In the last comment thread, Craig and I got into it again about Trump. I have no problem with such debate, as it's actually necessary given the state of the nation. But as luck often has it, I came upon something that relates to that discussion in a very direct way. I present it here in two ways:
First, by virtue of what led to me to the more detailed speech on the subject, which is a synopsis from the perspective of one who was not (and might still not be) a great fan of Trump:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/07/i_was_wrong_about_trump.html
The author admits he focused too much on Trump's particular manner and personality and I'm convinced far too many who should know better do so as well. Indeed, I can say the same of myself with regard to how I thought of him prior to the 2016 general election, when I was totally opposed to a guy like him serving as president of these United States of America.
Then came his four years and what follows is the type of objective regard of Trump which those four years must compel of any voter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-GAw1lLWJA
I acknowledge it won't be enough for some. Certainly the stupid of the left will never see things in such a way, but as with the last post, I speak not to them with this post, but to those who are more often than not like minded.
Here I must reiterate once more that I am not so much married to Trump, despite his good work as president, but married to the worry there exists no one capable in the manner he has shown himself to be at a time when we absolutely need someone as determined and able to do what must be done for the good of the country. Only DeSantis has shown himself to be such a person, and he's not running.
I sincerely and fervently hope that whomever wins the GOP nomination in '24 will know better than to give back ground this guy gained for us all. Too much is at stake and as bad off as we now are for having rejected him in 2020, we can easily be far worse off by the time that election rolls around.
101 comments:
Kyrsten Sinema would be better. Much better.
How so? Easy to say. Let's hear the argument.
You'll see when she beats Trump in 24. She is not a nut like him, either.
Oh. So you're just talking out your ass. Got it.
I am not talking out of my ass. You conservatives/republicans have become a permanent minority in the U.S.A for a voting block. The college kids will kill any chance of Trump winning in 24. Conservative INK. is doomed.
Of course you're talking out your ass. How can you help it when that's where you keep your head? And just consider how many there would have to be whose heads are also up their asses to support your party which has so horribly damaged our nation. Sure...our universities have corrupted many a young person, and that's also the result of the ideology you favor. Somehow you see that as a plus. Your head could not be buried more deeply.
I do not have my head in my ass, but it is obvious that I am talking to an ass. What we need to do is elect moderate candidates who make reasonable points and are not polarizing like Trump. Besides, there aren't enough red states to even get a republican elected into the presidency and states like Arizona and Georgia will be voting democrat from now on. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Both states you mention are historically red, though voting for Biden in the last election was likely more a rejection of Trump than a sign they've shifted to abject stupidity. Of course, Georgia is still pulling for Warnock and the buffoon Stacey Abrams is keeping her race tight as well. In any case, the smart money is on waiting to see how these things turn out given the incredibly poor predictive ability of polling these days. Only one with his head up his ass would think any political poll is worth a damn.
I'd be interested in knowing who you regard as a moderate and a better choice than Trump given his beneficially effective presidency. Provide two or three examples of "reasonable points". Moderates are generally spineless people who allow the worst to take place in order to appear "reasonable". I will say, however, a "moderate" Dem is less destructive than a solid Dem or "moderate" Republican. The best for this nation is always the most conservative person available, as a conservative aligns with the Constitution and founding principles which serve us best.
As far as how many states are "red" or leaning red, one would need to have one's head up one's ass to pretend the current administration wouldn't scare voters away from another term under Dem control. Were that to happen, it would mean even more trouble for Americans, including the people who's heads are crammed so high up their asses that they would dare vote for any Dem in light of how they've damaged the nation in so short a time. But then, they voted for Obama twice and rejected Trump in favor of a known incompetent in 2020, so who can say?
Seriously, M. If Trump is guilty of espionage over NUCLEAR WEAPONS, will THAT be sufficient to end your bromance with Don the Perv?
Why do you ask such stupid questions?
So no. You'll still defend the pervert no matter what he does. He could drop a nuke on your family's house and you'd say thank you sir, give me another.
August 13, 2022 at 7:58 AM
OK, Asshole (note the respect and graciousness in my capitalizing what is the perfect name for you), I'm going to entertain your moronic tangential diversion, because it begs for rebuke. First, I'll ask this question for you to ponder, because it's the exact same bullshit question you asked me: If your wife was found guilty of espionage over NUCLEAR WEAPONS, would THAT be sufficient to end your romance with her? Now, no doubt you're OUTRAGED!!! by my asking such the same hypothetical question regarding your wife. Such outrage is irrational given your ease at asking such questions of others, who you don't personally know...which is something you use as a bludgeon when criticizing the behaviors of your beloved LGBT deviants.
Next, we'll look at "perversion". Widipedia describes it thusly:
Perversion is a form of human behavior which deviates from what is considered to be orthodox or normal. Although the term perversion can refer to a variety of forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are considered particularly abnormal, repulsive or obsessive.
Time was when "orthodox or normal" sexual behavior was that which took place between a husband and his wife. But that ship sailed long ago and adultery and fornication is no longer considered even close to "perverse". So on that score, Trump isn't "a perv", except by defenders of perversion (like you) who need him to be as if they truly care about his affairs. And while people of character don't approve of anyone ogling naked women to whom they aren't married, normal people understand that women can be under the legal age of adulthood and still be women, capable of easily carrying a child to term and living in a normal marital situation as was once quite common in this nation, as well as human history. As such, to regard them as desirable sexually isn't the least bit abnormal and thus not perverse. Purposely seeking out naked women to ogle is uncouth, immature and unseemly, but not at all perverse by definition because the urge flows from the natural sexual instinct of the male species. This means that only a Trump-hater would regard him as perverse because of his sexual appetites which are not perverse at all.
The Cambridge Dictionary agrees with this:
1. sexual behaviour that is considered strange and unpleasant by most people:
2. the changing of something so that it is not what it was or should be:
Notable here is the second definition which ironically applies accurately to LGBT activists and progs who enable and defend them. That's exactly what they've done to "marriage" and "family" and "gender" and "male and female" as just a few examples.
It is true of Trump in this way: he's changed politics, the culture of Washington and the GOP from what it was and/or should be...depending on which we'd care to discuss, which we won't here.
Encyclopedia.com discusses "sexual perversion" as follows:
Sexual perversion is an old-fashioned diagnostic term that served as a label for sexual activities considered outside the norm of heterosexual sexual desire and activity.
---snip---
Sexual perversion appears most famously in Richard von Krafft-Ebing's nineteenth-century medical textbook Psychopathia Sexualis, first published in German in 1886. There sexual perversion is defined as a disease of the sexual instinct, as opposed to sexual perversity, which is defined as vice rather than pathology. Sexual perversion was understood as a deviation of instinct, which means that it refers to predetermined behavior that is invariable as regards both its performance and its object. The sexual perversions delineated by Krafft-Ebing included sadism, masochism, fetishism, bestiality, sexual inversion in men and women (understood either as what is now termed homosexuality, on the one hand, or gender dysphoria, on the other, or both), rape, nymphomania, onanism (masturbation), pedophilia, exhibitionism, necrophilia, and incest.
Of course, LGBT activists within and without the psych community pressured that community until they changed how the highlighted perversions were classified, while never providing any scientific justification whatsoever for doing so. The LGBT community and the progs who enable and defend them, in their perversion, don't care about science, but only in being allowed to indulge their perversions, so they got sympathetic "experts" to simply erase their perversion from the list of perversions. Easy peasy. Now they whine about having been "historically oppressed" despite the irrelevance of that reality...to whatever extent it is true...to the morality of the perversions to which they so dearly cling.
To cover the bases, we move on to "perversity", which Cambridge defines in the following manner:
1. the quality of being strange and not what most people would do or expect:
2. sexual behaviour that is considered strange and unpleasant by most people:
We've discussed how the second definition doesn't apply to Trump, given being a horndog isn't considered either "strange" or "unpleasant" by most people. Can't say the same for the behaviors of the LGBT community. Most people still find it both.
The first applies to Trump only in terms of his being a president. He is strange in that regard and most definitely now what most people would expect given he's acted as most wouldn't expect a president to do, on any number of levels. But that's really a stretch in order to apply the word "perversity" to him.
No, Dan. YOU are far more a perv than Trump ever was or will be.
But let's get back to your question. While you have no problem with the true and definitionally accurate perversions of the LGBT community, I've no doubt there's nothing your wife could do to drive you away. Sin is situational with you. You would dismiss her sins and mitigate their seriousness, while calling for the crucifixion of opponents for lesser transgressions of the same behavior. It's how you roll, because truth isn't in you.
Yet somehow, you need to believe I'm somehow up the ass of Trump, when my position has never been anything more than an objective review of this work as president and the significance of his personal life with regard to that work. This is an issue where it isn't about Trump, it isn't about me. It's about the nation and who is best suited to lead us to become what we're capable of becoming. He's proven himself in that regard most unequivocally and you need to focus on alleged "sexual perversion" (not surprising given your devotion to and worshiping of sexual perversion). It shows you don't give a flying rat's ass about the nation when you think nonsense which doesn't matter is all which does. It's the same problem I have with some conservatives who can't get over the fact that this guy beat out all the other primary candidates in 2016. Well, boo-hoo. I didn't vote for him, either, but he won the nomination and campaigned on issues which reflected what American needed, unlike Hillary or Bernie who were and still are criminal and buffoonish marxists respectively.
So, would I defend a man of far better character than you (Trump) no matter what he does? Would you defend your wife (how desperate to marry she must have been!!!) no matter what she does? I would wager I'd be more willing to cut ties from Trump if you losers could actually find some crime he actually committed. But then, I'm not married to him.
Why do you ask such stupid questions?
Because those are the only kind those lacking in intelligence ever ask. It's a dishonest question, too, because you pose the hypothetical as if it reflects a reality which is not in the least in evidence. Over and over again you dumbf**ks think you've found a way to arrest him or disqualify him from the presidency. How pathetically desperate such is all you've got! The guy you insisted was a better choice in 2020 (you gave 10 laughably moronic reasons why you thought so) has been an unmitigated disaster. Nothing your party can offer...either in candidates or policies...will restore our nation to what it was for that brief four years of Trump's presidency...fours years which greatly improved it over how your sainted Barry O'Bummer reduced it. All you people can do is find some way to make people believe center-right options are worse than the clowns you people support. Sadly, too many buy in, but none of you have a legit defense of your choices, positions or beliefs.
This is inane:
" If your wife was found guilty of espionage..."
1. My wife is not a corrupt conman lying pervert like the man you support and thus, would not do that. Period. It would be a false claim put into a question and shame on the cowardly jackass who would try to make any such implication.
1a. It's explicitly clearly not the same for Trump. The man is and always has been a self-centered, lying and corrupt conman pervert who is only interested in himself. On top of that, outside of a certain genius for conning gullible people, he's a very stupid man. Given all that, it's of course believable that he'd take classified documents as has been reported.
It's a different thing to defend a good woman versus a very bad narcissistic, sociopathic pervert. Because of course it is.
2. IF it happened, I would be outraged and condemn it. Because of course I would. Who in their right mind wouldn't?
3. And if it happened with my wife, it would be only because of some crazy circumstances - a child was kidnapped or something like that and so I would still love her. And that's the difference between a very good woman of character and intelligence and your orange chimp of a pervert (with apologies to orange chimps).
Marshal... " don't approve of anyone ogling naked women to whom they aren't married, normal people understand that women can be under the legal age of adulthood and still be women"
Good God in heaven. I had to stop reading here. It's clear that you can defend a pervert (who is BY DEFINITION a pervert in so many areas of his life) because you have perversion in yourself.
Now I'm going to go take a shower. Your filthy, perverse, perversion-defending talk makes me feel dirty.
August 14, 2022 at 1:49 PM
"1. My wife is not a corrupt conman lying pervert like the man you support and thus, would not do that. Period."
#1, if she was a conman, you wouldn't know it, because that's what makes for a good conman...that and the fact that you're a moron and thus an easy mark for even an average conman.
#2, you've yet to offer any evidence that Trump a) corrupt, b) a conman, c) a liar in the true sense of the word and certainly not as prolific a liar as are you and the Democratic Party you support, the LGBT activists you support and the moronic and incompetent president you support...Joe Biden OR Barack Obama.
#3, the question has nothing to do with whether or not in reality your wife would ever be found guilty of espionage. The question is solely about how you'd respond should learn she was. Would THAT be sufficient to end your romance with her? Answer the question, coward.
"1a. It's explicitly clearly not the same for Trump. The man is and always has been a self-centered, lying and corrupt conman pervert who is only interested in himself."
You continue to say this shit like a good little sheep, but offer not a shred of evidence to support it. Go back and read what I've presented about what a pervert is and remember that you're far more a pervert than Trump could ever be and beyond all arguing a devoted supporter, defender and enabler of perversion, by definition.
In the meantime, you still haven't explained what the "con" is you think Trump is working on the people who have benefited so greatly as a result of his four years as president. At some point this "only interested in himself" would manifest somehow. Unlike the vermin for whom you cast your votes, Trump actually loves his country.
"On top of that, outside of a certain genius for conning gullible people, he's a very stupid man."
This from the guy who actually believed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would be better than Trump for the nation. BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! You could not be a more gullible sheep!!! Thus, given how badly our country has decayed and in so many ways since Jan 20 of 2021, you are the epitome of a stupid man...if only you were a man. Trump's intelligence, however, is far superior to yours, certainly Biden's, Obama's and pretty much 99% of the Democratic party. His record of beneficial accomplishments as president is proof of that.
"Given all that, it's of course believable that he'd take classified documents as has been reported."
You're really a moron. The president has plenary power over national security issues, including classifying and declassifying information and documents. There are none over which this power is limited, mitigated or denied him. As such, it's impossible for him to mishandle documents of any kind related to national security. He could hand a moron like you the most sensitive document and by doing so it is automatically declassified. Of course, handing you anything important would then make him the very stupid man you stupidly insist he is for no reason other than that's what embracing grace means to you.
"It's a different thing to defend a good woman versus a very bad narcissistic, sociopathic pervert. Because of course it is."
No. It's not. Because the point is despite your desperate and anti-Christian determination to label a better man that you as "a very bad narcissistic, sociopathic pervert", you're still an unholy, anti-Christian dickhead for judging him in the way you do, specifically now for this discussion, as likely or willing to do harm to the nation for some unexplained, non-specific personal gain.
"2. IF it happened, I would be outraged and condemn it. Because of course I would. Who in their right mind wouldn't?"
I didn't ask you if you'd condemn it, dickhead. Answer the question. BTW, your mind ain't right. Hasn't been for the whole time I've virtually known you.
"3. And if it happened with my wife, it would be only because of some crazy circumstances - a child was kidnapped or something like that and so I would still love her."
Ah, so you pretend there are only altruistic reasons your wife would be found guilty of espionage, but as a hateful non-Christian, you suppose that couldn't be the case if Trump was found guilty. How f**king convenient, you cowardly dickhead! You can't put on such a qualification to the question which doesn't provide it without allowing that possibility to Trump. Except that you're a dishonest cowardly dickhead who hasn't the honor to respond to the EXACT same question posed about another without playing games to weasel out. Color me shocked and surprised!!
"And that's the difference between a very good woman of character and intelligence and your orange chimp of a pervert..."
I'm sorry, but she's not "a very good woman of character and intelligence" just on your say so. After all, you think Bruce Jenner is a woman, so you're absolutely untrustworthy and your word is shit here.
August 14, 2022 at 1:51 PM
"Good God in heaven. I had to stop reading here. It's clear that you can defend a pervert (who is BY DEFINITION a pervert in so many areas of his life) because you have perversion in yourself."
First, don't ever appeal to God here at my blog. You've proven yourself to anti-God to the point there's no doubt whatsoever that your claims are just the words of a corrupt, lying conman pervert...as has been proven true so many times.
Second, you spend tons of keystrokes in defense of true and blatant sexual perversion as well as in the perversion of Holy Scripture.
Third, there's nothing in my statement which suggests or even remotely hints at perversion, especially given your quoted comments of mine are ripped from the context in which it was part of a solid explanation of the concept of perversion.
Fourth, your fake outrage over the notion that teen-aged girls, even those in middle school, can not only look much older than their years, but are factually capable of easily carrying a child to term. That older men could find them attractive is not weird or perverted, but just the opposite, natural in ways your perv LGBT people can only pretend they are. I'm not impressed by this lie of yours. But in your dishonorable, fake Christian way, you CHOOSE to pretend there is something untoward about acknowledging the reality. In the meantime, you support the grooming of far younger kids into the ways of perversion and immorality, so who the f**k do you think you're kidding, pervert?
So take a shower. The stench from having your head up your ass is just one sign you need one. But it won't make you clean because your corruption doesn't wash off. Only Christ can do that with his sacrificed Blood if you actually repent and accept Him, and not the superficial cartoon version with which you've replaced Him.
Marshal... "1, if she was a conman, you wouldn't know it, because that's what makes for a good conman."
No, no, no. First of all, Trump is NOT a good conman except for gullible idiots and those intimidate or impressed by power and/or money. His cons are incredibly stupid and rely upon people trusting a man who is obviously not trustworthy. Great wealth may be an irresistible pull for foolish or greedy people, but it's not for most of us, I'd wager.
Secondly, even a good con person is not that good. There are always lies and holes in what they're saying. Anyone might be conned by a good con game FOR A MINUTE, but only the most gullible and sometimes desperate would continue to be conned by a con after their lies start crashing in around them. And they always do.
Marshal...
"2, you've yet to offer any evidence that Trump a) corrupt, b) a conman, c) a liar "
That's precisely what a gullible fool would do after endlessly being conned by a bad con-person and yet, they want to hold on to the unbelievable no matter how much evidence is shoved in their face.
Just read the actual news from actual journalists and then, pay attention. He's conned so many people - including fools like you - that you can't spit without finding his cons and lies spilled all around you.
Don't be this naive gullible idiot. You're too old for that.
Marshal...
"you still haven't explained what the "con" is you think Trump is working on the people"
1. The press can't be trusted. Repeated endlessly so that gullible idiots are separated from facts and rely upon conspiracy sites for their "news."
2. The election is GOING to be stolen, it WAS stolen, it CONTINUES to be stolen. All part of the con that you're susceptible to because you bought into the first con.
3. There are the various cons in his business - an allegedly multi-billionaire who repeatedly uses/abuses bankruptcy laws to avoid paying his debts, his scam school for idiots, his scam "charity" that benefited him and his family. His using and abusing tax laws to avoid paying taxes. His burying his EX-WIFE IN A GOLF COURSE for a tax write-off.
Just ask the contractors who were ripped off by Trump over the years. Just ask the employees who were used and abused by him. Just ask the dozens of women who've been abused and used by him.
Don't be this naive. Open your eyes.
You know, one day, you WILL realize what a pervert (an ACTUAL pervert - a narcissist who twists and damanges everything for his own personal enrichment and jollies, no matter who's harmed or destroyed in his wake) conman he was. I just wonder if you'll have the good sense to be embarrassed.
Perhaps your grandchildren will one day ask, "Why? Why did so many people believe such an obviously bad, untrustworthy man...?" and I wonder if you'll have the good sense to be ashamed.
Marshal...
"Third, there's nothing in my statement which suggests or even remotely hints at perversion"
Good God have mercy on your soul. You're talking about sexually objectifying GIRLS as if that weren't perverse. You're sick. This is the first thing we teach our children as they grown up: Stay away/be aware of the deviants who say it's okay to show me a little skin... it's natural... and then the sexual predators would just eat them up in their minds and in reality, given a chance.
You're sick. Sick. Get help. Pray to the good God in heaven for mercy and forgiveness.
Marshall,
I liked your last paragraph made in response to Dan's claim of needing to take a shower. Lol.
Thanks, Jesse. I do what I can.
August 15, 2022 at 10:54 AM
"His cons are incredibly stupid and rely upon people trusting a man who is obviously not trustworthy."
What "cons", Dan? When are you going to explain what the con is, how it works, what his payoff is and how we'll be taken? Stop avoiding your obligation.
"Anyone might be conned by a good con game FOR A MINUTE, but only the most gullible and sometimes desperate would continue to be conned by a con after their lies start crashing in around them. And they always do."
There are many, many examples of pyramid schemes alone which belie your moronic take. Even when they've been exposed, the damage to victims in loss of wealth is never corrected, and the con lived high on the hog the whole time. That's just one example of a con. Another is the con of the LGBT activists for whom many pseudo-sanctimonious fake Christians like you have been taken in. The downside is to the culture which has worsened since Lawrence v Texas, as all manner of perversions are given more credence and consideration as a result of THAT perversion given appeasement. Look how many morons rejected Trump in favor of Biden. The Dem party has wallowed in their power grab and now have hurt the nation with yet another massive spending bill which will do nothing to help us. Stupid people abound in this nation, with a sucker born every minute. You've been born again as a sucker many times as is so plain to see.
"That's precisely what a gullible fool would do after endlessly being conned by a bad con-person and yet, they want to hold on to the unbelievable no matter how much evidence is shoved in their face."
I'm not asking for another tap dance, Sheep. Where's your examples, your evidence, your "hard data" which explains the "con". What YOU'RE doing is precisely what a "grace embracing" liar does when he's let his mouth run without self-examination.
"Just read the actual news from actual journalists and then, pay attention."
I do. None of them work at NPR, BBC or the New York Times.
"He's conned so many people - including fools like you - that you can't spit without finding his cons and lies spilled all around you."
Bring one you can prove is a con.
"1. The press can't be trusted. Repeated endlessly so that gullible idiots are separated from facts and rely upon conspiracy sites for their "news.""
That's not a con. It's a reality and the real sheep...those like you...buy into the crap the leftist media spews like baby puking. The press lost the people long before Trump ran for office. It's the reason people like Rush Limbaugh became so popular, because such people assure the people they aren't seeing things about leftist journalistic malfeasance. The reality is that it's not just the leftist media who can't be trusted, but leftists in general.
"2. The election is GOING to be stolen, it WAS stolen, it CONTINUES to be stolen. All part of the con that you're susceptible to because you bought into the first con."
Four years of trying to unseat him and it's not a psychic prediction. It's a likelihood which came to pass. It's no con. The con is from you assholes pretending it was fairly won. Morons like you stick your fingers in your ears yelling "LALALALALALA" with your eyes closed so your fantasy won't be exposed as the bullshit lie it is. Even Bernie Sanders knows the Dems aren't beneath cheating, as he's been cheated by Hillary.
"3. There are the various cons in his business - an allegedly multi-billionaire who repeatedly uses/abuses bankruptcy laws to avoid paying his debts, his scam school for idiots, his scam "charity" that benefited him and his family. His using and abusing tax laws to avoid paying taxes. His burying his EX-WIFE IN A GOLF COURSE for a tax write-off.".
I've addressed all of this in past discussions were you rant your hatred of a man you don't know who's been a far better president than any you've ever supported (which is why you hate him so much). You've yet to acknowledge the reality of the details of any of them. As to his wife, Trump carved out that area of land for ten family burial plots in 2017. Burying family members on family property is not new in human history, and not in American history. So long as the property remains in the Trump family, the graves will be cared for with all the attention one hopes one's resting place will be. But lefties like to pretend there was only selfish monetary reasons for any choice or action Trump takes, because that's how fakes embrace grace. What I haven't found out was Ivana's wishes for her resting place. Got any proof she wasn't in on the idea?
"Just ask the contractors who were ripped off by Trump over the years. Just ask the employees who were used and abused by him. Just ask the dozens of women who've been abused and used by him."
We've been down this road many times and the trip takes the same route. I insist you provide evidence of true unethical behavior, and all I get is unChristian, "grace embracing" repetition of the same charges. It's not at all uncommon for contractors and employees to do crappy work and pretend their the victims when held to account. And of course, you'll ignore the many women who regard Trump highly for his help in their careers. Instead, you'll listen to those who haven't proven a thing simply because you get off on believing Trump is evil. You're far worse than he.
"You know, one day, you WILL realize what a pervert (an ACTUAL pervert - a narcissist who twists and damanges everything for his own personal enrichment and jollies, no matter who's harmed or destroyed in his wake) conman he was. I just wonder if you'll have the good sense to be embarrassed."
Clearly you hope and pray he's everything you so desperately need to believe he is, while you continue mocking God with your defense of immoral behavior of your friends. You'll never be embarrassed because you have no class or honor. But my choice of support for Trump is based on his campaign promises (most of which he fulfilled), his track record of his presidency and the horrors of the alternatives your party offered to oppose him. At his worst...assuming your beliefs are true...he's harmed far far fewer people than your presidents have, especially Joe Biden. You're too much a pervert to speak honestly about anyone you oppose.
"Perhaps your grandchildren will one day ask, "Why? Why did so many people believe such an obviously bad, untrustworthy man...?" and I wonder if you'll have the good sense to be ashamed."
If any of my grandchildren ask me such a question, they'll have grown to be complete morons, likely brainwashed by marxist educators. But then, they'll get an accurate and truthful history lesson from me about the man that assholes like you lack the honor and integrity to acknowledge.
So close, but I'm out of time for tonight. Don't try to post any more unjustified, unChristian hatred and lies until I deal with your last comment.
August 15, 2022 at 10:57 AM
"Good God have mercy on your soul. You're talking about sexually objectifying GIRLS as if that weren't perverse. You're sick. This is the first thing we teach our children as they grown up: Stay away/be aware of the deviants who say it's okay to show me a little skin... it's natural... and then the sexual predators would just eat them up in their minds and in reality, given a chance.
You're sick. Sick. Get help. Pray to the good God in heaven for mercy and forgiveness."
So now you on to lying about what I said. I was clearly NOT talking about "sexually objectifying GIRLS". Acknowledging their physical beauty is not objectifying. Or are you saying you don't find your wife attractive? What you're referring to is either hebephilia or ephebophilia, yet neither has any connection to merely finding a girl attractive to the eye in the same way certain older women can be. What's more, as stated, age and looks aren't connected in a manner which is absolute, with very young girls looking older than they are, as many people older than 18 can still look to most others as if they're high school kids. I myself got carded for alcohol into my thirties.
But you, being the truly sick f**k between us, needs to regard such talk as a sign of twisted perversion because you're intent on labeling Trump as perverted. But again, noting the beauty of a young girl doesn't indicate any intention...suppressed or not...to bed the girl (assuming it's known how young the girl is). Regardless of their age of any female, normal men (and even most women) automatically acknowledge some as attractive. There's a very simple, logical and reasonable explanation for this: the female...in this case a girl in her teens...IS attractive and normal men aren't afraid or ashamed to say so out loud.
But you, you sick f**k, being a fake Christian, are intent on using this topic in your quest to forever demonize Trump to the farthest degree you can because...you know...embrace grace. You're so clearly a fake. Every mention of God/Jesus by you is blasphemy. For the likes of you to dare speak His name indicts you. I hope you like the heat.
I keep coming by here looking for something new, and the title of this post started to bother me.
The reality is that I have aware of everything you've mentioned, I've considered it, and I've reached a different conclusion than you. To assume (as Dan does) that anyone who disagrees with you hasn't or won't consider things that have been repeated ad nauseum is one more example of a bad way to convince or persuade people.
Then I saw the quote from (I presume Dan) about "sexually objectifying GIRLS", and I couldn't resist. I can only imagine that Dan's comment stems from his ignorance that "sexually objectifying GIRLS" (or "GIRLS" "sexually objectifying" themselves is a multi billion dollar industry. It starts with IG, Tik Tok, moves to Only Fans, Fanhouse, then to Grindr and the hook up apps, and finally to outright Porn. I certainly haven't heard Dan or any of the APL complaining that PornHub has been allowing videos from underage "GIRLS", revenge porn, and other problematic content for years. But heaven forbid acknowledging the reality that "sexually objectifying GIRLS" is a thing, that "GIRLS" "sexually objectifying" themselves is a thing, and that men are either wired or conditioned to find young women sexually attractive.
I just listened to a podcast with a guest who talks a lot about the dynamics of sexual attraction and the like. I'm not sure I agreed with everything he said, but a lot of it seems to line up with what we see in the real world.
"The reality is that I have aware of everything you've mentioned, I've considered it, and I've reached a different conclusion than you." ;)
"To assume (as Dan does) that anyone who disagrees with you hasn't or won't consider things that have been repeated ad nauseum is one more example of a bad way to convince or persuade people."
Except that some things bear repeating. The rejection of Trump in 2020, and the possible intention of doing so again in '24 demands it.
Great points in reference to Dan's fake outrage, particularly the last part about girls sexual objectifying themselves. To take it yet a step further, Dan has no trouble with the latter, as we've seen in past discussions regarding girls and women dressing provocatively, trashy or to provoke the attention of men. I'm to mind my own business so Dan can continue to objectify those females. Accusing Trump in this manner is one of Dan's most insincere points to demonize Trump beyond all reason.
If you want to repeat yourself, that's your decision. Unfortunately it's going to make me tune out. Just like Dan who hurls all sorts of invective and vitriol at me and then begs me to "repent" or some such bullshit, telling people that they essentially aren't smart (or informed, or aware, or just haven't considered) enough is a horrible way to persuade. If Trump is the candidate, I'll have to decide whether or not to vote for him and I'll do so based on my convictions, priorities, and reasons. Until then I will do whatever I can to avoid that.
What's hard is that this current push to get Trump tied up in a an investigation that's unlikely to lead to charges or a conviction, actually helps me get to my desired goal. Yet I don't want to "win" that way.
I think that Dan sees himself as one of the few men who is completely immune to women who dress and act in ways that make them attractive sexually. He thinks that he isn't stimulated visually like virtually every other man on the planet, and that anyone who looks at an attractive woman in a way that acknowledges her attractiveness and sex appeal, is essentially raping the woman. Regardless of how the women present themselves.
I was flipping through IG and regularly come across posts from Paige Spirinac. She's a golfer who wasn't quite good enough to go pro who's made quite a career for herself as an IG influencer. Her shtick is that she's got a nice rack, and virtually every picture she posts is posed in such a way that her cleavage is front and center. She's very upfront about the fact that she knows that she's famous because of her boobs, and that she's going to leverage those as much as she can.
While I certainly wouldn't want to prevent her from doing so, the reality is that if men weren't visually stimulated by certain aspects of women's bodies, all she'd be is a women who wasn't good enough for the LPGA. Instead, she's a brand.
It's always amusing when Dan chooses to ignore things that are simply reality.
"If you want to repeat yourself, that's your decision."
Thanks.
"Unfortunately it's going to make me tune out."
You're not required to tune in.
"Just like Dan who hurls all sorts of invective and vitriol at me and then begs me to "repent" or some such bullshit,..."
What I do and say is nothing at all like Dan...in any way. He's a moron. I only play one on TV.
"...telling people that they essentially aren't smart (or informed, or aware, or just haven't considered) enough is a horrible way to persuade."
Except that I don't leave out the part why any of that might be so, which is the important part. What comes before is the attention grabber.
"If Trump is the candidate, I'll have to decide whether or not to vote for him and I'll do so based on my convictions, priorities, and reasons. Until then I will do whatever I can to avoid that."
I don't follow...avoid what? Deciding whether or not to vote for Trump? But now's the time and so is the time between now and election day. I'm constantly reassessing based on new info and news. But he remains high on the list because no one else is stepping up and I don't know who can contend with the bullshit and still get things done without caving to stupid compromises which don't help us. At this point it seems the best bet is Trump and the entire party getting behind him and supporting him in his efforts to get us back on track, as opposed to pretending there's some legit reason not to. This doesn't mean rubber stamping, but supporting his efforts in a general sense as they should have the first time around. Even to the extent he had support from some of the party, those supporters need to be kicking RINOs in the ass to get with the program because it's not about Trump anymore. Those who refuse need to be called out by those who do their duty to America, their president and the part, which is in dire need of the type of spine we've only seen in Trump and DeSantis and few others.
"What's hard is that this current push to get Trump tied up in a an investigation that's unlikely to lead to charges or a conviction, actually helps me get to my desired goal. Yet I don't want to "win" that way."
Frankly, so long as it's legal and honorable, I don't much care how we win. If the Dems childish abuse of power pushes people to Trump, that's not only a good thing but it indicates to me that such people recognize that Trump's just what we need to correct the mess made by not having put him in office in 2020.
"I think that Dan sees himself as one of the few men who is completely immune to women who dress and act in ways that make them attractive sexually. "
I know Dan is just doing all he can to preach his hatred of Trump hard in order to persuade people to choose someone more to his liking who will destroy the nation more completely than his choice in 2020 has done. He's posturing as what you describe, but it's not true at all. If it is, then it means he doesn't find his own wife attractive, because that would be objectifying her. I wonder if she's aware he doesn't find her fetching.
"I was flipping through IG and regularly come across posts from Paige Spirinac."
I'm in love with her.
"While I certainly wouldn't want to prevent her from doing so, the reality is that if men weren't visually stimulated by certain aspects of women's bodies, all she'd be is a women who wasn't good enough for the LPGA."
And this is what honest people acknowledge is natural: Men drawn to hot babes. It's not perverse...even attempting to bed them. It's only perversion when it's become obsession which dictates behaviors not necessarily beneficial (this is aside from the obvious detrimental effects on one spiritually)...when other parts of life are put at risk in order to appease the desire compelled by the attraction to hot babes. Homosexuals put themselves at risk to appease their desires, which itself is perversion given the target of those desires, but is compounded by appeasing the desire despite the many consequences unique to their kind.
"It's always amusing when Dan chooses to ignore things that are simply reality."
It would be more amusing if it wasn't so destructive, as rejecting truth always is.
"Thanks."
You're welcome.
"You're not required to tune in."
I never said I was. Only that this is a really bad way to persuade anyone.
"What I do and say is nothing at all like Dan"
I hate to break it to you, but y'all respond to people who disagree with you in very similar ways. Telling people how dumb/uninformed/ignorant/whatever is a crappy way to persuade. You just don't descend into expletive fueled vitriol.
"I don't follow...avoid what?"
Avoid Trump winning the candidacy.
"Frankly, so long as it's legal and honorable, I don't much care how we win."
I see that, and I mostly agree with it. Although I'm not sure I want to see conservatives follow the DFL down the roads they're heading down. (endless investigations, politically motivated prosecutions, constant impeaching, and the like)
It's almost as if God wired men to be physically attracted to certain traits in women, then created women so that they have those traits. Or it's almost as if the unintelligent, unguided, random process of evolution somehow managed to work it out so that women would evolve with the traits that men evolved to find attractive.
I get that it's natural, but that's the same argument for promsicuous sex, and homosexuality so I'm not sure how far down the "it's natural" road I'm willing to go. I'd also say, that for Christians and non Christians who take their marriage vows seriously, that there should probably some degee of limiting these natural instincts in the interest of a stable, happy marriage.
What's funny is that the APL has always denigrated conservatives for being resistant to the lowering of standards around sex, yet then you see people like Dan who seem to be in denial that his side started us down the road to our current situation, and wants to blame conservatives who are relatively late to the party.
"I think that Dan sees himself as one of the few men who is completely immune to women who dress and act in ways that make them attractive sexually."
Dan is one of the men who deliberately decides to not sexually objective women and especially females who are not adults.
Look. It's easy:
I see a woman or girl with a pretty face reading a book. I DON'T say, "Man! You're pretty! I bet the boys are all chasing you!" I say, is that a good book?
I see a woman or girl with large breasts, I don't say, "grrrr! Whatta rack!" I don't say anything at all because why would I? Breaststroke come in different sizes. What of it? What business of mine is it? None.
I see a woman dressed - as your ilk would say - provocatively... large breasts, skimpy bikini, nipples showing. I don't wolf call or Leer. I don't say anything about it other than note she has freedom to dress however she wants and it's just none of our collective business as men.
Period.
See how easy it is not to objectify women?
Marshall...
"Men drawn to hot babes. It's not perverse...even attempting to bed them. It's only perversion..."
There's a chance, Craig. Speak up. You want to denounce something? Denounce Marshal for justifying women sexually.
Marshal, you pervert. Women aren't yours to bed. Grow the hell up.
"I hate to break it to you, but y'all respond to people who disagree with you in very similar ways. Telling people how dumb/uninformed/ignorant/whatever is a crappy way to persuade."
Unfortunately, until I hear something akin to a reasoned, practical, logical and compelling reason to reject Trump outright, rather than to rank him in the same manner as any other potential candidate, I can't bring myself to respect opinions lacking in that way. The fate of my nation is too important that I should worry about hurt feelings, when hurt lives are far more important. His negatives are not in the least bit ignored by me. They're just in perspective.
"Avoid Trump winning the candidacy."
Now you see, that's a problem, Craig. It suggests you're willing to take unnecessary and unwise risks to that purpose based on...what, exactly? His manner and style? That's absurd and here's why: the state of the nation is far too important to put so much value on those qualities which fall far short of those which result in quality accomplishment. And to a very real extent, they may be a great part in achieving. So as I hold out hope that a better choice comes along, I need something far more substantive than that sort of thing given the heat the assholes have brought upon every freakin' center-right candidate they can't pressure, how badly they waged their war on Trump and his ability to prove how wrong they are about him, and the very real fact that they will step up their efforts from this point forward so long as they hold the presidency and majorities in Congress. To succeed in denying the Trump the nomination demands that whomever is put forth to replace him damned well better be better than him, because he/she will have to be.
Who is that person and what makes you think that person measures up? If you choose to respond, you can do so in the previous post "Who If Not Him?" where no one has provided that side of the question.
"I'm not sure I want to see conservatives follow the DFL down the roads they're heading down. (endless investigations, politically motivated prosecutions, constant impeaching, and the like)"
I agree to this extent: I do indeed want them to go after any for whom they have a legit chance of succeeding. I don't want it to be "political", though I don't know that it can be totally devoid of politics. But there's no doubt there's more which provides legit motivation from a criminal/unethical/unconstitutional perspective. For example, both Trump impeachment attempts were rank political moves with no real basis behind either of them. But Biden's compiled quite a list of truly unconstitutional and destructive actions, should one wish to go after him. If I had my druthers, I would prefer the focus be on getting us back on track, but to some extent, it may include holding people accountable for who we got so far off the rails.
"I get that it's natural, but that's the same argument for promsicuous sex, and homosexuality so I'm not sure how far down the "it's natural" road I'm willing to go. I'd also say, that for Christians and non Christians who take their marriage vows seriously, that there should probably some degee of limiting these natural instincts in the interest of a stable, happy marriage."
I've only been addressing this issue from a coldly objective place regarding specifically how men respond to attractive females, including teens. That response is natural and to a large extent, instinctive and indeed, involuntary. Dan, not surprisingly, dares pervert that truth in order to attack his betters...in this case Trump, who is a far better man than Dan in so many ways. But it's how the left rolls...make shit up, pervert what can be in order to twist it into something they can use as a bludgeon.
"I'd also say, that for Christians and non Christians who take their marriage vows seriously, that there should probably some degee of limiting these natural instincts in the interest of a stable, happy marriage."
Marital status is irrelevant, really. Christians, and any person of honor, should rise above carnal compulsion, which the left not only doesn't do, but seems to mock those who do and worse, pretends conservatives who succumb to their carnal compulsions are far worse than they are. Here, Dan again pretends Trump is worse because he opposes Trump, not because he's so different than so many average Americans (he's just more transparent about it...or was).
"...then you see people like Dan who seem to be in denial that his side started us down the road to our current situation, and wants to blame conservatives who are relatively late to the party."
Well, that's their way. They create problems and look to those who oppose their efforts which led to those problems as being the source of them, rather than acknowledging they refused to heed the warnings and often with mockery.
August 17, 2022 at 4:48 PM
"Dan is one of the men who deliberately decides to not sexually objective women and especially females who are not adults."
You pretend that finding a female attractive is "objectifying them". That's the issue you've created here and it's crap and not what is on the table. You're choosing to believe that even someone like Trump is evil any time he sees a hot chick and thinks (or says to anyone with him) "Wow! What a babe!" And then for such a person to go from that to thoughts of sexual encounter is not only perfectly natural and damn near universal, but common to women as well when they see attractive men (though not a perfect parallel given women are from Venus and men are from Mars). It's whether or not those thoughts are indulged or acted upon when there's a problem, but still, not perverse except that you want it to be to posture as pure of heart while you enable true perversion.
"I see a woman or girl with a pretty face reading a book. I DON'T say, "Man! You're pretty! I bet the boys are all chasing you!" I say, is that a good book?"
Yeah...right. The reality is that no one has to say it, normal men simply acknowledge it without any verbalization of any kind, out loud or in their mind. One needn't take any time to decide if a babe is a babe. One needn't wonder if she's the object of pursuit. It's what happens with attractive people...a given. Of course there are no shortage of clips of Biden saying very similar things to young girls, so...
"I see a woman or girl with large breasts, I don't say, "grrrr! Whatta rack!" I don't say anything at all because why would I? Breaststroke come in different sizes. What of it? What business of mine is it? None."
Again, yeah...right. This is another case of pompous, pretentious bullshit intended for posturing as pure of heart. But you expect that there's something perverse about men who do comment or take notice and appreciate body parts of attractive women. Typical deceitfulness of the world class liar you are.
"I see a woman dressed - as your ilk would say - provocatively... large breasts, skimpy bikini, nipples showing. I don't wolf call or Leer. I don't say anything about it other than note she has freedom to dress however she wants and it's just none of our collective business as men."
Still more bullshit. Worse, to suggest it's none of our business is nonsense. Again, it's called "arousing the prurient interest" and it has a negative effect on the culture and the lesser mortals among us. Always has and always will and you want to pretend you're noble doing nothing to encourage modesty for women's own sake as well as to reduce inciting immoral thoughts and behaviors by those who behold them. You're such a f**king fake Christian.
"See how easy it is not to objectify women?"
As it true of so many words and concepts, you lack understanding. Finding someone attractive is not objectifying them. It's an acknowledgement of reality. And all women like being told or regarded as attractive. It makes them feel good. It's all in how it's done. The irony is your false bloviating about tolerance of provocative dress and manner leads to more objectifying. This goes back to Craig's point and my response regarding how you leftist asshats cause problems and then blame your betters.
August 17, 2022 at 4:50 PM
"There's a chance, Craig. Speak up. You want to denounce something? Denounce Marshal for justifying women sexually.
Marshal, you pervert. Women aren't yours to bed. Grow the hell up."
Good gosh, Dan! You lie like you get paid for it! Nothing here reflects anything I said. It's all just you trying to pretend I've done or said something wrong or untrue. But then, it's just more proof of your corrupt nature perverting (typical) my position which couldn't be more clear, logical and true.
"You want to denounce something?"
Unlike you, I'm not obsessed with denouncing others, or with demanding that others denounce others.
"Denounce Marshal for justifying women sexually."
I have no idea what this means or what you're talking about.
But you're pretty darn proud of yourself for how you don't think that you objectify women, while making assumptions about what others do.
It seems that you are unaware that there might be a spectrum of how men react (being visually stimulated and all thanks to God or Evolution), to attractive women. It further seems to have eluded you that it's possible to acknowledge the reality of how an attractive women presents herself, acknowledge that she's sexually attractive, without actually doing anything wrong (by your arbitrary standards of wrong).
It must be nice to have so much good behavior to be so proud of.
"It suggests you're willing to take unnecessary and unwise risks to that purpose"
No, like Dan, you are making assumptions based on your prejudices, not based on anything specific I've said. You're projecting your imagination onto me. Again, not a good tactic to persuade.
"Who is that person and what makes you think that person measures up?"
1. I've answered this multiple times and places.
2. It's over two years before the damn election. I have no idea who will actually be running in '24 and it's pointless to wast a bunch of time on this until we actually have candidates.
3. This does illustrate my point though. By taking the position that there is virtually no one more qualified than Trump to run in '24 you're essentially telling potential candidates not to even bother no matter how good they might be.
4. It's simply a matter of wishing that y'all would shut up about how awesome Trump is because it's premature.
"Marital status is irrelevant, really. Christians, and any person of honor, should rise above carnal compulsion,"
I disagree. Marital status (especially the Christian notion that marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God) is completely relevant. Jesus tells us that looking at a woman lustfully is to commit adultery (voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.), so yeah it's relevant. Again, from someone who's a Christian and values marriage, there's the notion of honoring one's future marriage vows by choosing a standard of behavior that prepares one for marriage.
Obviously there is some level of social contract that says that we don't hit women over the head, and carry them back to the cave anymore. Although there are some persuasive scholarly papers from leading proponents of evolution that endorse Alpha males from procreating as much as possible even to the point of accepting rape as beneficial. We also see the popular culture standard (because of the Evolutionary concept that we're no better than any other animal) of "You and me baby, ain't nothing but mammals, let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel".
"No, like Dan, you are making assumptions based on your prejudices, not based on anything specific I've said. You're projecting your imagination onto me. Again, not a good tactic to persuade. "
No. Unlike Dan, and as with Dan...and anyone else...I'm drawing conclusions based off the word you used to express your position, clarification of which is always welcome and greatly appreciated.
"1. I've answered this multiple times and places."
I haven't found all the places, but where I found multiple answers, I found next to nothing about how your alternative choices measure up, except via the implication they aren't Trump. I read reasons why Trump isn't perfect, but that's not an argument for why an alternative option is a better choice...particularly without some reference to anything those options accomplished in their own right.
"2. It's over two years before the damn election. I have no idea who will actually be running in '24 and it's pointless to wast a bunch of time on this until we actually have candidates."
Totally disagree. Should any discussion about potential candidates produced any actionable intel with regard to actual candidates, then the discussion was well worth the effort. For example, I learned so much about Obama after he became a US Senator which added to my opposition to him for president, but which would have been useful had those things been widely discussed while he was still a state senator in Illinois. No Obama supporter with whom I spoke knew a damned thing about his time in Illinois, and scant little more (if anything) about his time in the US Senate. So there's the point you feel is lacking in this discussion.
"3. This does illustrate my point though. By taking the position that there is virtually no one more qualified than Trump to run in '24 you're essentially telling potential candidates not to even bother no matter how good they might be."
Sadly, there's no way to guarantee who is qualified at all until they are in office mucking things up. We know Trump is qualified because of his fine track record. I'm sorry, but track record is the best measure we have for deciding if anyone is or might be more qualified than Trump. It's a tough job given the differences between the presidency and any other position in American politics, but it's something. In the meantime, if I actually insist that there is no one more qualified, any potential candidates prove it by taking that as an excuse to stand down. A good candidate must disregard the naysayers...kinda what Trump did, but so did every other candidate as well...and convince voters...or at least attempt to convince them.
"4. It's simply a matter of wishing that y'all would shut up about how awesome Trump is because it's premature. "
I could, in kind, wish that y'all would shut up about how unworthy Trump is of a second term. Instead, I'll simply continue wishing you'd explain why that might be with something substantive. The spending issue is a start, but alone it's hardly enough. More importantly, find me someone who is awesome in his/her own right and tell me why that is. Pretty much what I've been pining for without satisfaction.
more...
With regard to marital status being irrelevant, it was solely related to the notion of character in general. I'm a married Christian man and hold the institution in high regard and strive to act accordingly as I'm supposed to do. But all people need to be in control and not give in to every little urge which compels them, married or not. I was pretty clear about that and was not diminishing anything with regard to married people and their obligations as such.
In response to Ducky Dan, the compulsions of the average, normal man are that which Dan pretends he never struggles. Worse, he pretends he's not associated with any who do, so by golly, Trump and I are perverts because we acknowledge reality about the beauty of females. He's an idiot who expects people to buy into his posturing as pure and does so while enabling and celebrating actual perversion. Again, it's all a ruse as part of his support for true perversion.
"I haven't found all the places, but where I found multiple answers, I found next to nothing about how your alternative choices measure up, except via the implication they aren't Trump."
I'm sorry, I'm not sure It's important enough for me to dig through a bunch of old posts. I suspect that no matter what is there, it won't be enough.
"Totally disagree."
That's great, I'm happy for you. If you want to jump to conclusions this early, I'm not going to try to stop you.
"I could, in kind, wish that y'all would shut up about how unworthy Trump is of a second term."
You could, and I'd be less inclined to do so if you weren't trying to convince yourself and others that failure to back Trump 2+ years before the elections means that we haven't considered all the talking points.
Craig...
"you're pretty darn proud of yourself for how you don't think that you objectify women, while making assumptions about what others do."
What assumptions do you think I'm making? I'm basing what I'm saying on Marshall's words. What he is saying and what he has said in the past.
And there's nothing of pride in it because, why?
It seems odd that when people like myself and most of my male friends - at least the liberal ones... but also the conservative Christian types that I grew up with - act with basic human decency that you think we are doing something spectacular or above and beyond. It's just not being a jackass.
Look, let me be clear: I'm not saying men don't notice women who are attractive (man, show me a woman who can recite some Wendell Berry and I will swoon!) or that men aren't naturally attracted to some women. And vice versa. THAT part is natural. But saying OF TEEN-AGED GIRLS, "Man, I'd like to bed her! What a rack!" or whatever other perverse things that Marshal is willing to give a pass to or write off as "just typical male behavior," THAT is objectifying women, demeaning women and girls. And THAT is perverse.
Noticing beauty = Natural. Making women or girls feel uncomfortable about it - and ESPECIALLY with teenagers and younger - by commenting, leering, or otherwise objectifying those children, THAT is perverse, sick as hell, diabolical, harmful and part of the historic abuse of women and girls.
But Marshal writes THAT off as "just typical."
Hell, by that standard, RAPE is typical. Doesn't mean we should do anything other than condemn it as the atrocity that it is.
Craig...
"It seems that you are unaware that there might be a spectrum of how men react (being visually stimulated and all thanks to God or Evolution), to attractive women. It further seems to have eluded you that it's possible to acknowledge the reality of how an attractive women presents herself, acknowledge that she's sexually attractive, without actually doing anything wrong (by your arbitrary standards of wrong)."
I've been abundantly clear that of course there is a spectrum. Noticing beauty - AS I already said - is not harmful or demeaning or perverse. Leering over teen-aged girls (or women), making demeaning, possessive or predatory comments or suggestions, THAT is perverse.
I have to think that Craig can agree with me, but you tell me.
How far gone are you? Are you given over to perversion as Marshal is?
Craig,
"I'm sorry, I'm not sure It's important enough for me to dig through a bunch of old posts."
That's totally up to you, but I doubt there's too much you've written where I've been. Aside from this blog, I read yours, Dan's, Stan's. If you did some post or comment detailing the attributes of any candidate preference, I can't see how I could have missed it. I trust your opinion enough to presume I wouldn't have forgotten if it was compelling along with detailed. Again, I can't imagine I'd have missed it or could have forgotten it if I didn't.
"I suspect that no matter what is there, it won't be enough."
I'm trying not to be insulted.
"If you want to jump to conclusions this early, I'm not going to try to stop you."
I've jumped to no conclusions. Drawing conclusions is not the same as jumping to conclusions, so I'm not sure what you're implying here.
"You could, and I'd be less inclined to do so if you weren't trying to convince yourself and others that failure to back Trump 2+ years before the elections means that we haven't considered all the talking points."
But this isn't what I'm doing. I've provided lists of Trump's accomplishments. I'm aware of what it is about him people don't like. I'm just still waiting for an intelligent argument against him running again and/or a compelling argument for whatever one's alternative choice might be. I will say that I'm beginning to think perhaps no such person exists and the poor arguing for seeking someone other than this proven commodity is a convincing argument in that regard.
You can talk about baggage all you like, but a candidate with less baggage will still be pilloried by the usual suspects. Trump doesn't care as much as some like to think he does. At least not to any extent that would stop him from getting things done.
I totally get that Trump might not be the best option. I don't have any problem with the possibility and would be thrilled to feel certain another would be better. So you can cut the crap suggesting I'm up his ass. I don't worship any human being.
August 18, 2022 at 8:34 PM
"What assumptions do you think I'm making? I'm basing what I'm saying on Marshall's words. What he is saying and what he has said in the past."
That's funny. What you're really doing is perverting what I say in order to demonize me for being more truthful about Trump's behavior with women. You won't stand for anyone doing that because being a sick f**k, you need everyone to regard Trump as some kind of monster more perverted than the lesbians and homosexuals and "transgendered" people you enable.
"It seems odd that when people like myself..."
It seems odd that you'd really expect anyone to take anything you say as true, given how much you lie...as you're now lying about me.
"(man, show me a woman who can recite some Wendell Berry and I will swoon!)"
Pussies swoon.
"But saying OF TEEN-AGED GIRLS, "Man, I'd like to bed her! What a rack!" or whatever other perverse things that Marshal is willing to give a pass to or write off as "just typical male behavior," THAT is objectifying women, demeaning women and girls. And THAT is perverse."
And here's where you're purposely lying about me. I don't give bad behaviors a pass like you do. But I do acknowledge reality. The reality is that men dig hot babes and men are likely to express how much they're attracted to hot babes by saying all manner of things related to that attraction. It's natural, not moral. And it's not "objectifying" women to do so if the actual treatment of the female reflects respect. This is what you pretend is impossible: that a dude would want to bag a hot babe but will still treat her in a Christian manner. But you're so keen on demonizing better people that you need to pretend they'll be crass to women. Sure, some will. They usually vote Democrat.
But I'm not, nor have I ever, suggested it's OK to make women feel uncomfortable by crude expressions or unwanted, boorish behavior, you asshat. And your pretense of being on some higher moral ground or of solid moral stock is absurd given the perversity you celebrate.
"Noticing beauty = Natural. Making women or girls feel uncomfortable about it - and ESPECIALLY with teenagers and younger - by commenting, leering, or otherwise objectifying those children, THAT is perverse, sick as hell, diabolical, harmful and part of the historic abuse of women and girls."
I'm going to wager you've NEVER felt that way about someone who does that routinely and has for years...your very own Joe Biden. You hypocritical asshole.
"But Marshal writes THAT off as "just typical."
Hell, by that standard, RAPE is typical."
Really??? Keep proving yourself to be the hateful fake Christian you've already convinced me you are. That isn't even close to an intelligent thing to say.
"Are you given over to perversion as Marshal is?"
By which you mean, no where near as given over to perversion as you are. But this is the point: digging hot babes is not perversion. Perversion...aside from the perversion you celebrate and enable...is pretending my stated position means "Leering over teen-aged girls (or women), making demeaning, possessive or predatory comments or suggestions".
But this is what I've come to expect from a liar like no other: Dan Trabue---non-Christian, lying enabler/defender/celebrator/promoter of deviancy and perversion.
"What assumptions do you think I'm making?"
Assumptions about how others "objectify" women.
"And there's nothing of pride in it because, why?"
Beyond the fact that this really doesn't make sense, it's an excellent example of the humble brag. Well done.
"But saying OF TEEN-AGED GIRLS, "Man, I'd like to bed her! What a rack!" or whatever other perverse things that Marshal is willing to give a pass to or write off as "just typical male behavior," THAT is objectifying women, demeaning women and girls. And THAT is perverse."
Interesting. Yet strange that so many teen aged girls engage in behavior designed to sexualize, and objectify themselves. I wonder who they would be doing that for.
"Hell, by that standard, RAPE is typical."
Hell, by the standard of the animal kingdom and some proponents of Evolution Rape os not only "typical", it's beneficial.
"How far gone are you? Are you given over to perversion as Marshal is?"
I'm as far gone as all the rest of sinful humanity, and I have no idea where you get the idea that you get to judge others for these types of things.
"I'm trying not to be insulted."
Why, you don't seem particularly concerned with insulting, or offending others?
Marshal...
"P******s swoon."
THIS is precisely the sort of misogynistic hateful-towards-women, perverted attacks that perverts like Trump and Marshal regularly engage in. And that Craig is too cowardly to stand up against. Instead, the Craig's of the world lend support to the sexual predators of the world by remaining silent. WHILE denouncing me for speaking against sexual predators.
""I'm trying not to be insulted."
Why, you don't seem particularly concerned with insulting, or offending others?"
That was sarcasm...or at least a weak attempt at it. I'm not insulted at all, but the comment is in response to a specific comment of yours which carried implications suggesting a good argument for your alternative preferences to Trump...assuming there were such arguments...would be lost on me. Rather, if your arguments were judged by me to be "not enough", it would only be the consequence of the quality of the argument itself.
Here's the thing: it's not a problem a good argument is difficult. One isn't required to feel as I do regardless of whether or not a good argument can be composed to effect a change in my position. But I don't just seek one's opinion. I question it to enhance my understanding in order to then refine my position. This is a really important issue in my estimation, even this far out from the '24 election. As I noted, in my previous post, there are those I find worthy of my vote and I simply find playing the "what if?" game a worthy and necessary exercise. Most people don't even pay attention. Others don't pay attention until it's too late to effect change in the minds of others. I can't help it Trump still SEEMS to be the best option. You clearly don't agree but can't seem to explain who would be (the other side of the coin of Trump not being that best option). And indeed, if he is NOT the best option in one's mind, then another is. The question is why should anyone else agree?
As to insulting others, yeah...I do that. I'm not one to take great offense at insults hurled my way. Returning fire really means the game's afoot. I'm rather a sticks and stones kinda guy.
August 19, 2022 at 1:34 PM
Dan,
My statement of fact has nothing at all to do with women or misogyny. It has to do with you being a pussy.
In the meantime, neither Craig nor I have "denounced" you for speaking out against sexual predators. In my case, I denounce you for daring to pretend you're doing that when you demonize Trump or myself as if we're among them. I do, however, denounce you for exploiting the term "Christian" so as to legitimize your perversion and the perversion of others, as well as legitimizing your demonizing of better people as if you're morally superior. You're not. At best, you're nowhere near better than those you criticize. Take your fake outrage and leave at your blog where lies fester.
One way that you all can see that people like me are right about people like Marshal and the Trump supporters is the way that so many very conservative people with character rebuke Trump and what the modern GOP has become.
"The modern GOP, he said, never truly cared about the ideas it claimed to care about.
This was a stunning indictment coming from a longtime political consultant who had toiled on five Republican presidential campaigns and numerous Senate and gubernatorial races. “The Republican Party has been a cartel,” Stevens said excitedly. “And no one asks a cartel, ‘What’s your ideological purpose?’ You don’t ask OPEC, ‘What’s your ideology?’ You don’t ask a drug gang, ‘What’s your program?’ The Republicans exist for the pursuit of power for no purpose...”
Stevens, an erudite fellow who is also a novelist and a travel writer, has become an emblematic ex-Republican. He once believed in GOP ideals and ideas. Now he saw it all as a huge con. His new book is a confession and cri de coeur. The first line is blunt: “I have no one to blame but myself.” In these pages, Stevens self-flagellates, calling himself a “fool” for his decades of believing—and lying to himself—that the Republican Party was based on “a core set of values.” Acknowledging his role, Stevens writes, “So yes, blame me. Blame me when you look around and see a dysfunctional political system and a Republican Party that has gone insane.” The book offers one overarching prescription for the GOP: “Burn it to the ground and start over.”
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/08/racism-republican-party-stuart-stevens/
Burn it to the ground and start over again, indeed. People like Stevens were fools (according to him) for taking the GOP seriously. But his eyes were opened.
When will your eyes be opened, fellows? (And yes, I'm talking to you, too, Craig. If you're not joining the Stevens and Cheneys of the world in strongly denouncing the path of the modern GOP, then you're enabling it.)
August 20, 2022 at 12:16 PM
This Stuart Stevens?:
https://redstate.com/diary/martin_a_knight/2013/02/25/another-reason-mitt-romney-lost-he-had-a-full-blown-idiot-stuart-stevens-running-his-campaign-n169381
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/book-review-it-was-all-a-lie-sanctimonious-stuart-stevens-scolds-republican-party/
https://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/stuart-stevens-stirs-the-anger-of-conservative-bloggers-084402
This Stuart Stevens? Protector of a predator?
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2021/02/16/stuart-stevens-asks-who-would-be-the-happiest-man-in-the-world-without-the-lincoln-project-richard-grenell-answers/
Purveyor of proven lies?
https://www.newsweek.com/lincoln-project-adviser-stuart-stevens-defends-tiki-torch-stunt-amid-backlash-1644214
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/keep-stuart-stevens-in-exile-trump-republican-elites/
I have more, including two stories related to stalking charges leveled against him (though later reversed over interpretation of the law of the state in which it took place, and whether or not it covered his clearly questionable actions).
Indeed, to listen to this jerkwad without knowing he was a "GOP strategist", there's no way one wouldn't think he wasn't a rank and file moron leftist. He talks just like one.
But what this offering clearly demonstrates for us once again, Dan will highlight anyone without scrutiny based solely on their hatred of Trump and the GOP. To pretend the GOP is the insane party is absurd. That's clearly the Dems. The GOP is more on the dysfunctional, spineless side, but the Dems are batshit crazy, perverse and anti-American. No wonder Dan likes this guy!
On a separate note, we spent the day at the beach today. Did some reading, a bit of swimming and a bunch of ogling, leering and possibly some drooling. Strangely, it turns out the Mrs was enjoying the sight of quite a few men she found handsome. She must be a pervert. I never knew.
Give it up. There's a long list of respected, respectable, SMART and decent conservatives - and some who are NOT so decent, including many who once upon a time supported him - who recognize the threat this pervert of yours is to the party and the world.
Dick Cheney
Liz Cheney
George Will
Mitt Romney
George W Bush
Colin Powell
James Mattis
Bruce Bartlett
John Kasich
Cindy McCain
Miles Taylor
The list goes on and on.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/republicans-voting-for-biden-not-trump.html
This is NOT just a "We hate conservative" movement. It is a rational adult movement of two groups: You have the rational people on one side from across the political spectrum who recognize that Trump is an idiot, a pervert, a conman, a deviant, a narcissist, a crook, a liar and a threat to the US and free world and then you have the useful idiots like you and the silent supporters like Craig and Stan who fail to stand up to Trump and his useful idiots in a sufficient serious manner, who fail to recognize or call out how dangerous and perverted Trump is.
And these people are NOT just mealy-mouth saying, "um... he's not my first choice" like enablers like Craig and Stan. They are denouncing Trump in the strongest imaginable words. "Threat." "Idiot." "No idea of what he's doing and no desire to understand." "Dangerous to a free republic." "An assault on Democracy."
The condemnations go on and on.
And I know it makes you feel better to pretend in your head that these ultra conservatives are just idiots who are RINOs and not REAL conservatives, but reality just undermines those idiot Trump-like condemnations.
Many of these people are extremely intelligent, ultra-conservative and fiercely patriotic. None of which applies to your deviant idiot pervert.
Open your eyes. You all have been played for patsies by a very unintelligent pervert.
August 20, 2022 at 9:40 PM
Dan, you're such an incredible and pathetic fraud of a human child. You, like other lefties, pretending conservative NeverTrumpers validates being a Trump-hater is laughable.
Dick Cheney
Liz Cheney
George W Bush
https://defconnews.com/2022/08/07/why-do-the-cheneys-and-the-bushes-too-hate-donald-trump-so-much/
Mitt Romney
https://100percentfedup.com/who-are-the-six-worst-rinos-in-congress-heres-the-list/
George Will
This was Will in early 2016. Note how wrong he was:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-trump-is-nominated-the-gop-must-keep-him-out-of-the-white-house/2016/04/29/293f7f94-0d9d-11e6-8ab8-9ad050f76d7d_story.html
Here he is in late '21, still wrong:
https://www.alternet.org/2021/09/trumps-gop/
Nobody kicked out conservatives like him. He left because he hates Trump and was wrong about his ability to be an effective implementer of conservative policy. Few Trump supporters would reject Will should he decide not be a dickhead.
Colin Powell
Endorsed Obama in '08 & '12. Supported the vile Iran Nuclear Deal. Not a conservative:
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/bob-dutko/its-time-call-colin-powell-his-false-conservative-narratives
James Mattis
Kind of sour grapes, cry-baby kinda guy:
https://www.cmrlink.org/issues/full/why-is-james-mattis-leading-military-officers-opposing-trump
Bruce Bartlett
https://conservativefiringline.com/never-trumper-bruce-bartlett-trump-worse-than-hitler-hitler-served-honorably-in-the-military-trump-didnt/
Yeah...let's cite Bruce Bartlett
John Kasich
This one's just too funny. At one time he was on board with the party, not a horrible dude. Now he's a joke who, had he bailed when the race was between he and Cruz and Trump, yet was so far behind as to be out of it, he chose to stay in as if he actually had an ice cube's chance in hell of winning the primary. Had he done so, Cruz might have been the nominee because I doubt what few supporters he had would've gone to Trump. The race between Trump and Cruz was tight enough that Kasich voters choosing Cruz would've but Cruz over the top. Now little Johnny still can't get over Trump winning.
https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2018/08/john_kasichs_unfortunate_role.html
Cindy McCain
This one needs no link. If she was hardcore like-minded with her late husband, she isn't any more a strong conservative than he was. Various sites which rank politicians for their conservatism rank him in the 60s or lower at best. She rejects Trump because Trump didn't revere John McCain simply because he was a POW...a subject about which there is controversy...and had no trouble reciting debunked stories about Trump disparaging dead American soldiers. But given her relationship to John McCain, I fully understand her hatred.
Miles Taylor
Clearly a bigger joke than Kasich. This guy is a legend in his own mind. He impresses pretty much no one, apparently and I had never heard of the guy. The only person on your list besides him I didn't recognize was Bartlett, but when I looked him up, I recognized his face. Taylor? Nothing. The guy's a nobody and wasn't a "top official" of the Trump admin when he did his anonymous routine with the NYT.
Your list is is a laughable attempt to validate your hatred by appealing to those on it. But here's the thing: despite this attempt being futile in service of your agenda, no one on the right side of the ideological divide are required to support Trump. But if they call themselves conservatives or Republicans, they are devoid of honor and integrity to trash the party favorite, which Trump still is. They can support another candidate in the primary (though I believe Trump would be no different than in incumbent), but if Trump wins again, these people you think makes any difference to me are duty bound to support him for president against whatever war crime the Dems put up in '24.
So...let's see what else you had to say in your sure to be intelligence-free comment:
"The list goes on and on.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/republicans-voting-for-biden-not-trump.html"
I'm sure it does, but I'm not going to pay a single red cent of YOUR money to read about it in the lying NYT. Don't bother ever citing them again, because I can't read what they won't provide for free.
"This is NOT just a "We hate conservative" movement."
No. It's far worse. But it's definitely not "a rational adult movement"by any stretch of the imagination, as my many links and comments above perfectly demonstrate. But again, "rational" is just another word you don't understand, or you pervert as lefties have perverted so many words.
"You have the rational people on one side from across the political spectrum who recognize that Trump is an idiot, a pervert, a conman, a deviant, a narcissist, a crook, a liar and a threat to the US and free world..."
Again, people can have their opinions. But one needs to have the balls to present evidence in a coherent, cogent argument supporting the holding of an opinion. Assertions that Trump is "idiot, a pervert, a conman, a deviant, a narcissist, a crook, a liar and a threat to the US and free world", never comes with evidence. First off, you've been provided a comprehensive explanation of what perversion is, and how you're far more a perv than Trump could ever be, and "deviant" is pretty redundant but pads your list nicely, you lying sack of shit. As to the rest, you still haven't explained the con or how he profited or how we lost, Obama was every bit as narcissistic as any other president (one needs a bit of it to even believe one should run), he's not a crook that you've been able to prove, he's not as bad a liar as the Joe Biden you stupidly asserted was a far better choice for president and who is also clearly the dictionary definition of an idiot, unlike Trump who is far more intelligent than you are, and the most laughable of accusations, that Trump is "a threat to the US and free world" is not only incredibly stupid, but another charge no one has ever sought to support...and YOUR sorry ass hasn't tried or is capable of crafting a lie to make it seem possible.
"...and then you have the useful idiots like you and the silent supporters like Craig and Stan who fail to stand up to Trump and his useful idiots in a sufficient serious manner, who fail to recognize or call out how dangerous and perverted Trump is."
First of all, being a world class idiot yourself, and a lying, hypocritical fake Christian, to assert that someone else is a "useful idiot" is not what I would imagine "embracing grace" would look like, you piece of shit. All of us who are clearly better people than you, with varying opinions of Donald Trump, each have far more integrity than do you. We each have our views on Trump's downsides and acknowledge them because unlike you, we aren't partisan hacks and certainly not immoral, perverse "progressives" who pretend to be Christian. Craig and Stan are wrong about his worthiness of a second term, but they are sincere in their opposition, not just hating on him like a little girl.
And worse, you vile and contemptible reprobate, you dare suggest Trump is dangerous while Biden and the Dem party are destroying our nation. Talk about useful idiot! That term doesn't go far enough to describe what scum you are in supporting the left and disparaging a president that's done more good for this country than either Biden or Obama put together with GW Bush thrown in, too.
"They are denouncing Trump in the strongest imaginable words. "Threat." "Idiot." "No idea of what he's doing and no desire to understand." "Dangerous to a free republic." "An assault on Democracy.""
OOH!!! They're "denouncing"...but with lies and falsehoods which give you a chubby. Again, none of those denouncements are valid or truthful. More importantly, you aren't capable of demonstrating how they might be.
"And I know it makes you feel better to pretend in your head that these ultra conservatives are just idiots who are RINOs and not REAL conservatives, but reality just undermines those idiot Trump-like condemnations."
Doesn't matter who they are. They're wrong and demonstrably so. You're wrong as well and a lying pervert to boot.
"Many of these people are extremely intelligent, ultra-conservative and fiercely patriotic."
So they should know better. More's the pity. Because they're those those things, there's no excuse for rejecting a president who's demonstrated more intelligence than a fake Christian from Louisville ever has, more than Obama ever demonstrated, whose policies would turn on any conservative if they were listed apart from Trump's name and has shown far more patriotism than any Dem ever does. To say those qualities don't apply to Trump is just a demonstrable lie, you lying son of the Father of Lies.
I'd tell you to open your eyes, but it won't do any good while you insist on keeping your head up your ass.
One more thing, Dickhead. Never EVER would you have called any of those on your list as "intelligent" or in any other positive way if they weren't NeverTrumpers. This is just another intentional lie on your part. Your hateful, disgusting comments about Bush and his administration belies your praise for any of these people. But you just can't seem to stop exposing yourself as the low character vermin of a reprobate you've long proven yourself to be.
Marshal,
I've known Dan personally for more than twenty years, and he is a registered child sex offender. Like, everyone in our neighborhood knows that and keeps their children away from him.
re: "Never ever would you have called those on your list as "intelligent..."
Dick Cheney is probably quite an intelligent man. Just not a good one.
George W Bush is probably a fairly good man. Just not an especially intelligent one.
George Will is smarter than everyone here. I just disagree with his policy decisions.
Liz Cheney seems to be exceedingly intelligent and clearly she's got integrity. I just disagree with her policy decisions on many points, given how conservative her policy positions are.
Sarah Palin is clearly nearly as unintelligent as Trump - maybe less intelligent! - but doesn't seem to be overtly indecent. (Not that she was on the list).
I could continue. The points being:
1. You're just flatly mistaken in your claim. Of course, I can recognize the strengths and positive aspects of people I disagree with.
2. There is a difference between recognizing some people as intelligent or moral in many ways and yet strongly disagreeing with their positions.
3. Trump is uniquely historically stupid and immoral and amoral. We ALL should join those conservatives with integrity and oppose him.
By the way, I am only being sarcastic.
Anonymous,
While I regard Dan as a child abuser based on his support for LGBT activism and the negative impact of such on children AND adults...the negative impact well known to medical professionals but rarely acknowledged out of fear of fascistic repercussions...it's quite another thing to claim he's a registered child sex offender.
Therefor, I demand that you provide a link to any legitimate site which can confirm your claim or retract it with an apology.
The claim isn't legitimate and I offer an apology.
With limited time available to me since I saw the allegation about Dan above, I've been unable to confirm through various sex offender data base sites. While that could be because I'm rushed and/or not using those sites properly, or that he's not listed (hard to believe if he's supposedly registered), I once again demand anonymous to put up or admit he/she is in error and apologize. Given the person comments anonymously, there's no way to know the person has any personal knowledge of Dan, has ever met or seen him in person or is in any way in close proximity to Dan.
I have no problem suspecting the worst about Dan given his positions publicly expressed over the years, but I won't stand for bullshit claims about anyone...even him or his troll. I'm not a leftist.
Now I'm out of time to address Dan's latest weak and biased comment.
Stay tuned.
*I RETRACT MY BULLSHIT ASSERTIONS ABOUT DAN THE FRUITY BAT*
You can delete my comments if you want. I'll leave Dan alone so that you can keep chewing him a new one.
Good God. What a bunch of actual perverts. Hiding behind "anonymous" and falsely charging decent family men and fathers like me of stupidly insanely false demonic lies. Shame on you for giving this coward even the time of the day. Shame on you for making claims that hint at such stupidly false notions.
THAT is the true perversion. You all can't stand up to the reason and so you opt to make stupidly false slander.
Shame on you all.
If I were to take a guess, I'd say that you know somewhere in your head and heart that this is a stupidly false claim. That it is diabolical slander. That it is even a dangerously stupidly false bit of demonic lying. That's why you pushed back. But you just BARELY pushed back. You read this insane slander and you posted it.
I suspect that you pushed back because it was such an over-the-top satanic lie that you felt a bit sickened that someone presumably on your side would make such a damned lie, knowing full well the evil that such slander can spread and the harm it can do.
And yet you posted it.
You probably recognize that you have NO reason to doubt that I've been married to one woman for 37 years now, that I have two children who love me and that we all greatly enjoy spending time together - hell, you criticized me/us for wanting to take a family vacation to Europe together that my children treated us to! You probably recognize that I am indeed a leader at my church. That I work helping folks with disabilities and that I was, once upon a time, a teacher and a Sunday School teacher. You have no real reason to doubt ANY of that OR to suspect that I'm not anything but the decent family man I present as.
And yet, you posted this perverse filth.
And when your conservative buddy at "Rational Christianity" called me a pedophile, you were silent.
You probably recognize at some deep human moral and justice level that this kind of stupidly false claims are wrong, deadly wrong, and dangerous and slanderous and even evil. That's why you pushed back just a little.
And you posted that perverse lie.
Save yourself, Marshal. Recognize that bit of you that felt some need to barely push back and recognize that this modern trend of conservatives make crazy false claims is just wrong.
I believe in you, yet.
Anonymous,
I'm not going to delete any of your comments. That's Dan's M.O. I let people hang themselves.
But I'm not done with you. You should never have lied in such a way. That's Dan's M.O. And now I want to know if you even know the guy, as you said you've known him "personally for more than twenty years". Is that a lie, too? I demand a truthful answer.
August 21, 2022 at 8:09 PM
So you again take the Lord's name in vain after I asked you not to do it. Indeed, someone like you referencing Him at all in any way qualifies and I've asked you not to pretend you care about Him while promoting that which He calls detestable. You're not a Christian, so find some other deity to invoke. Just don't that here, either.
"What a bunch of actual perverts."
This isn't about your lesbian friends.
"Hiding behind "anonymous" and falsely charging decent family men and fathers like me of stupidly insanely false demonic lies."
What's "feo's" name?
I addressed the allegation, and you aren't decent enough to be grateful I defended the likes of you from a wild charge. I even took time to research whether or not it's true. I don't know you personally. One can say anything about one's self on social media or one can refrain from saying whatever one wishes not be known. Of course he never said you grabbed any crotches, you flamin' hypocrite.
And speaking of demonic lies, God wouldn't bless a same-sex union of any kind. That and your other lies about LGBT issues and abortion are far more demonic in my opinion. I know who I am. I don't get the vapors if anyone on a blog believes negative things about me. I certainly don't when you bloviate.
"Shame on you for giving this coward even the time of the day."
Says the guy who provides a forum for feo.
"Shame on you for making claims that hint at such stupidly false notions."
I have no idea what the hell this is even supposed to mean.
"THAT is the true perversion."
No. It's just lying. Homosexuality is true perversion.
"Shame on you all."
Says the guy who supports, celebrates, defends and enables homosexuality and infanticide.
August 21, 2022 at 8:28 PM
"If I were to take a guess,"
Never a good idea for you.
"...I'd say that you know somewhere in your head and heart that this is a stupidly false claim."
Why would I? I might hope it isn't true...even for you..., but again, given you support, celebrate, defend and enable homosexuality and infanticide, what would lead me to believe you're incapable of worse?
"That it is diabolical slander." OOH! "Diabolical!!"
"That it is even a dangerously stupidly false bit of demonic lying."
As opposed to what other kind of lying? The kind you're always telling?
"That's why you pushed back."
No. I pushed back because the dude (dudette?) made a serious charge and did so without any evidence. I'm not a lefty. I don't work for NPR. And my name isn't "Dan Trabue".
"But you just BARELY pushed back."
You don't get to dictate how I go about my business. So go pound sand up your ass.
"You read this insane slander and you posted it."
Just as I allow you to say whatever dumbass thing comes into your pea brain, waiting for you to back it up with something substantive and true, so too do I extend that to others and unlike you, this person copped to the lie. So go pound sand up your ass.
"I suspect that you pushed back because it was such an over-the-top satanic lie that you felt a bit sickened that someone presumably on your side would make such a damned lie, knowing full well the evil that such slander can spread and the harm it can do."
There you go again, doing what you're no good at doing. I told you why I pushed back. It had nothing to do with feeling sickened. You sicken me constantly given you're a defender of immorality and murder. That's far more harmful to far more people than little Danny not liking being accused of pedophilia.
"And yet you posted it."
I don't have the person's contact info. You're not worthy of special consideration for anyone's allegations about you. But I forced the person to fess up and you aren't grateful I cared that much about your sorry ass. Go pound sand up your ass.
"You probably recognize that you have NO reason to doubt that I've been married to one woman for 37 years now, that I have two children who love me and that we all greatly enjoy spending time together"
Can't say as I've spent any time on the question one way or another. You lie a lot, to I take everything you say with a grain of salt.
"- hell, you criticized me/us for wanting to take a family vacation to Europe together that my children treated us to!"
I criticized YOU for hypocrisy of the clear over-consumption inherent in a European vacation for which you've no need while people are starving. Your kids should have known your position on such things before they spent the dough. I applaud them for ignoring you enough to do something so cool. Having done so, you'd have been a dick to say, "thanks, but no thanks."
"You probably recognize that I am indeed a leader at my church."
The very thought fills me with great sorrow for the congregation. They're conned badly enough as it just being there thinking they're in a Christian community.
"That I work helping folks with disabilities and that I was, once upon a time, a teacher and a Sunday School teacher. You have no real reason to doubt ANY of that OR to suspect that I'm not anything but the decent family man I present as."
Nor have I any reason to believe a word you say, even if you said true things about the various issues we've covered over the years. Again, one can say anything about one's self on social media or one can refrain from saying whatever one wishes not be known. But given all the falsehoods you constantly put forth as true, as well as outright lies you've said about so many, I'd be a fool to believe a word you say.
"And yet, you posted this perverse filth."
This person's lie is no more perversely filthy than to suggest God would bless or approve of a same sex union of any kind. I'd say less so.
"And when your conservative buddy at "Rational Christianity" called me a pedophile, you were silent."
Boo-hoo. You support enabling kids in their delusions about their gender and sexual orientation. That's child abuse.
"You probably recognize at some deep human moral and justice level that this kind of stupidly false claims are wrong, deadly wrong, and dangerous and slanderous and even evil. That's why you pushed back just a little."
Again with this shit? What a freakin' snowflake! At this point it wouldn't be as over the top as your lamentations to say "he doth protest WAY THE F**K too much!" What's more, I pushed back in a perfectly appropriate way. I procured a public retraction and apology for a false public allegation, you ungrateful f**k.
"And you posted that perverse lie."
You done that for years.
"Save yourself, Marshal."
F**k yourself, Dan, you arrogant, whiny asshat narcissist!
"Recognize that bit of you that felt some need to barely push back and recognize that this modern trend of conservatives make crazy false claims is just wrong."
Again with this shit. "Barely" pushed back. I pushed back as I should have...no more, no less and the likes of you have no standing to demand anything more. When you actually become a real Christian, then perhaps I'll stand up for you in the over the top way you unjustly think you deserve.
"I believe in you, yet."
That means nothing to me. Go pound sand up your ass. Better yet, repent and be the Christian you so unconvincingly pretend to be.
This issue is not closed and no further attempts to whine further will be posted. Stick to the topic of the post or don't attempt a comment at all. I've wasted enough time on it and now I'm out of time to address your more on topic crap.
I do not know this Dan creep you speak of. I am just an internet troll.
"And when your conservative buddy at "Rational Christianity" called me a pedophile, you were silent."
I don't know why Dan has brought me into this, but I would say I find the comment from the anonymous commenter to be absolutely hilarious. It was obviously intended to be inflammatory and served its purpose well.
I have no sympathy for a person who posts links to pictures of drag queens in the comments section of an article at my website. This man's conscience has been corrupted to such an extent that he no longer even has the ability to recognize his own corruption:
"Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1:32)
What is wrong with pictures of drag queens? They're just people. In the cases I was citing, they were wonderful, sweet, funny people who read stories to children.
You all make the most innocent actions out to be "bad," but, at least Marshal is defending very perverse behavior.
And it's not funny to slander people and make false accusations of someone being a pedophile. Words have meanings. You can disagree with my supporting good people kindly reading stories to children, but that does NOT make me a pedophile. That is an evil, ugly, diabolical claim. Do you understand that, Jesse?
Words have meanings. You made a slanderous, false claim. That's something that the Bible CLEARLY condemns (unlike being a drag queen, which Jesus and no one else in the Bible ever condemned.)
If you're worried about people doing things that the Bible condemns, why are you not concerned about your own childish, stupidly false and diabolical slander? There is nothing of God's realm in such.
I brought you into it because YOU put yourself into it when you made that stupidly false claim.
Why not be the rational, moral adult and apologize for your slander?
And to be clear: I don't care what terrible things you people say about me, personally. It's just that this culture of making up stupidly false claims to try to attack good people is dangerous to our society and the free world. It's not okay to make false claims.
Be better than that, boys. Repent.
"I do not know this Dan creep you speak of. I am just an internet troll."
Troll somewhere else, or assume the name "Master Troll" so we know with whom we're dealing when you show up. Others use "anonymous". Have the courage to at least stand out in some way.
Jesse,
It's certainly hilarious all the pearl clutching we see in Dan's responses to it.
Dan likes to pretend he inhabits the moral high ground on so many issues where the opposite is true. And your Romans verse may have had Dan in mind when first expressed by Paul.
I think that an honest atheist who is searching for truth has a much better chance of getting saved than someone who has the mentality of Dan. He is pretty far gone, morally desensitized. I cannot stand how he oftentimes ignores what a person says and distorts what is being said to him in the process. You must have a lot of patience to be able to put up with the likes of Dan.
August 22, 2022 at 6:39 PM
"What is wrong with pictures of drag queens?"
Nothing, if you're intending to present examples of perversion and immorality. But to present them as if they're "just people...wonderful, sweet, funny people", they're still perverse and immoral. And exposing children to that mitigates the "wonderful" part completely.
"You all make the most innocent actions out to be "bad," but, at least Marshal is defending very perverse behavior."
Your perv drag queens are not in the least bit "innocent" in promoting themselves as "normal" and morally benign. In fact, they're lying like you are in attempting to do so. They are indeed just another example of truly "very perverse behavior" which you support, celebrate, defend and enable (henceforth, "SCDE"...if I can remember).
"And it's not funny to slander people and make false accusations of someone being a pedophile."
Perhaps not. But I'll take my chances with God for not being as outraged as you demand I should be that someone finds it funny the likes of you might be called such. I prefer "child abuser" given all that you SCDE (yeah...that's working pretty well!).<
"Words have meanings."
Way too often meanings you lefties find inconvenient in pushing your perversions on society.
"You can disagree with my supporting good people kindly reading stories to children,"
If only you were doing that. But you're not. You're supporting child abuse.
"...but that does NOT make me a pedophile."
No. It makes you an asshole and child abuser in a manner which is clearly and unmistakably "evil, ugly and diabolical". I've no doubt Jesse understands that all too well.
"Words have meanings."
Yeah, you said that. And I said you lefties pervert definitions also.
"You made a slanderous, false claim."
Boo-hoo. You abuse children. The exact term for your form of child abuse is no less evil.
"That's something that the Bible CLEARLY condemns (unlike being a drag queen, which Jesus and no one else in the Bible ever condemned.)"
Scripture...particularly Jesus...warns against leading children to sin. Scripture also clearly opposes transvestism (Deut 22:5). It's unequivocally against it. You think it matters how often Scripture addresses an issue, particularly those sins you SCDE.
"If you're worried about people doing things that the Bible condemns, why are you not concerned about your own childish, stupidly false and diabolical slander? There is nothing of God's realm in such."
There's nothing of God's realm in murdering children in the womb, anything of the LGBT agenda, anything of exposing children to sexual immorality. Yet you SCDE all of it consciously.
"Why not be the rational, moral adult and apologize for your slander?"
Why not be the Christian you never were and aren't now and reject your love of immorality and perversion??
"And to be clear: I don't care what terrible things you people say about me, personally."
Says the guy who's been going on and on about that which is said about him.
"It's just that this culture of making up stupidly false claims to try to attack good people is dangerous to our society and the free world. It's not okay to make false claims."
Says the guy who falsely claims to be Christian, who falsely claims Bruce Jenner is a woman because he had surgery and changed his name to Caitlyn, who falsely claims Scripture provides evidence God would bless any form of homosexual union and how now falsely claims conservatism is the problem with America. These are just a few of the many false claims you've promoted as factual. But it's true you're a child abuser because of what you SCDE.
"Be better than that, boys. Repent."
You go first.
Jesse,
Frankly, there's little opportunity to maturely and intelligently discuss the issues of the day with those who oppose what I believe. So as I have more time than I'd like where I haven't the ability to do anything else, I have to settle for the likes of Dan. Lively debate is fun. But again, unfortunately...
"And that Craig is too cowardly to stand up against. Instead, the Craig's of the world lend support to the sexual predators of the world by remaining silent."
"The modern GOP, he said, never truly cared about the ideas it claimed to care about."
Two incredibly false statements, with not a shred of proof.
While we're on the subject of protecting perverts, why have we not seen Maxwell's client list? Why haven't we seen the list of people (other than Bill Clinton who gets a pass) who visited Epstien's island? Why has Weinstein not been prosecuted?
Apparently the Biden DOJ has time to obsess over Trump, but not enough time to actually go after real sexual predators.
Art is "sick" for "objectifying teen aged girls", but there's absolutely no interest on the left in going after the "sick" folks who were serviced by Epstein and Maxwell.
Jesse...
"I cannot stand how he oftentimes ignores what a person says and distorts what is being said to him in the process. "
So here I am, NOT ignoring what you literally said while YOU ignore me pointing out what you literally said. Do you understand the irony of you saying that?
You literally called me a pedophile. That is literally a false claim. Not only is it a false claim, it is a slanderous and stupidly false claim. Do you recognize that reality?
It's a simple question. I'm using easy to understand words and making myself quite clear. Do you understand that it is stupidly and dangerously false, a diabolical lie, to accuse me of molesting children.
Instead of ignoring what is literally being said in response to what you literally said, your damned lie, why not answer the question?
Am I somehow distorting what you said? You are the one who called me a pedophile. What am I distorting? You do recognize that this is a damned lie, right? I have never abused children. It's a damned slanderously false claim.
How do you conservatives sleep with yourselves with this level of corruption and attacks against innocent people?
Same with you, Marshal. You literally just lied, falsely saying, "you abuse children," when of course, I never have.
Words have meanings. You can't just make stupidly false claims like this. I have not abused children. I am not a pedophile. People who disagree with you aren't monsters because they disagree with your weak minded diabolical little false and idiotic opinions. Indeed, it is monstrous of you all to make these stupidly false claims.
Craig,
The hypocrisy of the left knows no limits. But again, the true point of their lamentations is not for the sake of real victims of real crimes, but to demonize political/ideological opponents. The proof of this is the harm done to all manner of true victims by their policies.
August 23, 2022 at 1:39 PM
So the troll is now doing a fine job imitating Dan with his latest comment. I mean, it could be Dan, but Dan stated he's not concerned with nasty comments about him despite this latest comment again whining about such, as well as how Dan admonished the troll for hiding behind anonymity.
But let's assume it's Dan for the time being:
"You literally called me a pedophile. That is literally a false claim. Not only is it a false claim, it is a slanderous and stupidly false claim. Do you recognize that reality?"
This is merely a semantic error on Jesse's part, unless he's willing to attempt an explanation to justify the use of that particular word. "Child abuser" is much more an accurate appellation to attach to Dan.
"Do you understand that it is stupidly and dangerously false, a diabolical lie, to accuse me of molesting children."
There's a fine line between physically molesting a child, and what those like Dan and his precious cross-dressers are doing. The minds and souls of children are clearly molested. But again, "child abuse" is a better term describing Dan's behavior.
"Am I somehow distorting what you said?"
You're doing what you always do: overstating the seriousness of what your ideological opponents do, while minimizing or ignoring the far worse behaviors of yours and your own. I have no sympathy for your "suffering".
"How do you conservatives sleep with yourselves with this level of corruption and attacks against innocent people?"
We don't attack truly innocent people intentionally. You do, and out of true moral corruption. So speaking for myself, I sleep quite well.
"Same with you, Marshal. You literally just lied, falsely saying, "you abuse children," when of course, I never have."
That you didn't literally lay hands on a child in an abusive manner is a cheap dodge, given you SCDE so much which is horribly abusive. You can't SCDE abortion, for example, and then claim you aren't complicit in the murder of millions of unborn.
"Words have meanings."
Again, being perverts and devoted to SCDE of perversion, you lefties have perverted definition of so many words and concepts. But even a word like "pedophile" is a far less perversion of the word when applied to the likes of you given all you SCDE. Your "outrage" in accusing others of "stupidly false claims" is empty given all the falsehoods, untruths, distortions, corruptions and perversions you perpetuate as a matter of routine. Pound sand.
Marshal...
"despite this latest comment again whining about such"
I'm trying to use this as a teachable moment for you. Even YOU recognize that claiming someone is a registered sex offender is a stupidly false claim requiring support and of course, it isn't true. It's a moment of recognition of reality for you.
I'm then pursuing these OTHER clearly stupidly false claims. I'm literally NOT a pedophile merely because I support LGBTQ folks. That isn't the meaning of the word Pedophile (literally, one who is sexually aroused by children, which seems closer to your view that all men are naturally attracted to non-adult girls, maybe as young as 12 or 13, I believe you've said... apparently the presence of breasts is all it takes for you to think that men can reasonably be aroused by them). I'm literally not a pedophile. That is literally a false claim and an abundantly stupidly false claim. Why in the name of all that is holy would you think it wrong for the coward, "anonymous" to falsely claim that I'm a registered pedophile but it's okay for Jesse to make the stupidly false claim that I'm a pedophile, which by definition of course I'm not.
I point this out NOT because I'm personally offended that modern conservatives are entirely willing to make slanderous, stupidly false claims about me and others they disagree with, but because I'm hoping you can see the error of your stupidly false claims.
Same with child abuser. LITERALLY, I'm not that, either. But you're perfectly willing to make that stupidly false claim.
Why is that? Define "child abuser..." as you're using it?
Is it merely "Someone who disagrees with me that LGBTQ folk should be treated with respect..."? That's NOT abuse and it's certainly not any kind of provable abuse. Where is the support for THAT definition, if that's how you define it?
Do experts in sexuality support your twisting that word in such a way? No, of course, they don't. Experts would recognize it as precisely the sort of troublesome stupidly false demonization that rightwing zealots and religious bigots have become used to making.
Do far right religious zealots agree with your false characterization of folks like me in that manner? Perhaps some do, but that's precisely the point: Religious bigots who have it within their religious traditions to oppress gay folk may well agree with you. But bigotry is what it is.
AND, note, when I call bigotry, bigotry, it's because your behavior/false opinions meet the very definition of bigotry:
"obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
Whereas, I am literally NOT fitting the definition of Jesse's stupidly, childishly false claim that I'm a "pedophile" NOR your claim that I'm a child abuser.
You recognize how wrong it is for conservative types to make stupidly unsupported false claims like anonymous. Go one step further and recognize your own error in making similar stupidly false and unsupported claims.
Marshal...
"That you didn't literally lay hands on a child in an abusive manner is a cheap dodge,"
Of course, it's not. It's reality. I DO NOT ABUSE CHILDREN. No one has ever accused me of abusing children. There is NO EVIDENCE that I abuse children. THE EVIDENCE shows that I've been a teacher and a Sunday School teacher and a parent of children with not one time abusing any of them.
And noting that I'm not a pedophile or abuser is NOT in anyway an effort to paint myself as perfect. It's just reality. NOT abusing children or actively ogling teen-aged girls is not any special credit. It's what should be expected of decent men. Hopefully, it's what you'd expect adult men to do to any girl children/teens you love and respect.
Look, it's like this:
When I disagree with your opinions about immigration, I don't go so far as calling you a murderer because you don't want to give any special support to immigrants seeking refuge from what they consider a dangerous home nation. Why don't I call you a murderer? Because you're not murdering anyone.
Now, I disagree with you that people seeking refuge from dangerous home nations should be sent back to where their lives may be at threat. I may say that this you are choosing to send them back to dangerous settings where their lives may be at risk. But I do that because it's just reality. And I don't call you a murderer because that's reality.
Do you understand the distinction? Calling people like me a pedophile or a child abuser because you disagree with us that LGBTQ folks should be treated with respect and not demonized is just stupidly false because THAT does not fit the definition. And you all don't own the definitions and aren't free to make such false claims by re-defining the words to "they disagree with me about LGBTQ folks" or "they support drag queens reading books to children." You all abuse reality and facts and truth when you make such stupidly false accusations.
Don't know why you can't understand this, but you're just factually, morally, rationally wrong. Abandon your bigotry and slander and lies.
Be better.
Jesse...
"Do you not recognize the reality that I do not have the patience to put up with your nonsense?"
?? Again, I'm looking at what you are literally saying... I'm not ignoring it. And now I'm asking you a question, as I did on your blog. Are you saying That if you're not able to have patience in a respectful rational adult conversation it's OK to slander and make stupidly false claims? Is that biblical? Is that godly?
Are the commands in The Bible not to slander and not to bear false witness only applicable until you lose patience and then it's OK?
You're slandering people and making seriously stupidly false claims. That's just wrong. Do you not recognize this?
You say we shouldn't ignore what's being said. Then don't ignore what I'm saying. Answer the question.
And I'll do you one better, I'll even give you the right answers
Is it OK to slander? No.
Is it OK to bear false witness? No.
Is it OK to wrongly accuse someone of a serious crime just because you've lost patience questions? No.
Is it evil and wrong and dangerous to accuse someone of something like being a pedophile? Yes.
Is it ungodly and Anti-christian to do so? Yes.
If someone makes such slanderous false claims, should they apologize for engaging in that sort of evil? Yes, if they're a rational, moral adult.
Bonus question and answer...
If someone engages in the conversation respectfully for maybe 10 to 20 paragraphs worth of comments and questions, is it reasonable to be so impatient as to engage in slander and false witness?
The answer is no. That's not rational Christianity. Or even rational humanity.
August 23, 2022 at 10:21 PM
"I'm trying to use this as a teachable moment for you"
Such unjustified, baseless hubris and arrogance!
"Even YOU recognize that claiming someone is a registered sex offender is a stupidly false claim requiring support and of course, it isn't true."
I never insisted it wasn't true, but only that it required proof in order to make the claim. The troll admitted he lied, and that should've been the end of it. But you prefer to belabor it instead of being grateful I don't act like a lefty and believe the worst without proof. However, you have confirmed you're a whiny little bitch.
"I'm then pursuing these OTHER clearly stupidly false claims."
I'm not interested and I doubt anyone but you cares. It's not because truth isn't important to us, but that you aren't worth the burden of hearing you whine.
"I'm literally NOT a pedophile merely because I support LGBTQ folks."
I've addressed this already. Finding teen-aged girls attractive in an erotic sense...not because they're teen-aged, but simply because they are attractive as are so many women older than teens...is not even pedophilia. But you are a child abuser because you enable the LGBT agenda, which has caused so much suffering of actual children as well as teens and adults.
"Why in the name of all that is holy would you think it wrong for the coward, "anonymous" to falsely claim that I'm a registered pedophile but it's okay for Jesse to make the stupidly false claim that I'm a pedophile, which by definition of course I'm not."
Take it up with Jesse at his blog if he'll allow you to do so. But it's so nice of you to ignore that I corrected Jesse in his use of the term, and if he insists it's appropriate based on comments you've made, you'll have to take it up with him at his blog or yours.
Of course, it's no secret LGBT people are actively grooming small children and you enable LGBT people, so...
"That is literally a false claim and an abundantly stupidly false claim."
I find it fascinating how many times you'll cram the phrase "stupidly false claims" into your comments, while spending so much time perpetuating "stupidly false claims" of your own which are far worse than any claims directed at you personally.
"I point this out NOT because I'm personally offended that modern conservatives are entirely willing to make slanderous, stupidly false claims about..."
While you have no problem with the many stupidly false claims...literally false and proved so...you "modern" progs tell about so many people and things. Thus, your insistence it's not because you're personally offended ranks as just one of them.
"Same with child abuser. LITERALLY, I'm not that, either."
Except it isn't a false claim. It's a fact given your SCDE of abortion and the LGBT agenda.
"Is it merely "Someone who disagrees with me that LGBTQ folk should be treated with respect..."?"
Nope. Conservatives treat them with far more respect...REAL respect by not lying to them about the immorality of their behaviors and the disorder of their desires. You lie to them, and you lie to others about them.
"Do experts in sexuality support your twisting that word in such a way?"
Depends on the expert. The "experts" you favor are liars like you are.
"Do far right religious zealots agree with your false characterization of folks like me in that manner? "
I don't know. It's another of your typically irrelevant questions by which you believe I would abandon truth at the thought others might disagree. I'm not a lefty, so I don't respond to such cheap tactics.
"Religious bigots who have it within their religious traditions to oppress gay folk may well agree with you."
No true Christian oppresses anyone by virtue of defending the truth of Scripture. Fake prog Christians abuse sinners by their SCDE of their desires and behaviors, aiding their eternal demise by assuring them they needn't repent of their behavior. So you can stop citing these mythical "religious bigots" because there are none here but you.
"AND, note, when I call bigotry, bigotry, it's because your behavior/false opinions meet the very definition of bigotry:"
There's absolutely nothing false about my opinions about LGBT folk. Nothing and you couldn't identify any without citing the lying proponents of the LGBT agenda or lying LGBT activists...or fake Christians like yourself.
"Whereas, I am literally NOT fitting the definition of Jesse's stupidly, childishly false claim that I'm a "pedophile" NOR your claim that I'm a child abuser."
Yes. You're a child abuser, and among the worst kind.
"You recognize how wrong it is for conservative types to make stupidly unsupported false claims like anonymous"
I have no idea if he's a conservative. I only know he thinks you're a dick. It doesn't justify his lying about you, but it shows he's got some sense.
"Go one step further and recognize your own error in making similar stupidly false and unsupported claims."
I've made no errors save my allowing you to continue whining here. No telling how long that will last.
August 23, 2022 at 10:30 PM
"Of course, it's not. It's reality. I DO NOT ABUSE CHILDREN."
The reality is that you SCDE abortion which is the unjust murder of innocent children and the LGBT agenda which harms children in so many ways including death.
"No one has ever accused me of abusing children."
Doesn't mean it isn't true. Even if I didn't accuse you, it would still be true because of your SCDE of abortion and the LGBT agenda.
"There is NO EVIDENCE that I abuse children."
Your SCDE of abortion and the LGBT agenda. That's the evidence and it's based on your own testimony.
"THE EVIDENCE shows that I've been a teacher and a Sunday School teacher and a parent of children with not one time abusing any of them."
I don't know the specifics of what you've taught any of them, but if the subject of abortion or the LGBT agenda came up in those teachings or how you raised your kids, you've abused them by your SCDE of those vile practices. Teaching kids sin is abuse.
"And noting that I'm not a pedophile or abuser is NOT in anyway an effort to paint myself as perfect."
It does confirm you're a liar, or at least so corrupt.
"NOT abusing children or actively ogling teen-aged girls is not any special credit. It's what should be expected of decent men."
Except that you are complicit in the abuse of children by your SCDE of abortion and the LGBT agenda.
"Hopefully, it's what you'd expect adult men to do to any girl children/teens you love and respect."
I expect real men to oppose abortion and the LGBT agenda as good, Christian men should. Countless children of both sexes will benefit by such opposition. None will suffer from such opposition.
Look, it's like this:
"When I disagree with your opinions about immigration,"
...you lie about it. I don't oppose immigration. I oppose illegal immigration and the open borders policy you defend because of the harm it causes to Americans and the illegals themselves, many of whom are raped and murdered or forced into criminal activity.
"Why don't I call you a murderer? Because you're not murdering anyone."
But you are by your support of illegal immigration and open borders.
"Do you understand the distinction?"
What I understand is that you're wrong about pretty much every issue we've ever discussed.
"Calling people like me a pedophile or a child abuser because you disagree with us that LGBTQ folks should be treated with respect and not demonized is just stupidly false because THAT does not fit the definition."
Then I'm so glad I'm not doing that. You're a child abuser because of your SCDE of abortion and the LGBT agenda. And while I don't respect people who openly, blatantly sin and pretend they're not sinning, I don't treat them in a disrespectful manner with regard to basic human rights. So cut the crap.
"And you all don't own the definitions and aren't free to make such false claims by re-defining the words to "they disagree with me about LGBTQ folks" or "they support drag queens reading books to children." You all abuse reality and facts and truth when you make such stupidly false accusations."
This is rich given how you lefties have perverted the definitions of so many words and concepts in your promotion of deviancy and disorder. Indeed, you've perverted reality with this last quote.
"Don't know why you can't understand this, but you're just factually, morally, rationally wrong. Abandon your bigotry and slander and lies."
There's no misunderstanding on this end, Dickhead. You're an immoral pervert and an abuser of children by your support of abusive practices.
August 24, 2022 at 9:00 AM
I'll trump that with actual truth relevant to this "conversation":
-Is it OK to unjustly take the life of an innocent child? No.
-Is it OK to groom kids toward accepting the LGBT agenda? No.
-Is it OK to lie about those who oppose such heinous abuse of children? Absolutely. In fact, it's the duty of every mature adult who hopes to be regarded by God as righteous.
-Is it OK to call out those who would engage in the first two practices in any way, including by simply defending them? Absolutely. In fact, it's the duty of every mature adult who hopes to be regarded by God as righteous.
Bonus question:
-Is it OK to call you a dickhead for your complicity in behaviors and beliefs abusive to children? No, even though it's true. I'll take my chances with that, dickhead.
Dan isn't just some fool. He is ugly, butt ugly, and everything that he stands for is ugly.
Post a Comment