https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/09/when_is_a_child_not_a_child_when_sick_sex_is_involved.html
I was just going to add this to the original post below, but it's particularly perverse, that I thought I'd highlight it specifically. The column says all that needs be said, but I'll just begin by saying it represents a most heinous example of how the left abuses words. Here, what constitutes "adult" is determined by circumstances favorable and convenient for modern progressives over 21. That is, if one needs a minor to be an adult, that minor is magically an adult. If one needs a young person to be a child, then that older kid will still be a child. We see this perversion manifest in a variety of ways, a few described in the article. One thing's for certain, a lefty can't rag on Judge Roy Moore and still run this level of crap at the same time. A lot of old timers need to apologize to the memory of Errol Flynn!
But this is where we're at. We must constantly be vigilant for the next instance where the modern progressive will proclaim a word means something it never did...and truly never should.
The left are truly vile.
44 comments:
Yep. Never be surprised at their depravity. Remember that the #1 goal of these Molech-worshiping ghouls is to be able to crush and dismember their own children up to their first breath and without anesthetic. When you consider that, every other perversion they support shouldn't shock you.
I agree that a 15-year-old is not a child. Once a person has reached puberty they are young, immature adults. Which is why it used to be (and still should be) that a 16-year-old who murdered someone got the chair.
The problem with out culture since the late 1940s is that week keep children as children instead of raising them to be adults (as my wife and I did with out kids).
However, since 99% of teens have no discernment (having not been taught) we need to protect them from something which is harmful to them physically and psychologically and this includes porn, sexual immorality of every sort, and especially from seeking to pretend they are of the opposite sex.
By they time a young adult reaches the age of 18, which is what is considered to be adult, they should be BEHAVING as discerning adults and not view porn anyway!
Neil,
As I've said before, to the modern progressive, kids are not better than props or accessories.
Glenn,
Added to the problem of asshat parents sheltering instead of raising up responsible, moral adults, are those in power enabling all manner of bullshit which impacts the development of kids in a negative way. We've got at least two generations of this crap helping to decimate our culture and as such it'll likely take at least twice that before we're again on the right path. I grieve for the future of my grandkids with "modern progressives" anywhere near the levers of power.
The column claims that "the leftists involved, from the mayor on down, defended what happened by saying those 15 and older aren’t children." That looks like a lie to me. No evidence was presented that anyone offered any such defense. In fact the mayor's defense was that only those over the age of twenty-one were allowed to attend and that no one under the age of twenty-one was present. According to the advertisement, he was wrong about who might have been allowed to attend, but no evidence was presented to show that he was wrong about who did attend.
You defended Trump's pussy-grabbing boasts on the grounds that he didn't actually grab Arianne Zucker's pussy. If no children actually saw the mayor receiving a single smack on the rear (as if that would somehow be traumatic for a fifteen-year-old), I don't see what the problem is.
Wow, Vinny! Have you something up your sleeve or are you really serious about your comment?
"The column claims that "the leftists involved, from the mayor on down, defended what happened by saying those 15 and older aren’t children." That looks like a lie to me. No evidence was presented that anyone offered any such defense."
No doubt you love believing it's a lie, but the fact is that the defense is in the invite posted by the star perv on his social media, which states the event is presented by the Santa Clarita Valley Democrats. It clearly states the event is open to ages 15 and older. Pictures also found within the links suggest youngsters present (I didn't try to blow up the pics to see which faces in the groups appear young, but the source is a solid one, so I have no reason to doubt claims made about this detail).
What we do know is that after complaints were lodged did the mayor defend the event as being a private 21 & older event. That looks like a lie to me, and given Dems are prolific liars and this mayor approves of porn for school kids, I'm going with the one who has a laudable record of exposing the treachery of modern progressive teachers grooming their students behind the backs of parents.
The mayor's claims, however, do not come with any indication that an age limit of 21 was even in place prior to or in order to enter the event. I'm not surprised you wouldn't demand anything more compelling than the mayor's word, given you lefties never doubt what other lefties insist is true simply because of the insistence. And since the flier invited the young, it's incumbent on the mayor to prove none were present...especially in light of the photos said to suggest otherwise.
More importantly is your willingness to overlook a politician submitting himself to perverse behavior as if it's no big thing. Or that this turpitude was a springboard to a larger point about lefties playing games with the word "minor" or "child" for their own benefit. You need to overlook all of that far more egregious behavior to question the accuracy of a less significant detail.
Then, to double down on your lame attempt to score, you do a Dan and pretend Trump was boasting about grabbing female crotches as if he does so without consent. Maybe it's hard for all lefties, but get this through your head. Trump was commenting, albeit in a crude manner, the character of groupies, who would allow themselves to be pawed if pawed by a rich celebrity like him. Thus, Trump's "boast" was that he's often confronted with such low character women. The mayor and his Dem supporters actually invited kids to their perv party. Trump spoke of what others do, the mayor's people invited kids to witness perversion.
And you dare write that off as no big thing for a fifteen year old, as if the kid's reaction is the salient point.
Let me know if you need a rope to get out of that hole you dug for yourself.
Added to the problem of asshat parents sheltering instead of raising up responsible, moral adults, are those in power enabling all manner of bullshit which impacts the development of kids in a negative way.
Just to undermine your little hateful fantasy with some reality, at our progressive church, our church's children have gone on to get degrees and master's and doctorate degrees and piloting licenses... they've become responsible social workers, Peace Corps volunteers who go on to work in city gov't, whale researchers/environmentalists, children's workers, worship leaders, teachers, professional poets and artists, workers with the homeless, with immigrants, incredible musicians, arborists, fighting slavery (on a small scale), have become homeowners and engaged in their neighborhoods and on and on.
In short, our kids have launched into adulthood with amazing scale of responsibility and success. In the many kids-now-adults in our church, some 90% have had amazing starts to being super-responsible adults... and again, not even just average level responsibility (in taking care of themselves and their housing and food, etc,) but by going into so many helping careers where they are responsible not just for themselves, but are also helping others achieve the good things in life and succeed. The couple who have struggled have struggled due to mental health concerns that are common to humanity and are beyond their control.
We didn't have any of our young people getting pregnant in their teens and, indeed, most of them still haven't had kids in their mid-20s and even in their 30s.
Beyond my church, this tends to be the story I see in the adult children of my fellow progressives - one after one, they are going on to becoming responsible, great human beings who are not just making a living, but making the world a better place by their work. There have been no divorces so far in our young adults' marriages.
I don't know if this holds out statistically for children of progressives, but it certainly is true in my circles.
On the flip side, many of the adult children of conservatives I know have struggled a bit more and many of the ones I know who have had the most success are the ones who struggled with their parents' conservatism and ultimately, embraced a more progressive and successful life outside of conservative circles (some of whom have reported being heckled and harassed and gaslit by their former conservative church circles).
In short, you make empty and unsupported claims that are almost certainly not held up by, you know, reality and stuff. Or, by "asshat parents" are you including the conservatives whose children have a failure to launch?
And all of that is not at all to place any shame on young adults who do struggle. Life's not easy, especially for the poorer amongst us, and is sometimes a struggle, no shame, only love. I'm just noting the great deal of responsibility in 90% (+?) of the young adult children of progressives I know.
No doubt you love believing it's a lie, but the fact is that the defense is in the invite posted by the star perv on his social media, which states the event is presented by the Santa Clarita Valley Democrats..
The advertisement for the fundraiser preceded the fundraiser. Therefore, the idea that the advertisement constituted a defense to criticism of something that occurred at the fundraiser is logically absurd. Unless you have some evidence that the mayor handled the advertising for the event, it is not attributable to him.
It clearly states the event is open to ages 15 and older.
You are absolutely correct. That is what the ad states, and the mayor was plainly wrong when he said that attendance was limited to those over twenty-one. Nevertheless, that doesn't constitute any evidence that anyone under twenty-one was actually present at the event.
Pictures also found within the links suggest youngsters present (I didn't try to blow up the pics to see which faces in the groups appear young, but the source is a solid one, so I have no reason to doubt claims made about this detail).
Somehow you never have any reason to doubt your wingnut sources. If the American Thinker had actual evidence that anyone under twenty-one was present, I think they would have screamed bloody murder about it. The fact that the column focused on the fact that people under twenty-one could have attended leads me to think that there isn't any real evidence that anyone under twenty-one did attend.
What we do know is that after complaints were lodged did the mayor defend the event as being a private 21 & older event.
You are correct. That is how he defended the event. He didn't say anything about fifteen-year-olds not being children.
That looks like a lie to me, and given Dems are prolific liars and this mayor approves of porn for school kids, I'm going with the one who has a laudable record of exposing the treachery of modern progressive teachers grooming their students behind the backs of parents.
When it comes to distorting the meaning of words, the way that wingnuts throw around the word “grooming” takes the cake.
The mayor's claims, however, do not come with any indication that an age limit of 21 was even in place prior to or in order to enter the event. I'm not surprised you wouldn't demand anything more compelling than the mayor's word, given you lefties never doubt what other lefties insist is true simply because of the insistence. And since the flier invited the young, it's incumbent on the mayor to prove none were present...especially in light of the photos said to suggest otherwise.
As I said, the mayor was plainly wrong about the age limit, but since the American Thinker didn't dispute the mayor's contention that no one under twenty-one was present (as I'm sure it would have if it could have), I have give the mayor the benefit of the doubt on that. There is no burden on him to prove anything.
More importantly is your willingness to overlook a politician submitting himself to perverse behavior as if it's no big thing.
Trumpers love to dismiss Trump's vile speech as “locker room talk,” but another thing that occurs in locker rooms from time to time is one guy flicking another guy in the butt with a towel. That's not to mention the kind of crap that takes place during hazings on some sports teams. A mayor letting himself be smacked once on the butt is simply not a big deal.
Or that this turpitude was a springboard to a larger point about lefties playing games with the word "minor" or "child" for their own benefit. You need to overlook all of that far more egregious behavior to question the accuracy of a less significant detail.
Being the keen legal thinker that you are, you are surely aware that the law has always defined “adulthood” differently in different contexts. From state to state, you will find different ages for drinking, driving, marrying, voting, consenting to sex, and entering contracts. It has nothing do to with Democrats verses Republicans or conservatives verses liberals.
Trump was commenting, albeit in a crude manner, the character of groupies, who would allow themselves to be pawed if pawed by a rich celebrity like him. Thus, Trump's "boast" was that he's often confronted with such low character women.
Bullshit. Trump was talking about one specific woman: Arianne Zucker. Have you even watched the tape or are you just relying on one of your “solid” sources?
Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.
Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s, it’s her, it’s —
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
If you want to excuse Trump on the grounds that he didn't actually grab Zucker's pussy, that's one thing, but claiming that he wasn't talking about her is ridiculous. And since it appears that Trump didn't know who Zucker was before the incident, he had no grounds to impugn her character.
Dan,
Aside from the fact that your little circle of friends and fake Christians don't constitute a picture of the entirety of all leftists, you couldn't possibly support your claims, as you would demand I do at your blog were I to have posted a similar comment about people I know. Anecdotal stories aren't evidence, and yours less so given your demand for support for everything, as well as you history of lying. And of course, I'm not surprised your anecdote would describe everyone as perfect. Yet, given the modern progressives who raised them, a good job doesn't indicate morality. "Helping others" isn't the sole determinant of morality. If they believe as you do about the sins you support and enable, they aren't the upstanding people you portray them to be.
As to kids who "struggle" with the conservatism of their parents, what a surprise to hear that any kid would push against rules. Those who fail to understand especially moral rules often become progressives who then either add to the woes of our culture or eventually return to conservatism once their eyes are opened by reality.
But once again it's clear you confuse a few good deeds as being enough to overcome "mistakenly" believe evil crap is OK. How many of your angelic progressive kids vote Republican? If the answer is "likely none", then they haven't been raised properly, because they're supporting the party causing so much harm and in truth, they're compounding the problem which produced them to vote for assholes.
Vinny,
You should'a went with the rope.
"The advertisement for the fundraiser preceded the fundraiser. Therefore, the idea that the advertisement constituted a defense to criticism of something that occurred at the fundraiser is logically absurd."
The flier is a defense against the criticism regarding 15 yr olds not being children. It appears you're not keeping up with your own words, or are having difficulty comprehending my plain responses to them. The point of the column was the fluid nature of what constitutes adult versus minor among your kind.
"Unless you have some evidence that the mayor handled the advertising for the event, it is not attributable to him."
Evidently you find no fault in a politician who isn't aware of such an obvious problem. He didn't see the flier? He didn't ask for details about an event with perverts? He didn't see a problem attending an event with perverts? He didn't question the Santa Clarity Valley Democrats decision to promote perversion publicly? Why am I not surprised none of this matters to you and the question of whether or not anyone under 21 was present does...when you have no more idea if that is true than you do that it's not? I'm concerned you don't have a problem with 15 being the cut-off age. There's nothing good about this event, the mayor's involvement or the involvement of the SCVD.
"Nevertheless, that doesn't constitute any evidence that anyone under twenty-one was actually present at the event."
You hang your hat on this hope. But there's no evidence you've provided that they were carding people to make sure. Younger people were welcomed and that's the point of the column, and by virtue of that welcome, they insist 15 year old kids ain't kids. Try to keep up.
"Somehow you never have any reason to doubt your wingnut sources."
I don't cite lefty sources for any reason but to expose what evil you people are up to now.
"If the American Thinker had actual evidence that anyone under twenty-one was present, I think they would have screamed bloody murder about it. The fact that the column focused on the fact that people under twenty-one could have attended leads me to think that there isn't any real evidence that anyone under twenty-one did attend."
Given the point of the column wasn't to specifically scrutinize every detail of this perv event, they satisfied their premise by citing the source of their info and the details regarding what ages were welcomed. This goes to the premise of the piece. It should be enough for an honorable man to know that they had no problem exposing anyone under 21 to perversions. But then, I'm dealing with you, aren't I?
In the meantime, the pictures I didn't scrutinize were said to contain images of young people. Feel free to blow them up and decide for yourself. In any case, whether there were any under 21 or not is beside the point of the article, and to learn none were in attendance doesn't mitigate a freakin' thing except to a lefty who needs to find fault with better people.
"You are correct. That is how he defended the event. He didn't say anything about fifteen-year-olds not being children."
How lucky then that he wasn't mentioned specifically as having actually said that. But that he was involved in the event indicts him nonetheless. Again, it was only after complaints were lodged that he falsely claimed it was a 21 and over event. He likely believed no one would check for things like the flier posted proving 15 yr olds were welcomed. This leads me to believe he was lying the whole time (and I'm referring to just saying what he didn't know for certain in any way) to deflect. Lefties are known for saying crap as if no one will do a true fact-check. And again, who was checking IDs? Did he? Did anyone? Does he know one way or the other, or was he just saying no one under 21 was present just to save face?
"When it comes to distorting the meaning of words, the way that wingnuts throw around the word “grooming” takes the cake."
That's funny. You think you have something. But "groom" has long been used in the manner now being used to describe what your kind is doing to the young in this country. Among Merriam-Webster definitions for the word as a verb is to get into readiness for a specific objective : prepare. There's no distortion except in the minds of your kind that kids as sex objects is OK.
"As I said, the mayor was plainly wrong about the age limit, but since the American Thinker didn't dispute the mayor's contention that no one under twenty-one was present (as I'm sure it would have if it could have), I have give the mayor the benefit of the doubt on that. There is no burden on him to prove anything."
OF course you do, because he's a Dem who favors kids exposed to perversion. But again, the contention was false because of to whom the event was marketed, and to suspect the likelihood of minor presence is thus high, it's far more likely he was lying about knowing whether or not minors were present. He provided nothing but the assertion and like a true patsy, you accept it without question.
"Trumpers love to dismiss Trump's vile speech as “locker room talk,”
Yeah. TDS sufferers such as yourself like to pretend those who defend Trump are dismissing his crude speech. Sorry to disappoint your desperate attempt to find fault in a better man, but putting something in context is not dismissing it. Find someone who found no problem with how he spoke and then perhaps you'll have a score.
"...but another thing that occurs in locker rooms from time to time is one guy flicking another guy in the butt with a towel." That's not to mention the kind of crap that takes place during hazings on some sports teams.
I'm not interested in your high school days. You can probably still get counseling for that.
"A mayor letting himself be smacked once on the butt is simply not a big deal."
Not to you modern progressives who fancy that sort of thing. If it was Trump, you'd say he wasn't being presidential.
"Being the keen legal thinker that you are, you are surely aware that the law has always defined “adulthood” differently in different contexts. From state to state, you will find different ages for drinking, driving, marrying, voting, consenting to sex, and entering contracts."
We're not talking about codified law and even not-so-keen legal thinkers like you should know that changing the subject doesn't win many cases. But what does the law in Burbank say a minor is? Under 15 years old? It's clear that your kind has no age limit restrictions on the promotion and celebration of filth and sexual perversion. That's truly the only criticism you can have with Widburg's column, as she is speaking to how you people alter the meaning of "minor" or "child" as it suits you to do so.
"Bullshit. Trump was talking about one specific woman: Arianne Zucker. Have you even watched the tape or are you just relying on one of your “solid” sources?"
I've not only watched it, I've watched it each of the half dozen times I linked to it for Dan's edification. I can almost recite it like a script. And no honest person can deny that when he referenced what women will let celebrities do, he wasn't speaking specifically about the the woman they were about to meet. Shit, boy! You even quoted him accurately and you STILL it wrong!
"If you want to excuse Trump on the grounds that he didn't actually grab Zucker's pussy, that's one thing, but claiming that he wasn't talking about her is ridiculous."
First, I've never excused Trump's bad behavior or speech. Never. I explain the context in light of the hyper-sensationalism in which your kind indulges in order to inflate the offense as your kind always does with regard to political opponents. (In the meantime, a mayor submitting himself to perversion is "simply not a big deal".)
Second, Trump not only didn't grab Zucker's crotch, he didn't "just start kissing" her. Even when prompted, the hug was like a school boy being made to hug a girl he's never hug without the prompting.
Third, given the reality of the meeting between them, the description of Trump's discussion in the bus with Bush as "locker room talk" is wildly accurate, given how kids in locker rooms are always over the top in discussing their sexual affairs.
Again, this is not defending bad behavior. It's called "objective reporting". If only your wingnut sources were like that!
How lucky then that he wasn't mentioned specifically as having actually said that.
Of course he was. It was the fourth sentence of the article: “However, the leftists involved, from the mayor on down, defended what happened by saying those 15 and older aren’t children. Instead, they’re adults.” (emphasis added) In fact, the mayor is the only person mentioned specifically as having made that claim.
I've not only watched it, I've watched it each of the half dozen times I linked to it for Dan's edification. I can almost recite it like a script. And no honest person can deny that when he referenced what women will let celebrities do, he wasn't speaking specifically about the the woman they were about to meet. Shit, boy! You even quoted him accurately and you STILL it wrong!
So when Trump said, “I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her,” you think he was referring to someone other than Arianne Zucker? That's silly even for you.
Anecdotal stories aren't evidence, and yours less so given your demand for support for everything, as well as you history of lying.
I have no history of lying. As a point of fact, I've never posted a deliberate lie on your blog. Just in the real world, that is the reality of it all. Your claims are meaningless and unsupported and just stupidly false.
And I was quite clear that this IS my anecdotal evidence, real testimony of what real people experience, but I can't say that it's normative in the progressive world. It's just the reality that our church has raised some objectively good people. People who have poured/are pouring out their lives in service to others.
YOU were the one who said - with no support - that progressives are raising irresponsible children into adulthood. I'm just countering with some real world data. Our young adults are exceptionally responsible. My son, for instance, who was in special education throughout elementary and middle school, went on to get good enough grades to get scholarships to pay for his bachelors degree. He went to college on his own dime, by and large. After college, he went to Taiwan and learned Chinese, ON HIS own. In Taiwan, he taught/tutored students. After that, he went into Peace Corps in Albania, again, ALL on his own dime and wherewithal. His service in Peace Corps enabled him to get not one but two master's degree at Fordham University in NYC. Now he's currently married (a young woman he met in Albania) and living independently in NYC, working in the Bronx City Hall, helping plan services for folks there.
My daughter got her Graduate degree from Columbia in NYC and is now a whale researcher, working to make the world a better place using her environmental/science knowledge. All on her own with minimal support from her parents.
The point being, they are very independent, responsible people who give back to the world on a daily basis.
Their parents (me and my wife) have been faithfully married for nearly 40 years and engaged in work that helps the world. We are responsible adults and, given the way or kids have turned out, apparently pretty good parents (that's what they would say).
I say all of that not to glorify my family but just by saying that's ONE family in our progressive circles and most of the other families and their children are likewise turning out to be givers, responsible adults who take responsibility for their own lives, but also are working as social workers, teachers, mental health workers, poets, environmentalists, etc, etc, making the world a better place.
Your claim has NO support. My claims are based upon reality.
That's the point.
In spite of your nonsense claim that "some good deeds" do not make for a moral person, we can see that our children are incredibly moral people, responsible adults, by the lives they live and the work they do.
Stop making nonsense claims with no support. They just make you seem more irrational and crazed.
As to your claims that one must vote for Republicans to be good, responsible, moral people, well, that's just more idiotic hyper-partisan bullshit, devoid of truth, facts and reality.
Poor Vinny. You can't stop digging!
"Of course he was. It was the fourth sentence of the article: “However, the leftists involved, from the mayor on down, defended what happened by saying those 15 and older aren’t children. Instead, they’re adults.” (emphasis added) In fact, the mayor is the only person mentioned specifically as having made that claim."
I'll try to use smaller words this time so you understand. The mayor was a part of the this perv party, and it was billed as welcoming those 15 and up. It also said is was not intended for children. Thus, those who took part in the event were included generally as having agreed that 15 year olds are adults, otherwise known as "not children". That he later tried to distance himself with the falsehood (intentionally or not) that it was a 21 and over event, and then later, without any means by which one could be assured after knowing younger people were welcomed that only 21 and above were present, does not excuse him from being grouped with the other pervs who assert the perversion of drag show is appropriate for those as young as 15, who by virtue of the flier suggests they're not children in their perv minds. His attendance and then weak defense once being called out does not provide him with any out here, and your desperate attempt to pretend Widburg or the Libs of Tik Tok are lying is truly absurd and pathetic. The point of the column, clearly, is far too overwhelming for you to try to debunk, so you focus on a minor point and do an end zone dance. Good for you, little Vinny! You're still defending a pervert mayor.
"So when Trump said, “I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her,” you think he was referring to someone other than Arianne Zucker? That's silly even for you."
Wow. And I already used the word "pathetic"! Yes, little Vinny. When Trump said "her", he was referring to Zucker. Are you suggesting he was referring specifically to Zucker when he said "they" will let you do it??? Which pronoun does she use? Yeah. "Pathetic" doesn't go far enough.
Dan,
"I have no history of lying. As a point of fact, I've never posted a deliberate lie on your blog."
Yeah. That's right. You "might" have been mistaken when you said things which aren't true. Sure. That covers every transgression!
But you've certainly lied at your blog, and at Craig's. I've been pointing them out as they happen and you've done next to nothing (I'm being generous here) to prove otherwise. I'm not about to go hunting down specific lies, since you're sure to lie again really soon...because it's what you do. I haven't even read the entirety of your latest comment, so I won't wager against there being a lie or two within it. Thus, "I have no history of lying" is...well...a lie.
"And I was quite clear that this IS my anecdotal evidence..."
Actually, I just read your previous comment again and the word "anecdotal" never came up. There was no "this is just anecdotal evidence" or any such expression and it doesn't freakin' matter. The point is, it's meaningless and more so because it comes from a liar like you, well known for inflating the character of those you favor (which is a lie) while going to great lengths to gracelessly demonize those you don't (which is a lie).
"It's just the reality that our church has raised some objectively good people. People who have poured/are pouring out their lives in service to others."
So you say, but again...anecdotal. What's more, you speak of your church "family" as being like you, thus, they are not "objectively good" at all, because you're objectively not. And if they're like you as you assert they are, believing as you do as your assertion suggest they thus likely do, they objectively are not good, either. (Of course, there is no one good but God, anyway, but that's not what is meant here.)
"YOU were the one who said - with no support - that progressives are raising irresponsible children into adulthood."
Do you understand what a "generality" is? What it means to "generalize"? To make a general claim about a group of people can be true while some in that group don't match the generalization. The generalization is nonetheless true. In this case, quite so. But hey! It's a post about the leftist abuse of words, so...you do you!
"I'm just countering with some real world data."
No. You're just countering with anecdotes you expect readers to believe are actually true as you present it. Given your history of lying, no anecdotal stories from you can have any such expectation. I regard them as worthless because they come from you.
You now do it again with stories of you son. Does he believe as you do regarding Scripture, social issues and the like? If so, he's no better than you regardless of how many bowls of soup he ladles out. This is your routine. Speak of the good works your kind does on the pretense that it outweighs the evil you promote. I would feel a whole lot better about the eternal destination of those who believe as I do but fail to live perfectly, than about those who do good works while promoting the things you do. There's a huge difference between struggling against the temptations of life and pretending one no longer must because one has decided the sin which tempted them isn't actually a sin any more, despite no Scriptural evidence to support the assertion. Lots of assholes are accomplished in their fields, remain faithful to their spouses, are good parents of their kids, donate time and/or money to various causes. Many will say, "Lord, Lord"....
"Your claim has NO support."
To be specific about YOU, my support is the years of dialogue between us in which you promote, celebrate, defend and support all manner of evil. You don't support your position which desperately seeks to assert otherwise. Thus, the reality remains that you're a scumbag who happens to do good works. That's the point and my generalization remains true and certainly true of you.
What's certain is that you do not include millions upon millions of other "progressives" who are far closer to the culture destroying types I truly had in mind with my generalization...types with a more direct negative effect, though it's not clear your behaviors and beliefs don't have as bad an effect. That is to say, God help the little ones who buy into what you're selling!
fI'll try to use smaller words this time so you understand.
You don't need to use smaller words, but it would help if you limited yourself to words whose meanings you understand. “Mentioned specifically” is a phrase you should probably avoid until you learn what it means.
The mayor was a part of the this perv party, and it was billed as welcoming those 15 and up. It also said is was not intended for children. Thus, those who took part in the event were included generally as having agreed that 15 year olds are adults, otherwise known as "not children".
Any rational person would understand the flier to mean “not appropriate for children under fifteen” rather than “fifteen-year-olds are adults.” Any person other than a Trumper would acknowledge that any ambiguity in the wording is attributable to the person who created the flier and not to everyone who attended the event.
When Trump said "her", he was referring to Zucker.
Very good! I'm glad you figured that out.
Are you suggesting he was referring specifically to Zucker when he said "they" will let you do it???
No, I am not suggesting that Trump used "they" to specifically refer to Zucker (because I understand what “specifically” means). “They” referred to a class of people that included Zucker, i.e., women who Trump felt free to assault.
Oh, Vinny. There's no rope long enough to save you now>
"“Mentioned specifically” is a phrase you should probably avoid until you learn what it means."
If you insist on trying to be technical, then technically, Widburg specifically mentioned "the leftists involved", which included those "from the mayor on down". But again, you still avoid the point of the piece which is far more damning than nitpicking about who was mentioned how, and to what extent any of them was directly involved with deciding who was invited, who attended, and any other insignificant crap you can scrape up in your desperate attempt to disparage better people.
"Any rational person would understand the flier to mean “not appropriate for children under fifteen” rather than “fifteen-year-olds are adults.”"
Yet honest and moral people would understand that your kind regards exposing teens to perversion...on purpose...to be typical of what your kind has become. This "understanding" is what the column is all about...that your kind chooses what constitutes adulthood and appropriateness due to a perverse set of criteria which is remarkably obvious a self-serving practice. Some demented dude dressed as a whorish woman (none of these assholes dress like Mrs. Doubtfire) spanking a deviate mayor who approves filth for children is somehow OK because kids younger than 15 are prohibited. It's as dishonest as saying guns are the number one cause of childhood death when the vast majority of "kids" killed are older kids 18-20 who are gangbangers...kids old enough to vote and go to war. But Vinny's going to whine about what matters least in the column! Talk about a wing nut!! There are none so nutty as a lefty!!
"Any person other than a Trumper would acknowledge that any ambiguity in the wording is attributable to the person who created the flier and not to everyone who attended the event."
Any person other than a lying modern progressive would acknowledge that a responsible person or party would expect the wording be reviewed and approved before allowing their name to be put on a flier created for their own event. Any person other than a lying left would not pretend "everyone who attended the event" was being blamed for the wording on the flier.
"No, I am not suggesting that Trump used "they" to specifically refer to Zucker (because I understand what “specifically” means). “They” referred to a class of people that included Zucker, i.e., women who Trump felt free to assault."
Oh, yeah. That's better. He didn't reference her as a gold digging groupie willing to allow any indignity to garner the favor of a celebrity. That's just your desperate need to believe that's the case. The most pathetic part of it is that you quoted him and then like a typical lefist eisegesis of Scripture, you inserted meaning that doesn't exist in his words. Worse, you lie by suggesting he feels free to assault the very same woman who he is shown treating in a very respectful manner, beginning with the slightest of handshakes, and then after she was prompted by Bush, exchanging the slightest pecks on the cheek and barely a hug. Yeah. Brutal assault there, Vinny.
You people are so disturbed!
If you insist on trying to be technical, then technically, Widburg specifically mentioned "the leftists involved", which included those "from the mayor on down".
Again, I don't think you quite understand the word “specifically.” “The leftists involved” is the general category of people and “the mayor” is a member of the group who is specifically mentioned. I guess it's not technically incorrect to say that the author specifically mentioned the general category but it's just excess verbiage.
But again, you still avoid the point of the piece which is far more damning than nitpicking about who was mentioned how, and to what extent any of them was directly involved with deciding who was invited, who attended, and any other insignificant crap you can scrape up in your desperate attempt to disparage better people.
It's not nitpicking. The point of the piece is the abuse of words, but if the example offered isn't valid, then the point isn't valid. It's kind of like your election denialism: since the individual examples are false—the voting machines didn't switch votes, boxes of ballots weren't pulled from under the table, thousands of dead people didn't vote, etc., etc., etc.—the broader claim that the election was rigged isn't valid.
Yet honest and moral people would understand that your kind regards exposing teens to perversion...on purpose...to be typical of what your kind has become. This "understanding" is what the column is all about...that your kind chooses what constitutes adulthood and appropriateness due to a perverse set of criteria which is remarkably obvious a self-serving practice. Some demented dude dressed as a whorish woman (none of these assholes dress like Mrs. Doubtfire) spanking a deviate mayor who approves filth for children is somehow OK because kids younger than 15 are prohibited.
Why are you so obsessed with the idea of men wearing dresses? I don't think most people care. It doesn't do anything for me, but neither is it something I'm going to worry about. You know some psychologists might think that your fixation with drag queens could indicate that you are conflicted regarding your own sexuality.
It's as dishonest as saying guns are the number one cause of childhood death when the vast majority of "kids" killed are older kids 18-20 who are gangbangers...kids old enough to vote and go to war.
You do realize, don't you, that in that case it's you who is manipulating the meaning of the word “children” in order to exclude older teens?
Worse, you lie by suggesting he feels free to assault the very same woman who he is shown treating in a very respectful manner, beginning with the slightest of handshakes, and then after she was prompted by Bush, exchanging the slightest pecks on the cheek and barely a hug.
It's not a lie. It's what he said: “I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.” That Trump didn't do what he suggested he might do doesn't surprise me at all. Most of his claims are bullshit.
"I guess it's not technically incorrect to say that the author specifically mentioned the general category but it's just excess verbiage."
Wow! A backhanded admission of error on your part! I'll take it, despite you insistence on excising the mayor for the specifically named entity "the leftists involved". He was clearly involved in the perv party hosted by his political party, even if you want to say it was only by his being in attendance. I'm sorry, but you don't get to pretend when, how or if a politician is to be held accountable for his actions, especially since you people so revel in the false accounting to you hold Trump and his supporters. This guy is as much a perv and child abuser as the any of the queer crowd is if only by virtue of his support for porn in the classroom. He doesn't get a pass here, no matter how badly you need to think semantics is of more concern than the point of the column, which is far more serious that this loser.
"The point of the piece is the abuse of words, but if the example offered isn't valid, then the point isn't valid."
But the example is valid, despite your desperate attempts to find any fault with which you can pretend invalidates that point. Even given what a stretch it is, it can't invalidate the point of the column. That's absurd. You're again acting like Dan (maybe it's a lefty thing) of pretending because you found an exception, a generality used is thus untrue. That's rank bullshit and requires a redefinition of "generality" to dare make such an attempt. Let's look again at the facts:
1. The Santa Clarity Valley Democrats joined with perverts to host a gathering which, despite saying was inappropriate for kids, invited anyone 15 years or older.
2. You mayor attended and submitted himself to perv behavior, obviously unconcerned about how any in attendance would view such a spectacle of a mayor so behaving, or worse, submitting himself in hopes of the act will lend to the degradation of the culture your kind has been working to destroy for a long time. You sick people like to pretend you're making things better by legitimizing deviancy.
3. The mayor stated no one under 21 was in attendance when called out on this travesty, insisting falsely that it was a 21 and over event rather than a 15 and over. While this appears to honest people to be a desperate attempt to save face after being called out, he does nothing to provide his "belief" (assuming it was not just a straight up lie so common to the left) could be proven accurate, nor that no one under 21 was not in attendance. You insist critics must card those in attendance in order to suggest there were, but you don't think there should be some evidence provided that the hosts were preventing entry to those under 21 (carding at the door, for example), or that those in attendance were all 21 and over. (by...you know...carding at the door, for instance).
4. There's no way an honest person can suggest that it is not uncommon for these deviants to promote their deviancy to children of all ages.
5. Photos from the event are said to provide images of attendees who appear quite young.
Just these five points alone are enough that what followed this description of filth in the column was unnecessary to make the point the column was composed to present.
But you keep defending perverts and perversions, Vinny! It's what you lefties do!
"It's kind of like your election denialism: since the individual examples are false—the voting machines didn't switch votes, boxes of ballots weren't pulled from under the table, thousands of dead people didn't vote, etc., etc., etc.—the broader claim that the election was rigged isn't valid."
Well, Vinny. You've proven your point as it applies to this comment! None of the various fraud charges you listed have been confirmed as false. None of them. Thus, the broader claim of "The Big Lie" is invalid. Indeed, from the beginning to the present day, that claim has been nothing more than a desperate assertion to deflect, avoid and dismiss the concerns of half the nation (and a good percentage of Dem voters who have at least enough honesty to question how a Joe Biden could possibly win as he did), and to disparage the character of anyone who dare broach the subject. Far easier to besmirch than to seek truth knowing the truth will be extremely inconvenient. And since then, thanks to your kind more than anyone, the nation continues to suffer in ways in which it never would have had your kind not engaged in so much election fraud.
"Why are you so obsessed with the idea of men wearing dresses?"
I love this question. It's so incredibly emblematic of the dishonest character of the typical leftist. You lying asshole CHOOSE to frame concern for the welfare of our young as being "so obsessed with the idea of men wearing dresses". That is to say, if those like me are "obsessed", it an obsession with ensuring your perverts stay away from kids so they can live out their childhood as kids should.
"I don't think most people care."
So you need to tell yourselves.
"It doesn't do anything for me,..."
So you say.
"...but neither is it something I'm going to worry about."
Of course you won't. Kids are props for you lefties, not valuable human beings who should be protected from perversions so common to your kind. That you're not going to worry about it says volumes about your character, and none of it good.
"You know some psychologists might think that your fixation with drag queens could indicate that you are conflicted regarding your own sexuality."
Sure, Vinny. Given so many of them are leftists themselves, themselves enamored with all manner of perversion and the need to legitimize it in the culture, they too will seek to assert there's a problem with people who intend to protect our young from the likes of you. It's what you people do because you're sick, contemptible assholes who think getting off in whatever way pleases you is the reason you exist.
"You do realize, don't you, that in that case it's you who is manipulating the meaning of the word “children” in order to exclude older teens?"
Oh, that's so precious...pretending those 18-20 aren't legal adults!
"It's not a lie."
Ah! The Dan Trabue "Nyuh uh" defense! His behavior shows that he was not speaking seriously with Bush. Only a TDS suffering lefty pretends it's worthy of this much attention. It's not. Him talking dirty with a guy in private, while not what one likes to know a presidential candidate does, it's not like smoking crack while getting orally pleasured or something! It's just a regular guy doing what so many regular guys do. But when it came time to walk that talk, by golly it turns out he treats the very women about whom he was speaking in a very gentlemanly manner! Oh! The! HORROR!! Trump talks shit!
"That Trump didn't do what he suggested he might do doesn't surprise me at all."
I call Bullshit here! I'm saying you lefties are greatly disappointed he didn't behave in the manner his nonsense talking suggested to you. Indeed, you pervs HATE that he didn't follow through and be the man you WANT him to be in justify your lying about him.
"Most of his claims are bullshit."
Most of what you call bullshit are simply embellishments of that which is based on reality. Were they the biggest crowds ever? Doesn't matter because they were huge crowds. They always are. Was his the biggest tax cuts ever? Doesn't matter because they were significant and among the biggest. If you want to talk about bullshit claims, you've got to get around the professional, Joe Biden, and then wade through the many in your party. But do that after you consider how much bullshit you've been spewing in this thread. Trump ain't got nothing on you!
Wow! A backhanded admission of error on your part!
No. It's not an admission of error. It's still your understanding of “specifically” that is erroneous.
Let's see if I can't help you to understand:
“Specific” contrasts with “general.” If I specifically mention the Cubs' first baseman when discussing a game the Cubs lost, the first baseman is a particular instance of the more general category of members of the Cubs team. In a different context, I might discuss the Cubs standing in their division, in which case the Cubs would be a specific instance of the more general category of teams in the National League Central Division. A group may be the general category in one context, while in a different context, the exact same group might be the specifically identified part of an even larger, more general group. See how that works?
So when I said that it's not “technically incorrect” to speak of specifically mentioning the leftists involved, I merely meant there are contexts in which one could sensibly speak of “the leftists involved” as a specific part of an even larger, more general group. This is not one of those contexts, though. It's the mayor who is the specific member of the general group of the leftists involved. In this context, “specifically” is just a big word that that exposes its user's ignorance. It's like people who overuse the word “literally”: unless the context indicates a contrast with something “figurative” or “metaphorical,” “literally” is just a big word that makes its user look pretentious.
I'll take it, despite you (sic) insistence on excising the mayor for (sic) the specifically named entity "the leftists involved"
Please learn to read. I didn't excise the mayor. I explicitly said “'the mayor' is a member of the group.” I don't know how I could have made that any more clear for you.
Well, Vinny. You've proven your point as it applies to this comment! None of the various fraud charges you listed have been confirmed as false.
I realize that none of your wingnut sources have admitted the charges were false (even though Giuliani himself did). Nevertheless, their falsity has been confirmed to the satisfaction of all reality-based observers.
That is to say, if those like me are "obsessed", it an obsession with ensuring your perverts stay away from kids so they can live out their childhood as kids should.
Your concern is touching. By “live out their childhood as kids should,” you must mean getting shot and getting molested by youth pastors.
I call Bullshit here!
Call whatever you like, but I can't see how this wouldn't qualify as a "nyuh uh" defense.
Trump ain't got nothing but an election to lose in 2024
Why is Vinny always so mean?
Why is Vinny always so mean?
When visiting anyone's blog, I try to take my cue from my host. Here are some of the ways our host has referred to me just in the comments to this post: what evil you people are up to now—the minds of your kind that kids as sex objects is OK—truly absurd and pathetic—exposing teens to perversion...on purpose...to be typical of what your kind has become—lying modern progressive—You people are so disturbed—you keep defending perverts and perversions—You lying asshole—Kids are props for you lefties—you're sick, contemptible assholes—you pervs.
Given the bile that has been spewed at me, I think that my comments have been a model of civility.
HELLOW DOWN THERE! CAN YOU HEAR ME, VINNY?? Man! That's a deep hole!
"“Specific” contrasts with “general.”"
Really?? Wow! I thought they were absolutely, without question the exact same! You're one fart smeller...uh...smart feller!
"The leftists involved" is the "specific" because she was specifically concerned with "the leftists involved". A generality would be "ALL leftists", which given what they support by virtue of their voting choices would be about as generous a generality as one could conjure. "From the mayor on down" merely describes who those leftists involved are. But you want to focus on the mentioning of the mayor as some kind of flaw in Widburg's premise. That's cheap and desperate as all hell. But it's what we expect from leftists "in general".
"So when I said that it's not “technically incorrect” to speak of specifically mentioning the leftists involved, I merely meant there are contexts in which one could sensibly speak of “the leftists involved” as a specific part of an even larger, more general group."
HA!! Does it hurt to contort yourself like that? In the end, your words still support my point of view. You might want to give it up, since you're not improving your lame attempt to find fault.
"This is not one of those contexts, though. It's the mayor who is the specific member of the general group of the leftists involved."
You're an idiot. He's not a "specific member", but merely one of the members of the specific entity accused..."the leftists involved". The rest are included by the rest of the sentence "...on down" as in "from the mayor on down". It means nothing that she chose to mention only the mayor as among the leftists involved and not the Santa Clarita Valley Democrats, the perv "Drag Queens" or those in attendance to name a few more. What need would there be to do that given the mention revolves around the specific perv behavior to which the mayor willingly submitted himself...as if that's all the event was about. It was an example of the perversion, not the reason for the event. "The mayor took a swat on the ass and then all went home." Right.
As to "literally", you must be referring to Dan, who literally uses that word a lot.
"Please learn to read. I didn't excise the mayor. I explicitly said “'the mayor' is a member of the group.” I don't know how I could have made that any more clear for you."
I read just fine, and my comprehension is above average at least. You attempted to isolate the mayor from "the leftists involved", and now you're doing a Dan-like tap dance as you recognize the failure of your having made such an attempt in order to disparage Widburg. You want to pretend that because in describing "the leftists involved", she began with the mayor who subjected himself to a swat on the ass from a pervert before also mentioning all those "on down".
"I realize that none of your wingnut sources have admitted the charges were false..."
You keep saying "wing nut sources" as if I am a devotee of CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, the NYT or the Democrat Party. Why do you keep doing that?
But if you're stupidly trying to insult better people who can see criminality when they see it...which would be at least half the nation...there's no need to "admit" any charges are false when none of you bastards have done a whole lot in terms of actually and LITERALLY reviewing and assessing the evidence. It might all be crap. How can anyone know if no one will scrutinize any of it. YOU certainly haven't. Your like-minded moron, DAN, hasn't. You all just pretend dismissals of the charges constitute proving they're without merit. That's not how it's supposed to work, and even lefties should be concerned that such charges are dealt with appropriately. But of course, all that matters to you assholes is that Trump did not end up with a second consecutive term to further prove what incompetent assholes your party has always been. (He proved a lot of GOP people are incompetent assholes, too. It's a win-win, but you people are morons.)
"Nevertheless, their falsity has been confirmed to the satisfaction of all reality-based observers."
"Confirmed" how? With what proofs and counter evidence? Provide something, because your wing nut sources haven't.
"By “live out their childhood as kids should,” you must mean getting shot and getting molested by youth pastors."
Just one more example of the pathetic and desperate character traits of the typical (that's a "generality" while "specifically" referring to your sorry ass!) leftist. It's common for a leftist, realizing defeat, to pull out crap like this from deep inside his own ass and pretend he's made a compelling point in doing so. Do you mean that getting shot and getting molested by youth pastors (as if secular people aren't more commonly abusing kids) is how YOU think kids should live out their childhoods as kids should? Is that what "living out childhood as kids should" means to the likes of you? As contemptible a possibility, it's not surprising to accept as true. Kids are props to the leftist. Their concern for kids is entirely self-serving. You people are truly sick bastards.
"Call whatever you like, but I can't see how this wouldn't qualify as a "nyuh uh" defense."
Of course you don't. There's so much truth you can't or refuse to see. I'm not up to explaining every little thing you try to use in lieu of an actual argument or evidence in support of one.
"When visiting anyone's blog, I try to take my cue from my host."
That's funny. I've been taking my cues from my visitors!
The reality is that I'm no longer up for being "nice" to those who are part and parcel of all which is destructive of our culture and society. That means leftists by whatever name they choose in labeling themselves. There was a time when Vinny was among my favored lefty visitors, because at that time, he seemed to bring some substance to his comments...that which compelled actual thought and consideration. Upon his recent return some months ago, he's just been another condescending schmuck with no real evidence or substance to justify it.
As the left continues to destroy our little corner of the world, I find myself having a harder time being "civil". Civility has no place while standing before someone intent on one's destruction. And whether or not destruction is the intent, the support for those doing the destroying is bad enough and it's at that place where discussions take place. The true destroyers cannot operate without the approval of a large share of the populace...that is, the leftists who won't vote for conservatives...and then pretend they're doing us a favor.
Uh, uh. I don't care if Vinny's "mean". Being "nice" while supporting evil isn't being "nice" at all, and being "nice" while supporting evil is evil itself, regardless of personal intention. I've got grandkids to consider, and their future is far more important than being nice to those whose efforts and votes are degrading that future so significantly. I won't be condescended to such people any longer. I do no service to the innocent victims of their many destructive policies by pretending we can compromise. We cannot. I won't compromise with their kind. My positions and policies benefit their ungrateful asses, too. There's don't help anyone.
"Given the bile that has been spewed at me, I think that my comments have been a model of civility."
"Civility" isn't present in falsehood and innuendo as has been leveled in recent comments by Vinny. In the south, "aren't you precious" is a "civil" insult. But the "bile" Vinny whines has been unjustly spewed in his direction is a response to his "civility".
All who enter should know, I've burned my kid gloves and have no spare pair. Vinny's comments have been a pretense of civility.
And by the way, a truly "civil" person doesn't "take cues", but simply acts civil regardless of that received. "Taking cues" is just another bullshit lefty attempt to unjustly take the high ground and claim victim status. F**k that lame shit. It only endears one to those who are of similar character.
It might all be crap.
And if it is, that means that all the conservative Republicans that Trump has attacked as RINOs—including Bill Barr, Rusty Bowers, Dan Raffensberger, Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, the Republicans who certified state election results, the Republicans who testified at the January 6th Hearings, and the Trump-appointed judges who ruled against him—have been telling the truth, and they did the right thing in opposing Trump's attempts overturn the election. You'll never listen to any of them when they tell you that they did investigate every fraud allegation and found nothing to justify Trump's attempts to overturn the election. You've already decided that they are unworthy of your consideration.
How can anyone know if no one will scrutinize any of it.
The apologists you love are always talking about “enemy attestation”: they claim that the resurrection accounts are credible because key facts are confirmed by people who were opposed to Jesus and his followers. These Republicans—who Trump has smeared—opposed Biden in 2020, and they will oppose him again in 2024. They have provided just the kind of “enemy attestation” that Evangelicals tout as convincing evidence when it supports the conclusion they wish to reach.
Marshal r u sure Jesse Aalbrecht from Rational Christian is a reliable source? Is he not a wacky wingnut?
There was a time when Vinny was among my favored lefty visitors, because at that time, he seemed to bring some substance to his comments...that which compelled actual thought and consideration.
It COULD be the case that Vinny and myself and others have become more irrational, to you, but isn't it also likely that you have become more irrational, emotional and out of control of basic reasoning to reasonable, relatively polite comments, points and questions?
You're losing control, Marshal. Seek help, brother.
"And if it is, that means..."
What it means, Skippy, is that you live in fantasy land. To "concede" it might all be crap is to simply acknowledge even the wildest of possibilities might be crap...not that the charges actually are. The point is still, as it was when I first said it, we can't know one way or the other with absolute certainty if the charges are not allowed to be properly reviewed, scrutinized and debated in a court of law. That is, in a trial to determine the merits and/or validity of the charges.
"And if it is, that means that all the conservative Republicans that Trump has attacked as RINOs.....have been telling the truth..."
Perhaps about some things, if your fantasy could possibly be true, but not entirely. For example, the most egregious lie they told is that Trump incited what happened on Jan 6. There's no possibility of that even if the liars stopped lying by constant references to "an insurrection". It would only mean that the charges which could have been adjudicated in trial , but never were, were false. But they weren't "telling the truth" about any of that, but only asserting their opinion about it. If I didn't witness you getting slapped in the face, you'd be telling the truth that you were, and whether I supported it or not can only be opinion, not truth telling. The only truth could be if I were to tell others that you told me you were slapped in the face. The same goes for those you seek to defend. They didn't witness anything and they made no attempt to ascertain the validity of any charges brought forth regarding the lack of integrity in the election which resulted in the wrong guy taking the other of office on Jan 20.
"...and they did the right thing in opposing Trump's attempts overturn the election."
No they didn't, because it's not a crime or an action denied a candidate to contest the results of any election. And if in contesting the election it results in the election being overturned, it means opposing the attempt was absolutely the wrong things for these TDS sufferers to be doing. Even if they actually judged the charges on their merits, rather than indulging whatever was available to avoid doing that, and in so judging they found them to be without merit, it was, and remains today, absolutely reasonable to suspect the election was stolen. There's nothing in any of this which justifies the kangaroo courts seeking to prevent and effective president from continuing his good work, be they the courts now seeking to do so, as well as the kangaroo courts of Congress which ran their impeachment jokes. As with you and Dan, none of those you mentioned have any dedication to truth.
"You'll never listen to any of them when they tell you that they did investigate every fraud allegation and found nothing to justify Trump's attempts to overturn the election."
That's only because they never actually did, despite your irrational and desperate need to believe otherwise.
"You've already decided that they are unworthy of your consideration."
I've "decided" after reviewing all the available facts, not on rank partisan hatred as is the case with you and Dan.
"The apologists you love are always talking about “enemy attestation”....:"
OK, now this is truly stupid. "Enemy attestation" requires that a claim made about a favored figure, position or concept is affirmed by an "enemy", usually anyone who is non-allied (not necessarily in opposition) with those favoring said figure, position or concept. What you're inanely trying to pass off as an example is not at all analogous. These Republicans not only aren't allied with Trump or his supporters or movement, but are not affirming a damned thing Trump claims is true. Trump and his supporters regard the election as "stolen". For the Republicans you mentioned to be cited for "enemy attestations" would mean they affirm the claims of the righteously indignant Trump supporters. They do not. It's supposed to support the conclusions already reached due to existing evidences. Their attestation would then be regarded as additional evidence supporting the conclusions already reached. But I did have a good laugh, so thank you for that. I'm beginning to think you're purposely arguing for points you well know are moronic just for your own personal pleasure.
Anon,
"Marshal r u sure Jesse Aalbrecht from Rational Christian is a reliable source? Is he not a wacky wingnut?"
I don't know that I've ever used the fine young man who actually distinguishes himself from all other commenters (in his case by using his actual name). He's simply a welcomed visitor. A wacky wingnut insists on ignoring a logical request to select some means of unique identification to avoid confusing his comments with any other who defaults to "anonymous". It's a simply thing with which only a wacky wingnut would resist compliance.
But hey! I don appreciate the continued support for this blog. Just don't abuse it any worse than you have been with you non-substantive comments and you won't find yourself on the outside looking in like feo.
September 18, 2023 at 8:23 PM
"It COULD be the case that Vinny and myself and others have become more irrational, to you, but isn't it also likely that you have become more irrational, emotional and out of control of basic reasoning to reasonable, relatively polite comments, points and questions?"
No. Not likely in the slightest. Only a lying, fake Christian modern progressive would even dare suggest such a stupid possibility.
"You're losing control, Marshal. Seek help, brother."
Don't need any. When I mock or insult YOUR lying ass, I'm in total control of my comments. Control hasn't been lost. It's intentionally not employed. Years of lying, distortions, promotions of evil don't justify any particular respect or good will toward you at this point. It doesn't result in actual good will or good faith from you and your kind, so why pretend I have the least bit of respect for you. A real "brother" doesn't do that and expect respectful responses to that crap, so daring to refer to me as "brother" is just one more intentional lie from you.
At the same time, you get more respect here than you give any opponent at your Blog of Lies And Perversions. And in doing so, you continue to refuse to follow your own rules for how these discussions should go. Yet, here you are again, not deleted.
"Enemy attestation" requires that a claim made about a favored figure, position or concept is affirmed by an "enemy", usually anyone who is non-allied (not necessarily in opposition) with those favoring said figure, position or concept. What you're inanely trying to pass off as an example is not at all analogous. These Republicans not only aren't allied with Trump or his supporters or movement, but are not affirming a damned thing Trump claims is true.
The “favored figure” in this case isn't Trump: it's Biden. The conservative Republicans who affirmed that Biden won the election were not only non-allied with Biden, but they were also actually opposed to him. They were “enemies” of Biden in exactly the sense you have described, but they nevertheless affirmed that Biden won and Trump lost.
Once again, Vinny...you're going to pull a muscle contorting yourself so drastically to move your desperate and pathetic line of reasoning further. You're trying to assert that all claims of election fraud, interference, irregularities and corruption by Trump and Trump supporters are false, just like claims by non-Christians and the inane atheists are false. So that some CINOs might align with the likes of your kind doesn't suggest a case of "enemy attestation" when the issue is the truth claims of Christendom. In the same moronic way, RINOs are "enemies" of the Trump crowd and are just as keen to depose him and to deny him further ability to MAGA as are Dems and the rest of the idiots of the left. They are birds of a feather in that regard, as in "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Thus, they are not "enemies" of the Democrats and Biden as regards this issue.
You're going to have to come up with a different manifestation of idiocy in order to continue being wrong here. You've played out this hand completely.
Not to put too fine a point on it, I would add this if I haven't made it clear enough already:
"Enemy attestation" begins with an evidence based claim. In the case of the Christian, it's the evidence for the truth claims of the Christian Bible. Outside sources, non-aligned with Christendom, be they agnostic or directly opposed in some way, who have their own claims, histories or documentation which aligns with the claims of Christendom, intentionally or otherwise, are those who are known as "enemy attestations".
The claims of the NeverTrump TDS sufferers, regardless of political affiliation, are not evidence based. They are mere assertions. Such is true with the TDS sufferers among the GOP. They don't have anything other than the belief that the election was fairly run, or fair enough that we can or should accept the drastically detrimental outcome. In that, they are not "enemies" of the DNC. They are allies in their opposition to Trump, for many of the same reasons as are the DNC, political philosophical differences notwithstanding.
As such, because the Dem position is false and woefully unproven, to add to that another group who "affirms" the same false and woefully unproven claims does not stand as true "enemy attestation". They're the same lying SOBs wearing a different letter on their backs.
The claims of the NeverTrump TDS sufferers, regardless of political affiliation, are not evidence based. They are mere assertions. Such is true with the TDS sufferers among the GOP.
I'm not talking about the claims of Never-Trumpers. Most of the people I'm talking about supported Trump by serving in his administration or voting for him or campaigning for him. The notion that these people were actually Never-Trumpers who were secretly working against Trump is blatantly absurd.
And if there really were this vast cabal of Never-Trumpers in the Republican Party, who only pretended to support Trump while secretly wishing to see him lose, it wouldn't help your case. It would simply explain why Trump misjudged his chances in the election. There is simply no rational basis for any objective thinker to conclude that Trump actually won the election if he were really opposed by that many members of his own party.
You are the one who has become deranged about Trump.
It just never stops with you. Amazing!
"Most of the people I'm talking about supported Trump by serving in his administration or voting for him or campaigning for him."
1. "serving in his administration"---there were holdovers Trump allowed to remain. Others were evidence of Trump's poor judgement in recruiting...a flaw among the few notable flaws I've mentioned myself. Serving in his administration doesn't mean they're not Never-Trumpers.
2. "voting for him"---like myself, many people voted for him to prevent the election of someone viewed as far worse, even if Trump wasn't their personal preference. Voting for him does not mean they're not Never-Trumpers (though the most extreme didn't vote for either of the two major candidates from which the eventual winner would emerge).
3. "campaigning for him"---there are those who despite having campaigned for him, turned on him over the J6 incident so as to deflect and distance themselves rather than find a spine and rebuff the false claims by your kind. Instead, they allied themselves with Never-Trumpers and thus became Never-Trumpers themselves.
Here's the most salient flaw in your desperate attempt: "Never-Trumper" is a general term applied to many who are not necessarily "Never" in their opposition to another Trump term. But hey...you make sure you jump on the slightest thing when you have no real argument or rebuttal to mine...as is so clear in this discussion to be the case.
"The notion that these people were actually Never-Trumpers who were secretly working against Trump is blatantly absurd."
Good thing I never suggested "secretly working against Trump". Most of it was out in the open.
"And if there really were this vast cabal of Never-Trumpers in the Republican Party, who only pretended to support Trump while secretly wishing to see him lose, it wouldn't help your case."
First you must establish that you know what my case is, as opposed to what you need it to be in order to justify running your virtual mouth in this manner. That there aren't Never-Trumpers in the GOP is a hilarious suggestion and demonstrates you don't pay attention.
"It would simply explain why Trump misjudged his chances in the election."
Talk about "blatantly absurd"! Find me politicians who lost elections who judged their chances as poor. Sure, there are those who run without expectations of winning...wishing only to ensure an issue is addressed and out in the public's face. But you'd have to select from those running directly in opposition to the winner, like Romney, McCain, Hillary and the like. Hell, I'd wager even the moronic Kamala Harris thought she was likely to win the presidency!!
But unlike those people, "misjudgement" wasn't as you want it to be. He misjudged the integrity of the other party, those within his party and the notion that election integrity is cherished by any of them. He didn't lose that election. Only liars pretend otherwise.
Post a Comment