, as long as they take reasonable steps."
Interesting, what reasonable steps did Trump NOT take that made the pandemic worse? Given the data, are you really arguing that the Trump/Biden steps were the best possible steps that could have been taken?
Thank you for making my point. You seem absolutely incapable of acknowledging that Trump did anything in office that was in any way positive (focusing on your subjective standards of what makes the "worst" president) and ignoring (at a minimum) that we would not have had a "vaccine" as soon as we did without Trump's actions.
July 21, 2022 at 9:48 AM
"1. All presidents have told lies, stretched the truth and twisted facts. ALL of them. That is not desirable, but it's not unusual."
The Dem party is unique in relying on falsehood in their party platform.
"2. One can recognize how it is not desirable in a president to twist facts or otherwise be less than truthful..."
Yet you voted for Biden anyway while pretending he's more honest than Trump, which is clearly and unmistakably a lie itself.
"3. The crucial difference is, IF when presented with facts, the politician or person in question says, "Well, yes, of course the facts. I was just trying to make a point and... ""
That's not only never occurred with Biden, it's never occurred with Obama, and it's never mattered to you in the least.
"...as long as they can recognize the facts when presented with them, I'm inclined to give grace towards all of humanity that may be less than truthful."
We've never seen anything like this from you, and indeed, "give grace" to leftists despite the many lies they tell with impunity. In the meantime, you've still not presented any egregious lie from Trump which had any significant impact on anyone who supports him.
"4. Trump is an outlier. Trump is historically corrupt and dishonest."
He can't hold a candle to you and yours.
"And the problem is in trying to present him as in any way somehow comparable to other presidents and politicians when it comes to the historic, document, unprecedented level of his corruption and dishonesty."
The problem is you're no where near honest and gracious enough to give an objective opinion about this man who is a far better person than you are. These are simply things you like to say and believe without basis, but only because of your own unprecedented level of corruption and dishonesty. Your opinion of him is a joke and is worthless. What's more, its a lie you intentionally tell.
"Craig and Marshal defend this historic corruption and/or just fail to understand the chasm of difference between Trump and any other normal politician or person."
When will we be given an example of this "historic corruption"? History will acknowledge Trump to be a far better president than either Obama or Biden and they won't even consider the stupidity of haters like Cheney, Will and abject morons like Dan.
"I know that Trump apologists like to dismiss expert evaluations of Trump as "it's too soon for historians and scholars to assess Trump's legacy..." but I wonder if you all and your children will STILL be saying that 25, 50 years from now when it's fairly universally acknowledged the level of Trump's perversion and corruption and threat to a Free Republic?"
Given there's no logical or intelligent way to claim Trump has been a threat to a Free Republic even now, it's laughable that the passage of time will result in any widespread "acknowledgement" of this hateful fantasy. As is typical, you again refer to "experts" who simply hate Trump as you do, but not actual experts who deal objectively in fact and truth.
"Will there EVER come a time when you'll finally say, "Yes, the experts knew what they were talking about!"?"
Aside from the fact that I don't give as much weight to "experts" in the manner liars like you do, I already give them props when it's deserved. It's deserved when facts and evidence bear out what they say. Partisan hatred of the type that gives you a tingle in your lady bits is not what true experts are all about.
July 21, 2022 at 9:58 AM
""It's clear that Trump, despite his many flaws, was a better president that Dan will ever admit."
That's like saying that, despite his many flaws, that complete corrupt and dishonest despot was a better leader than you'll ever admit."
To refer to Trump as a despot is an intentional lie for which there is no legitimate basis. Despotism is far more reflected in the policies of Biden and Dem governors throughout the past two years than ANYTHING Trump ever did. Calling Trump "corrupt" doesn't make him corrupt. Evidence of corruption does. Where is it?
"There are lines that should not be crossed or accepted."
Yet you've accepted every line crossed by every Dem in your lifetime will eagerness and glee.
"Trump crossed them regularly and that you are blinded to the deep level of his perversion does not speak well of you or other Trump apologists."
How morally bankrupt people like you regard those of us who supported Trump's presidency is of no consequence, except as a sign of how decayed our culture has become.
"Biden was the last of my choices for the Democrats."
You say that as if it means anything.
"I actively campaigned/advocated for ANY of the others over him."
When did that happen? Not on your blog. I recall no advocacy for anyone but Biden. Feel free to link to such a post here. Until you do, I'll just consider it another intentional lie.
"But he isn't/wasn't an utterly corrupt and entirely untrustworthy candidate."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Spoken like a typical moron who doesn't pay attention!!!
"That you fail to understand the differerence/distinction does not speak well of you."
This is hilarious coming from an abject liar who won't acknowledge how improved America was after Obama and how far we've fallen since the election was stolen in Biden's favor.
"It's not a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. It's a matter of saying, "here's a tremendously flawed candidate who is, at least, not entirely unqualified" and "but here is a corrupt man who is not fit for the office and whose election will DO DAMAGE to the office and the nation." As we have seen in the case of Trump."
And yet, you can't point to any major problem caused by any Trump policy. He's done the nation nor the office of presidency no damage which you can prove.
"Inflation is largely beyond the control of presidents/politicians, as long as they take reasonable steps."
And yet Sleepy Joe took none.
https://nypost.com/2022/04/04/new-fed-study-shows-biden-owns-our-economic-disaster/
"An epidemic is largely beyond the control of politicians, as long as they take reasonable steps."
And yet Sleepy Joe and Dem governors took none. And where Trump failed was in drafting morons like Fauci and Birx to lead his anti-Covid agenda. Yet Trump left Biden with tools Biden then pretended didn't exist when he took office.
"The more serious problems that Biden faces are largely products of concerns that were not in his power to prevent or that were already inflamed by the previous set of policies he inherited."
Bullshit. Abject bullshit intentionally told by an abject liar.
"Trump sure isn't going to fix them and to suggest he could (if anyone is suggesting that), they're as delusional as Trump."
Nothing was as bad as it got once Biden was sworn in. And that's accounting for Trump's own (but lesser) spending issues. Trump had already improved the situation he didn't cause, then Biden reversed most all of it and what we have now is indeed because of Biden...not despite him. You're a moron. Stay the hell away from any official ballot. You're too stupid to vote.
July 21, 2022 at 10:04 AM
"While, you must have an EXTREMELY low view of regular guys with lots of greenbacks."
I have a Christian view of regular guys regardless of the size of their wallets.
"Trump is not like any regular, normal, rational adult I know of."
You don't understand those terms, so I would not suppose you know ANY normal or rational adult.
"He is, on the other hand, very comparable to amoral, chaos-loving narcissists I've read about."
Yeah. Right.
"If he is "normal" in your circle of friends, man, you need a new circle of friends."
My circle of friends aren't dishonest progs who posture as "holier than thou"...and I've close friends who are leftists, too. None of them are as unholy as you.
"Laughing and boasting about ogling teen aged girls, laughing and boasting about grabbing women by the crotch, mocking the disabled, attacking women with sexist, misogynistic attacks, being entirely dishonest and unconcerned with facts and truth, being an extremely wealthy man who cheats his employers and his charities out of money, attacking immigrants, etc, etc..."
Blah, blah, blah...all the same Trump-hating favorite falsehoods from the list of talking points.
"...these are NOT normal behaviors amongst my decent, moral and rational liberal, progressive, LGBTQ, Drag Queen and other friends and colleagues."
I love how you pretend your perv friends are decent and moral. That's hilarious!!
"Not even amongst my conservative friends."
Stop lying about having conservative friends. You don't know what conservatism is. How can you pretend to identify one?
"If that's "normal" or "regular guy" to you, get a new norm. That's sick, not normal."
Normal in this fallen, craven world is far from saintly. What you pretend you are is really just another form of cravenness and far less normal for pretending you're better.
"What does it say to you that my Drag Queen friends (people you love to attack and demonize as apparently the worst of the worst) are more moral and rational than what you think of as "regular guys..."?"
It says what I've always said...that you're morally bankrupt and pretending your perv friends are "more moral and rational" is proof.
"Sick, sick, sick."
Yes. You most certainly are. Own it.
July 21, 2022 at 11:07 AM
"I will say this and I suspect Craig and I can both agree on the point:"
I suspect Craig would prefer you never put him with you in the same sentence. You insult him in doing so.
"The democrats would be foolish to run Biden in 2024."
Wow. Really going out on a limb here, aren't you Danny-girl?
"Biden would be selfish to choose to try to remain in office in 2024. I'm hopeful that he'll ll do the right thing and step down for health reasons or whatever, making room for someone else to give it to try."
He ran for president three times. What makes you think he'll wise up now? You're a moron.
"Likewise, the GOP would be especially foolish (not to mention, immoral) to try to run trump again."
The only thing that makes this even close to true is the response from assholes like you and other Trump-haters. They guy did a great job the last time around and too many morons refused to acknowledge it and reward him (and us) with another term. What's more telling is that if he won the nomination, it would be for the same reason he won the last time and in 2015...the people chose him over his GOP rivals.
"However, I have no hope that trump would, on his own, choose not to run."
I have no hope you'll ever pull your head out of your ass, nor that you'll ever become a Christian.
"Shockingly enough, I agree with Dan that a rerun of Trump/Biden (I love how he tries to dehumanize Trump by not capitalizing his name) would be an example of both political parties demonstrating that they've run out of worthy candidates."
You ignore the will of the people. Any who throw their hats in the ring are viable should they garner support of the people. Trump will. Who the GOP offers in addition does so with a hope the people will agree. In today's climate, those willing to run must have some degree of "narcissism" to believe the attacks won't hurt. This is a strength of Trump, not a flaw, that he believes himself a good choice for the people. Few people are Ulysses S. Grant. Most who run for president believe of themselves in the same way and actually must.
"The fact that you (as charitably as possible) fail to see how Trumps flaws negatively affected his presidency simply provides more evidence to support my conclusion."
I fail to see anyone making a legitimate connection between a given flaw of his and how it negatively affected his presidency in any significant way. Rather, his "flaws"...such as they are...are simply asserted as having had this effect when in reality, it is the response of the voters to these "flaws", not the flaws themselves. That's on the voters, not on Trump. So, would we have been even MORE energy independent, have had LOWER unemployment, been involved in FEWER wars were it not for Trump's flaws? I would argue that Trump's self image was responsible for him accomplishing so much in the face of so much obstruction from haters of both parties. His "flaws" were more the reason for his successes than responsible for any negative affect on his presidency.
Try this: imagine if no one ever gave his "flaws" the time of day. Imagine if everyone ignored those flaws and never made mention of them. Given a "flaw" is how he allegedly doesn't listen to anyone, where does the negative impact manifest from those flaws?
I am among the many who would've preferred a more polished Trump. Who wouldn't? It would be less bullshit on which his detractors could focus forcing them to focus instead on more substantive issues. In the meantime, his supporters didn't waste time with it because of how insignificant it all was in the grand scheme of things. He got good things done and that's what the people want from a president above all else. An improvement of his manner is no more than window dressing, as much as we'd prefer a better dressed window.
The fact remains that Trump is indeed a "worthy" candidate, even if not the only one. The difference is that he's a proven commodity and that gives us a reason for giving him the edge over others, who would still have opportunity to not only run to win in '28, but to contribute to Trump's efforts to MAGA should the nation come to its senses and deny the Dems in favor of another Trump term, proving their worthiness when '28 rolls around.
I'm not married to Trump. Due to the irrational dislike of him, it might be best if he doesn't run or if majority support goes to someone else (depending on who that someone is). But he's head and shoulders better than anyone the Dems could possibly offer, so I'd lose no sleep if he manages to win in '24 because he'll likely do a good job once again.
Art,
It does make me feel kind of icky to be associated with Dan in any way, but on the rare occasions when it happens, I have to acknowledge it.
While I don't agree that Trump running in 2024 is immoral (it's always amusing when someone who can't actually put forth a universal/objective standard of morality tries to claim that some things are immoral), I can agree that it's likely a mistake.
My current "fear" is that we'll see a Trump/Biden rematch in '24 which will likely result in the only scenario where Trump would likely win, because Biden is so obviously a horrible president. If Trump wins in '24, it's possible that he rides the inevitable recovery to a decent presidency. But it's also likely that he dooms any hope of a conservative win in'28. Regardless of how he did last time, he's pissed off too many people to really have any success.
Enough of the old people, let's see somebody under 65 for a change.
I think you want to regard it as a mistake, but the reasons it might be are more due to public perceptions which are unjust and/or irrelevant. It's more than merely "possible" Trump would do well in a second term given how well he did the first time in the face of so much constant obstruction and distraction from the moron party and establishment animals of his own. This isn't "Trump support" but simply a statement of fact. The facts suggest he'd do well in a second term. I'm not saying the facts guarantee it, but then there's no guarantee electing a younger person would have any positive or negative effect, either. Trump's a proven commodity and it speaks incredibly poorly of the electorate to have so irrationally rejected him in 2020 and to now regard him so negatively now, as if anyone has a legit right to be pissed at him.
"It's always amusing when someone who can't actually put forth a universal/objective standard of morality tries to claim that some things are immoral..."
It's always pathetic when someone pretends as if they can objectively prove morality but can't and is too cowardly to even try and too dishonest to admit he can't.
July 22, 2022 at 1:15 PM
It's always pathetic when a prog fake Christian pretends to be Christian yet dismisses Scripture as the objective source of morality.
"...yet dismisses Scripture as the objective source of morality."
Look boys, it's quite simple..., if you can objectively prove your personal human interpretations of various biblical passages are objectively objectively demonstrably factual, do so. But you can't.
If you could, you would. But you can't. That's why you never have.
Personally, I'm not so incredibly arrogant or blasphemous as to suggest that my interpretations could not be mistaken. I'm not trying to conflate myself with God. The question is, then, why would you all go there? Does your arrogance have no boundaries? Are your arms long enough to Box with God?
Look, I get that you are really really really really really want to believe that you can perfectly and objectively demonstrate your beliefs and your human interpretations and your human traditions. But if you think you can, why don't you?
Is it the case that somewhere within you, you do recognize how blasphemous it is to suggest that you can't be mistaken and that you can objectively prove something that you can't prove??
Also, if you so highly value scripture, as I do, then WHERE does scripture say that scripture is an objective source of morality? Can you admit that the Bible doesn't say this? Why would you insist that The Bible says something it doesn't say?
Can you recognize that to understand scripture, you have to interpret it correctly? If so, whose interpretation is the correct one? Who has the authority to make that determination?
These are all reasonable questions that you all continually hide from or ignore or shiver about in fear. Trying to rationally and dispassionately answer them will be helpful for you. Do it.
Perhaps it would help for you to describe what you think objective means as relates to interpreting text. If we have a question about the meaning of a text, normally, We would check with the author or people who know the author. If we heard from the author what the author meant by text, then we would objectively know what the author meant by the text.
We can't do that in this scenario..
Additionally, in this scenario, We have the claim of some people the God was inspiring the authors. And we have no way of verifying with God what it was specifically God was inspiring them to say and what God meant by that.
So what is your objective, authoritative provable claim or method or criteria as to how we can know objectively and authoritatively that we understand God's meaning?
I'll wait while you don't answer.
July 23, 2022 at 7:50 AM
"Look boys, it's quite simple...,"
Look, boys...Dan's quite simple.
"...if you can objectively prove your personal human interpretations of various biblical passages are objectively objectively demonstrably factual, do so. But you can't."
"Personal human interpretations". This is what Dan says when he can't rebut, contradict, or prove false that which is no less than a replication of what Scripture unambiguously says. When that is inconvenient for Dan, he pretends the clearly revealed Will of God is a great mystery which is beyond simple apprehension. It's just our "personal human tradition" when we repeat "Thou shalt not commit adultery". But to Dan, it only means "some form" of adultery is prohibited if he wishes that his adulterous friends not be exposed as the sinners their behaviors expose them as being.
Scripture is the representation of objective morality because it is the clearly revealed Will of God without Whom nothing exists...including right and wrong. Now, Dan doesn't accept it because he's not actually Christian with a true conviction. He's a fraud posing as a Christian.
"If you could, you would. But you can't. That's why you never have."
Done so many times. You just reject it because you're a happy little reprobate given over to your corruption.
"Personally, I'm not so incredibly arrogant or blasphemous as to suggest that my interpretations could not be mistaken."
We've been going at it since at least 2008. In all that time you've not once admitted to being wrong, despite mountains of evidence and better arguments against your position or in support of mine. Instead, you spit up crap about "personal human traditions", opinions and hunches. So yeah, you're incredibly arrogant and unmistakably blasphemous.
"I'm not trying to conflate myself with God."
Why would you? You don't believe in Him, anyway.
"The question is, then, why would you all go there? Does your arrogance have no boundaries? Are your arms long enough to Box with God?"
You're the one in rebellion against God. You're the one who plays semantic games with His Word, and questions what is clear as if cloudy and picks and chooses when to take the Word literally (as well as how to define what that is) as it's convenient to do so. Where we go is to the Word and alter our existence to align ourselves with it without regard to how personally inconvenient it might be.
"Look, I get that you are really really really really really want to believe that you can perfectly and objectively demonstrate your beliefs and your human interpretations and your human traditions. But if you think you can, why don't you?"
We have repeatedly and you pretend we haven't. Furthermore, rather than bring solid evidence and "hard data" to prove we're in error, or that you're not, you default to this cheap-shit, lame-ass "human traditions" crap as if that's a thing rather than the dodge it so clearly is.
"Is it the case that somewhere within you, you do recognize how blasphemous it is to suggest that you can't be mistaken and that you can objectively prove something that you can't prove??"
No. The case is that you disagree with what we say because it's inconvenient for you to do so, and rather than prove we're wrong...or rather than provide any sound evidence we might be...you play this dishonest game about being mistaken. You're such a serpent.
July 23, 2022 at 7:55 AM
"Also, if you so highly value scripture,"
...and I most certainly do...
"as I do,"
...and you most certainly do not, as years of discussions have so clearly proven...
"then WHERE does scripture say that scripture is an objective source of morality?"
You well know that you've been provided myriad Scriptural verses which attest to this, including the words of Christ.
But again...YET again... I ask YOU: Why does it need to in order for that to be true? You once again demand exact wording for that which you find convenient to dismiss, while having no trouble using what for you passes for "reason" to divine all manner of absolute crap the text in no way supports or states.
"Can you admit that the Bible doesn't say this?"
Not in so many words, and not in any words that would matter to a non-believer like you.
"Why would you insist that The Bible says something it doesn't say?"
I don't. That's YOUR thing.
"Can you recognize that to understand scripture, you have to interpret it correctly?"
I don't interpret it incorrectly.
"If so, whose interpretation is the correct one?"
Between the two of us? Mine.
"Who has the authority to make that determination?"
Any honest actual Christian. That leaves you out.
"These are all reasonable questions that you all continually hide from or ignore or shiver about in fear."
🤣🤣🤣🤣 Oh girl...the things you tell yourself!
"Trying to rationally and dispassionately answer them will be helpful for you. Do it."
You know what would really help me? Scriptural evidence that any of my positions are wrong. And I don't mean that which you've corrupted and have already been corrected for you. If you could ever provide any, I would be in your debt and properly edified.
But we both know that'll never happen.
"It's always pathetic when someone pretends as if they can objectively prove morality but can't and is too cowardly to even try and too dishonest to admit he can't."
1. Amazing. Absolutely zero attempt to reconcile the desire to act as if there is a universal/objective system of morality, while denying that such a thing exists.
2. Where have I ever said what your quote above claims I've said?
It's bizarre to deny that any sort of universal/objective moral standards exist, while trying to insist that some things are universally/objectively "immoral". Because it's be insane to try to assert that something violates a subjective/personal moral standard.
July 23, 2022 at 1:02 PM
"Perhaps it would help for you to describe what you think objective means as relates to interpreting text."
No. It wouldn't. Here's what would: you bringing Scriptural evidence which proves your head isn't up your ass with regard to your corruptions of the text. Or better yet, some source which has more authority on the subject of morality than Scripture...otherwise known as "the clearly revealed Will of God".
"If we have a question about the meaning of a text, normally, We would check with the author or people who know the author. If we heard from the author what the author meant by text, then we would objectively know what the author meant by the text.
We can't do that in this scenario.."
We don't need to. I'll use two of your typical logical fallacies which have more gravitas with regard to this question than any of the bullshit uses of them by you in the past:
1. "Appeal to authority". We have thousands of years of theological expertise which aligns with and brings clarity to my Scriptural understanding. This is the basis of what you write off as "human traditions", when in reality it is simply repeating what God hath said.
2. "Appeal to numbers" (Bandwagon) We have billions of believers who share my position of Scripture as the source of moral understanding.
"Additionally, in this scenario, We have the claim of some people the God was inspiring the authors. And we have no way of verifying with God what it was specifically God was inspiring them to say and what God meant by that."
Because the Creator of all things is incapable of making His Will known in a manner the authors could easily understand and relate to their readers. This is a convenient position for any reprobate to take. Provides all manner of liberty to follow one's carnal desires in whatever manner one finds pleasing. Perfect belief for the "progressive" fake Christian.
"So what is your objective, authoritative provable claim or method or criteria as to how we can know objectively and authoritatively that we understand God's meaning?"
Where exactly do you believe God stuttered? Yours is not an honest question. Yours is another lie to provide you the liberty to reject that which you find inconvenient so that you can impress those of the world, being of the world yourself. You're given over Dan.
At THIS blog, it is YOU who is required to back up your positions or to provide evidence or proof any of mine are wrong. I've been waiting for a long time, while you refuse. But I get why. You have no evidence or you wouldn't be running this crap about hunches, opinions and "human traditions" and all the diversionary bullshit intended to deflect from having to make an accounting of yourself.
But we both know the truth, Danny-girl. You're not "mistaken" in your beliefs. You purposely reject God's Will to conform to the world. That's not even a matter of debate here. It's a given and you've spent at least 14 years proving THAT.
OK, rather than actually prove any of his positions or attempt to disprove any of mine, Dan chooses to indulge in his typical deflections with the same "nyuh uh" responses we've come to so much enjoy. For example, in response to his bullshit "human traditions" angle, I said:
"This is what Dan says when he can't rebut, contradict, or prove false that which is no less than a replication of what Scripture unambiguously says. When that is inconvenient for Dan, he pretends the clearly revealed Will of God is a great mystery which is beyond simple apprehension."
The first sentence was exposing his inability to refute what is clearly expressed in Scripture. The second was how he responds to what's clearly revealed when he finds it inconvenient. But in his comment I won't be publishing, he only quotes the second sentence so he can say:
"And I've said probably 100 times now: THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. Do you understand that?"
This is otherwise known as a "Nyuh uh" response made famous by Dan. He then goes on to cite a few verses so that he can assert he finds them "abundantly clear"...except he perverts some of them (if not all...I'm not going to go through them), so what he finds "abundantly clear" is no more than his preferred meaning which he finds personally pleasing.
But to that which he demeans as "personal human traditions" are those clear and unmistakable commands or teachings which conflict with the heretical positions he dares suggest reflect Scriptural teaching. Yet those commands are not cryptic to an extent that any two honest people can possibly have a different understanding. That is, it's not a case of wondering who the "poor" are, or in what manner they are "poor" in Dan's constant reference to "Bringing Good News to the 'poor'". While Dan's totally wrong on that verse and has never brought any evidence to back up his position, it's at least somewhat understandable that morons like Dan would get it wrong or lie about what it means to promote his socialism. There's that much room for debate.
Not in those instances where Dan defaults to the "human traditions" crap. Those are cases where there is absolutely no ambiguity, such as Lev 18:22 which Dan pretends leaves room for his friends. He goes on:
" I have never said that I think "the Will of God is a great mystery." Those are not my words, nor my thoughts, not anything I've said."
Again, a "Nyuh uh" response. He wants to insist that I'm conflating some disparate "interpretation" with God's Will, when the fact is I'm repeating God's Will using God's Words as presented to us in Scripture. Again, we're talking about commands or teachings for which there can be no legitimate debate about the meaning, given how direct and unambiguous the command or teaching is presented. Thus, when the sign says "STOP", to Dan, there's some hidden meaning which only he can discern: "It doesn't mean me", or "Not at this late hour when there's no traffic".
In the meantime, the "poor" are always the materially poor even in a case where the teaching deals with the spiritual. And THAT is beyond question to Dan without the passage being as direct and unambiguous as those he would question when it means his friends must repent of their detestable behavior.
Next, Dan wants me to prove:
"Scripture is the representation of objective morality because it is the clearly revealed Will of God without Whom nothing exists...including right and wrong."
He demands I prove it...that I stop telling him that I have proven it in the past and somehow I'm obliged to prove it yet again because he petulantly demands I do so. But here Dan will once again have to go pound sand up his ass because I'm in no way obliged to continually re-present proofs and evidences I've provided numerous times in the past simply because he made the same damned dishonest demand yet again. He wants me to prove it "for once", which I did the first time and then several times later. He can go back into past discussions until he finds the evidence I've provided. OR, he can just continue lying that I've never done it at all, which seems to be how he rolls...being he's an inveterate liar.
Dan then whines because I stated this truth about him:
"You're the one in rebellion against God."
Again he wants proof and I've provided that several times as well. This one's really easy, so I'll do it again: He supports, defends, celebrates, promotes and/or enables sexual immorality and the murder of the unborn. No Christian can possibly do any of those things. He refuses to stop doing those things. That's called "rebellion" as those things are in clear violation of God's clearly revealed Will regarding human sexuality and life. And yet, somehow, despite the clear teachings of Scripture...a text he claims to have "seriously and prayerfully" studied...it's mere "human tradition" to insist that the only moral expression of human sexuality is that which takes place between one man and one woman married to each other, and it's mere "human tradition" that we are all made in the image and likeness of God and for that reason, we are not to murder each other.
Dan wants to pretend that doing some good things allows him to pretend he "might be" mistaken about these two egregious horrors. This is the opposite of the meaning of what Jesus is saying to those like Dan in Matthew 7:22-23.
And he has the audacity to presume to tell me to be a good man.
He then goes on with more demands that I do what I've done many times in the past simply because he demands I do again, and then laughably posts the Seven Woes as if they apply to me in any way. They do not. Dan likes to pretend those who adhere to God's Will and seek to remind people of it for the sake of their own souls are like Pharisees. That's pretty crappy, but also stupid given Dan does so to defend blatantly immoral behaviors and those who perpetuate them.
How can such a person say he's a Christian?
Finally, Ducky Dan whines about SSM and the HORROR of being told God couldn't possibly support it. I'm not sure I've ever said there's any verse in Scripture prohibiting the practice. My position is based on the only conclusion logic and reason (a word Dan invokes without demonstrating it in his lame defense of his heresies) can compel given the verses which prohibit the underlying homosexual behavior. Dan likes to point out how few they are, because devotion to God's Will is, in Dan's desperate imaginings, limited to how many times God makes mention of His Will. To most Christians, God need only say something once. To Dan and others in rebellion, God needs to say it constantly and in a very specific way. In the meantime, we're supposed to pretend that "marriage" in Scripture means something more than one man to one woman without so much as the slightest of hints that such might be possible. Or perhaps this moron wants us to believe that two "gay" guys can marry without lying with each other as a man would lie with a woman. So Phil and George, two normal dudes, can marry (same sex marriage) but that's cool because they're not queer for each other. I don't think so and I don't think that's what Dan means. Indeed, he's expressed the wild-assed notion that the behavior God describes clearly as an abomination (or detestable) is somehow less so if the two pervs say "I do".
Now imagine this incredibly nonsensical premise Dan's trying to pass off as the result of "serious and prayerful" study of Scripture. Dan must truly think God's a moron.
OK. So much for that shit. Now, back to the topic of the post...which means any further attempt by Dan to post unrelated nonsense will not even get the treatment his last several did in my three responses. They just won't appear here. I'm done with that shit on this thread.
Anyone can see that you chose not to answer. Anyone can reasonably understand that you didn't answer because you can't. You have no data, no facts, nothing authoritative or objective to prove your claims.
And you're too cowardly to admit it. But anyone who reads can see.
It's much to your shame.
July 23, 2022 at 11:51 PM
Anyone can see why I chose not to answer, because I freakin' explained it completely. Anyone can reasonably understand why I've no obligation to provide the same info every time you demand I do when you've had it provided already several times. Anyone who cares to can find this info in past blog posts by scouring yours, mine and the blogs of others we both visit. I understand that few would take the time, but that also doesn't oblige me to do it again.
Here's a tip: Anytime I provide evidence and support for anything I post, especially that which you yourself demand, before you delete it, ignore it or disparage it because it does what you wanted to believe it couldn't, file it for future reference and know you have to come up with new bullshit to defend your unGodly crap.
Look, this is a pivotal claim that you're making. You're claiming that you have perfect knowledge on some limited subset of moral behavior that you can demonstrate is objectively factual and authoritavely correct.
That's huge! That's world changing. This is the biggest, most astounding claim you've ever made, you, and ng people like you.
So you think you would lead with this somewhere. After all, if you can objectively demonstrate you have some limited but perfectly correct understanding of morality , you can change the world.
Where is your blog post about this amazing discovery that is heretofore gone unnoticed?? I can't tell you how huge this is.
It would then, behoove you and folks like you, to put this out there. Why wouldn't you? Why wouldn't you answer the question? If nothing else just referred to what you've answered before.
You don't, because you can't. Your claim of perfect knowledge and factual provable morality is swamp gas. Otherwise, you would point to it.
Do you understand how world changing this claim is, if a reflect?
If you could do it, you would. You repeatedly don't provide these answers because you don't have them. You have no objectively demonstrable authoritatively provable source of morality.
Your complete failure to provide the answer demonstrates it.
"Anyone can see why I chose not to answer, because I freakin' explained it completely."
No. Anyone can see that you SAY you've explained it already, this most revolutionary of claims of some level of perfect knowledge about morality. But what people aren't seeing is you actually providing support for this astounding, world changing claim of yours.
Do you understand how fundamental that claim is? Is? How it would change the world if we could prove what is and isn't moral objectively? Do you think you can prove objectively that abortion is always wrong? Do you think you can objectively prove that killing 100 hundreds of people in Herochima and nagasaki was moral?
What are the limits of your perfect knowledge when it comes to morality?
Or do you have any limits when it comes to objectively perfectly knowing morality? Are are you omniscient, Marshal?
If so, support the claim. Or, even if you're only partially omniscient on morality, support the claims where you can objectively prove them.
Are you aware of the notion of delusions of grandeur?
How about this... provide a list of the moral questions that you are omniscient about and can objectively prove. That would be interesting.
On how many moral questions do you have perfect knowledge and can objectively prove? One or two..., abortion and homosexuality, for instance? Or dozens and dozens?
So having taken this thread from its topic toward one where Dan wrongly believes he has a better chance to prevail, Dan ignores my insistence he return to the topic so that he can try to force a better view of his unChristian positions. It's sad and pathetic, but as the saying goes, "he doth protest too much" and by doing so believes it will change anything. And so he continues to lie:
July 24, 2022 at 6:54 AM
"You're claiming that you have perfect knowledge on some limited subset of moral behavior that you can demonstrate is objectively factual and authoritavely correct."
Dan is in desperate need of this being the case, when the fact is that I don't need any special ability to understand a simple "Thou shalt not". Yet while a given "Thou shalt not" stands without any possible mitigating factor which might allow for that which is forbidden by the "Thou shalt not", Dan refuses to provide any Scriptural evidence that such a mitigating factor exists and instead demands that I prove that which is so unambiguously clear requires more evidence that it is so clear. Amazing.
"A limited 'subset' of moral behavior". Dan will whine there is no expressed categorization of moral law, ceremonial purity law and civil laws in Leviticus, but now dares to speak in terms of "subsets" as if there is some such delineation. How ironic but how typical of Dan doing the double standard thing again in order to defend the indefensible. But where Dan is concerned, one must prove the sun is hot if a hot sun is inconvenient for Dan and his immoral friends who reject the heat of the sun. What's really important is Dan has no argument from Scripture which justifies rejecting the clearly expressed Will of God Dan finds inconvenient.
As to "perfect knowledge", I wouldn't use that term anyway for something so obvious as "Thou shalt not". If there is some Scriptural justification for ignoring God's command on a behavior which is so unequivocal, so clear and to the point, Dan has the obligation to provide it. He does not and never has. Truly. Go through his archives and look for anything in which he tries to rationalize his defense of the detestable and see how convoluted and remarkably infantile the attempt is! It's truly astounding and entertaining from a "what a lying jackass this guy is" perspective.
As to Scripture as THE source of morality, what better source exists for a Christian, or for a non-believer like Dan who pretends to be one? Dan looks elsewhere, but he does so because of the inconvenience of God's Will regarding the immorality and perversion Dan loves so much. He cites using reason, but if "reason" leads one to be in conflict with a clear edict preceded by "Thou shalt not"...and has clearly and repeatedly been proven so...what does that say about Dan's inability to truly reason like an adult with even an average IQ?
No. Dan is scrambling here. He's once again desperately seeking validation for that which he cannot truly embrace. I get that sinners often don't like to reject the sinful behaviors they find so personally pleasing. If one is having fun, one wished to continue having fun. Here, if Dan isn't personally turned on by the perversions he defends, then it's his love of regard by such people which is always at risk when putting God first. Dan worships the world, not God.
And he has a real problem staying on topic.
Gotta go. More later. Don't bother Dan. Or have the courage to have an open discussion without your selfish self-serving terms at your own blog.
July 24, 2022 at 10:15 AM
"No. Anyone can see that you SAY you've explained it already, this most revolutionary of claims of some level of perfect knowledge about morality."
I don't know who this "anyone" might be who could come here and not see that I've never made that claim you attribute to me. That's just your falseness speaking again. Indeed, the "anyone" would have to be some shithead similar to you who also defends perversion, but no one who is an honest observer of our discourse.
Also, the only other "anyone" who would wonder would have to be some person with no knowledge of our discourse, but then again, if that "anyone" is honest, such a person would wonder about what had been said in the past. YOU know I've explained myself not only comprehensively, but beyond your infantile ability to overcome. What's more, I would hope this "anyone" would agree your demands have nothing to do with the post.
"But what people aren't seeing is you actually providing support for this astounding, world changing claim of yours."
Given I doubt there are too many readers of my blog (or yours) who is unaware of what's been said in past posts, there are no people who need to see me explain myself yet again just to appease your little girl foot-stomping demand.
"Do you understand how fundamental that claim is?"
What I understand is that you're dodging again. You take the thread on a tangent and then continue to offer no evidence that there is anything like reality in your position. So you make up crap and attribute it to me and demand I defend your crap. What a dumbass you are!
"How it would change the world if we could prove what is and isn't moral objectively?"
I was going to pass by the above idiocy until I realized that there's no need for such effort...especially among actual Christians, for whom morality is clearly understandable with even a cursory reading of Scripture. If you could do even that much, you'd be far less the moron you are.
"Do you think you can prove objectively that abortion is always wrong?"
Given it's murder and that there is no legitimate argument it's ever been necessary, it's beyond any doubt except to baby murderers like yourself who are too corrupt and cowardly to address the reasons why females are getting pregnant without wanting to.
"Do you think you can objectively prove that killing 100 hundreds of people in Herochima and nagasaki was moral?"
Well, it's been done already, and by smarter people than myself.
"What are the limits of your perfect knowledge when it comes to morality?"
What are the limits of your moral corruption? Seems clear you have none.
"Or do you have any limits when it comes to objectively perfectly knowing morality? Are are you omniscient, Marshal?"
I don't need to be. No one does. One need only be honest. If only you were, perhaps you'd stop asking these stupid questions and pretending there's something unknowable which troubles mankind when it comes to morality.
"Are you aware of the notion of delusions of grandeur?"
Sure. I'm also aware you're a f**king reprobate and not at all a Christian. You'd be hard pressed to be more convincing of that fact.
July 24, 2022 at 10:18 AM
"How about this... provide a list of the moral questions that you are omniscient about and can objectively prove. That would be interesting."
How about this...pound sand up your ass or stick to the topic of the post...Hell...do both. That would be great.
While I've proven ever position I've expressed on a variety of subjects, you've never provided an intelligent, fact-based, Scripturally grounded argument in defense of any of the absurd, pathetic and laughable heresies you put forth. Keep in mind this isn't your blog, you pathetic buffoon. It's bad enough you make your absurd demands there. You don't get to do it here. Regard me as you will. I consider the source. You're vile, contemptible, cowardly, dishonest in a far worse way than you need to believe Trump is, morally corrupt in a way which makes Trump look like an Apostle of the Christ and you mock the God by daring to pretend you believe in Him while worshiping all manner of depravity.
Post a Comment