To the modern leftist, one whose life is threatened must die if the attempt to save one's life might result in collateral damage. The current war between Israel and Hamas is just such a situation. We know with certainty that Hamas (but actually all muslim jihadists and Jew-haters) are more than willing to sacrifice the civilians over whom they oppress in order to murder as many Jews as possible, with the hope of murdering them all. This is a plain and unassailable fact. Indeed, as Craig has informed us in his post of Nov 1, they admit they're so willing.
To that end, they purposely stock weaponry in their hospitals, schools and mosques. They launch their rockets at Israel from within their towns and cities...that is, civilian areas...as opposed to separate military sites apart from their civilian populations. The intent is to force Israel to decide between suffering constant attacks of all sorts or by responding militarily to risk killing or injuring pallie civilians and civilian buildings. Naturally, the consequences are clear regardless. Either Israel allows themselves to be murdered, or they defend themselves and bring down upon themselves the lamentations and condemnation of the pallies and the stupid...meaning, the modern progressive.
We can dispense with the pallies and focus on the stupid. On the basis for Jew-hating "experts", we're to believe that there's some kind of parallel between the pallies and the Jews. That's a lie, of course, but the stupid...being stupid and not a little dishonest...pretend otherwise. Yet, they can produce no example to support the charge. It's a completely one-way situation. All the evil, all the murder, all the targeting of civilians, is coming from the pallies and imposed upon the state of Israel and its people. I again point to Golda Meir who affirmed the fact that there won't be peace between the pallies and Israel while the pallies hate Jews more than they love their own children. If the pallies put down their weapons, then peace will finally come between them. If the Jews put down theirs, the pallies will slaughter the Jews out of existence. This isn't the least bit debatable, and any modern progressive who attempts to argue against this fact is a straight up, willful liar.
So the stupid...that is the modern progressive---especially the Louisville fake Christian variety....asserts that the defense of the Jewish people against these hide-behind-their-own-baby attacks upon them must never be achieved. How can it if civilians...including non-combatant women and children...are killed in the process? These morons insist that killing civilians is wrong. But if civilians die because they're put in place to die should any military response take place, that means the end of Israel. Only a butt-stupid moron could possibly pretend there's any way for Israel to finally escape the existence they've been forced to endure since 1948.
As we know, Israel...its IDF...take great pains to avoid collateral damage, putting themselves at great risk in the process. We also know that there are reports Hamas denies their civilians the opportunity to leave...because they're cowards who need them as shields in order to continue murdering Jews. At what point does a people fight against their own who oppress them in this way (the pallies being the real oppressors of the pallies, after all)? Are they all so desirous of Israel's destruction that they won't take the risk of opposing Hamas? Are they so unconcerned with the lives of their own families that they are willing to risk getting killed by an Israeli response? It seems they're dead either way, so why not attack Hamas if they're opposed to the murder of Jews? I don't see how anyone can argue against this fact: Jew hatred is pallie culture. Wiping Jews off the face of the earth is their main goal. While it's also true islam seeks to convert the world to islam, I don't believe that's as important to them as murdering Jews.
In any case, the question then is: Is it really wrong to concern themselves with collateral damage in the quest to rid themselves of Hamas once and for all? The answer is: No. Not at all. Multiple warnings are always given prior to any major offensive. If they can't get out, Israel simply can't survive by concerning themselves with their lives. Again, their lives aren't threatened if their own people aren't threatening Jewish lives. It's that simple.
The worst part is that it doesn't matter. If Israel takes pains to avoid civilian casualties, any casualties suffered will be publicized as Israeli oppression. The modern progressive will parrot that lie all day long from that point on. It's been the case forever and the modern progressive is much more the liar than ever before. Their lack of moral understanding...indeed, they pretend at morality as opposed to actually abiding it...and their great concern for the favor of the world will always compel them to insult the Israeli people as the aggressors and oppressors. Regardless of how Israel goes about defending their own lives, the pallies and their leftist supporters will always blame any pallie deaths on Israel. That makes them worse scum than Hamas and the people who put them in control and allow them to remain there. But we knew that.
The bottom line here is that to avoid harm, harm will be suffered. The modern progressive nitwit is fine with that.
A final note or two:
I've taken some heat for referring to the pallies as animals. I'm scolded for doing so as they are formed in the image and likeness of God and thus have intrinsic value. I say again, that's wholly irrelevant here. All that matters is that the Jews are under constant attack by those to whom I refer as animals. They're animals because of their willful behavior which is blatantly evil. If they choose to act like animals, then animals is how they should be treated and we treat savage, rabid animals one way. Again, it's their culture and I'm not the least bit concerned with how many of their people die in response to the behavior of their "leaders", who can't exist without some form of acquiescence of the people. Would those who so scold me put up with that shit from our government? Dan likely would, but would the conservatives? I speak of these people and this situation from a position based on fact. 75 years of this crap. Attempt after attempt to make peace has failed miserably and these bastards still regard the elimination of Israel as Job One.
I don't know how many of the pallies are secretly opposed to this behavior and attitude toward the Jews. I'm sure it dangerous to speak out against it. Too bad.
Should Israel succeed at wiping out Hamas...and I don't know how they could confirm they are indeed totally wiped out given they don't feel the need to identify themselves when not convenient to do so...what then? Will there be peace? Are you freakin' crazy? Prior to the formation of Hamas there was Fatah and before that the PLO. There's also Hezb'allah, Boko Haram, the Taliban and various and sundry other murderous groups of assholes all with the same basic goals and insane desire to achieve them. It won't be over even if Hamas is.
38 comments:
Intent obviously matters in everyday life: I'm more appalled at the man who tries and fails to trip me than the man who successfully tripped me on accident.
So too intent matters in war. Using human shields is despicable, causing collateral damage is merely regrettable.
Only the brain-dead could miss the distinction, and it's a deliberate stupidity as Evan Sayet so marvelously argued.
Exactly. And the constant false equivalency games have to stop because such lies are not helpful. To look at such a situation and not see the stark differences which distinguish good guys from bad guys requires a level of dishonesty all too common among the modern progressive. The truth bitch slaps them repeatedly, yet they resist accepting it on the pretense it somehow makes them more compassionate to all. It doesn't. This bullshit enables/causes harm and suffering while they pretend they promote "do no harm". "Nitwit" is being gracious. It's not at all accurate.
I love Trump because he keeps you losing.
It's not Trump who's responsible for GOP losses. It's abject dumbasses like you, "anon". Anyone who thinks we're better off with more Dems in charge is a world class asshole. We've more than enough evidence available proving that claim.
If you get rid of Trump, maybe, just maybe, you guys will not be losing so many elections in upcoming years. If you get your head out of your butt, you just might learn something new. Trump really isn't like by the general populace and you guys really need to quit picking such weirdos for GOP nominees.
Nice to see you picked a handle most suitable. Kudos. Don't get carried away. It's not a license to freely act like an asshole. To your comment:
It's interesting that someone who likely voted for Biden would dare to suggest "we" should get rid of Trump, when "we" aren't needed to suggest to Dems they get rid of Biden. It seems clear that's happening more and more and it's not at all assured your party won't move to replace him before the election.
We don't lose elections because of Trump. We lose elections because of assholes who think Trump's a real problem or threat to what they stupidly refer to as "our democracy" (given we're a republic). WE lose elections because assholes believe the "right" to murder their own children makes us a more virtuous nation. We lose elections because assholes do what their asshole overlords in the Dem party and Dem supporting media tell them to do. In short, we lose elections because there are more assholes in this country these days than people of good moral character, virtue, honor and honesty. There's nothing assholes can teach such people they don't already know and accept without equivocation as being true and factual.
And Trump is not only like the general populace, overlapping characteristics of both people of good moral character and blatant assholes, he's in many ways a composite of America as a result. Yet in another sense, since there are more assholes in this country than every before, that skews what "the general populace" really means, and thus, in that way, he's definitely not like them...just as I seek not to be as well.
With that said, Trump is just a regular guy with a lot of money. As such, there's nothing truly "weird" about him. But a little "weird" is not anywhere near as dangerous as "a little leftist". I'll take "weird" to "leftist" any day of the year. Our nation would be far better off with far fewer leftists.
The current president's polling numbers are terrible, but democrats keep winning elections to key positions. I don't think that bodes well for next year.
Democrats are winning based solely on the abortion issue...an incredibly heinous reality given what it means about the character of this nation. An upcoming post will address that situation in greater detail. Stay tuned.
I guess a lot of people would be willing to go homeless and penniless just to defend a surgical procedure involving a woman's womb. That doesn't seem very intelligent.
We lose elections because of assholes who think Trump's a real problem or threat to what they stupidly refer to as "our democracy" (given we're a republic)
You do understand, don't you, that a country can be both a republic and a democracy? If you destroy our democracy, you will destroy the republic as well.
We lose elections because of assholes who think Trump's a real problem or threat to what they stupidly refer to as "our democracy" (given we're a republic).
You do understand, don't you, that the United States can be both a democracy and a republic? In fact, it has to be a democracy because, as the Declaration of Independence notes, governments "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed." Trump's attacks on our democracy are attacks on our republic as well.
Jesse,
Of course it doesn't seem intelligent. But we're talking about Democrat voters.
Vinny,
You're repeating yourself. Are you OK?
I do understand that yours is a nonsensical notion, especially given each is a different form of government. Just because our constitutional republic has democratic principles doesn't make the terms synonymous. Indeed, it's worse than a simplistic notion. Frankly, I can't believe you even dared say it once, much less twice.
In the meantime, Trump's not attacked our republic in any way. That would be your boys, Biden, Obama and the Dem Party.
It is hard for me to keep up with all the words that you don't understand, e.g., “synonymous.” I did not in any way suggest that “democracy” is synonymous with “republic.” I said that the United States is both a democracy and a republic. It's like when I say that Trump is both a liar and a traitor. I'm not saying that “liar” is synonymous with “traitor.” They are two different concepts that both apply to Trump. Just because traitors often are liars, that doesn't make the terms synonymous.
It is quite possible for a country to be a republic without being a democracy: e.g., the People's Republic of China, the German Democratic Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. As can be observed, republics that don't practice democracy usually wind up being pretty crappy places to live. That is why I don't want Trump to destroy our democracy.
"It is hard for me to keep up with all the words that you don't understand..."
That's just precious. Pretending I'm the one with the problem. Such condescension requires at least some justification. But when you conflate two disparate forms of government so as to pretend ours is both, it's not going to be easy to provide it.
The two terms, as I said, describe two distinctly different forms of government. It's simple-minded to suppose that because we have voting. But a democracy describes a government in which the highest power is the public...or more precisely, the majority of it. Our republic, however, has as its highest power our constitution. One is hot, the other cold. One light, the other darkness. One black, the other white. It can't be both hot and cold, light and dark. Every aspect of how our government was formed by the founders mitigates any semblance of democracy. The left wants a democracy because it seeks to overwhelm those who disagree with them, rejecting any thought not aligned with their corruption and perversions. The right holds to a republic because it allows for minority opinion in deciding how to act, not squelching it as we now see so routinely with leftist canceling and the like. Man's sin nature makes democracy suicidal. A republic has a tempering effect on majorities the democracies see as "right" on any issue addressed. We see that all the time when polling data is cited as if it means the majority knows better than the minority. The majority for a time favored slavery, no women voting, the rejection of civil rights for blacks, etc.
We're not only not a democracy, we're less both a democracy and a republic. The very notion is absurd.
However, it is like you saying Trump is both a liar and a traitor, in that it is just as false. Indeed, one's far more a liar than Trump to say we're a democracy at all. Trump exaggerates and embellishes with hyperbole. It's a straight up lie to say we're a democracy.
Even more a lie is to say Trump's a traitor. That not in any way true. It's far more true of Obama and Biden and with easier to find examples to support the assertion. Neither concept applies to Trump, yet they apply far easier to your own.
So, your analogy fails because you are applying to two disparate terms to describe our form of government, when it is only true of one of them, while your analogy referring to Trump depends on a moronically false perception of the man based on irrational animus.
Finally, it doesn't matter what terms other countries use to describe themselves. We're talking about the United States of America. Furthermore, the more we lean toward seeing this country as a democracy, the more crappy it's becoming. So we have no democracy for Trump to destroy, but while he was president, he did OK in protecting our republic and will again should we be so fortunate to have him win the presidency again. YOU f**kers are killing us!
In what possible sense do the PRC, the GDR, and the USSR qualify as legitimate republics and not just republics in name only?
Such condescension requires at least some justification. But when you conflate two disparate forms of government so as to pretend ours is both, it's not going to be easy to provide it.
Another word whose meaning you clearly don't understand is “disparate.”
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “republic” as “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.”
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “democracy: as “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”
Even a MAGA-hatted fool should be able to see that these are not “disparate” forms of government. They are closely related and complementary. The attempt to distinguish a democracy from a republic is a tactic of right-wing authoritarians who wish to undermine democracy while pretending that they still support the republic.
But a democracy describes a government in which the highest power is the public...or more precisely, the majority of it. Our republic, however, has as its highest power our constitution.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land, not the highest power. As the Declaration of Independence makes clear, governments "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed." Moreover, the Constitution wasn't ratified until twelve years after the United States declared independence, so it wasn't part of the founding.
Every aspect of how our government was formed by the founders mitigates any semblance of democracy.
This is right-wing lie. The founders created a system of checks and balances to mitigate potential abuses, but they certainly understood that they were creating a democracy.
Bubba,
It's becoming too close to our nation being a republic in name only. God help us should the left succeed in their agenda!
Vinny,
The difference between a democracy and a republic satisfies perfectly the use of the word "disparate". One must be superficial to pretend otherwise. Being a leftist, that explains your difficulty with my use of the word in this context. It also shows in your understanding of the definitions of "democracy" and "republic" you've presented. Those definitions validate my earlier comment regarding your conflating them as if synonymous. The true definitions go much deeper than Merriam-Webster's offerings. (Again..."superficial")
The main problem here is the insistence of using the term "democracy" in describing our form of government. To say that and "republic" are used rather interchangeably these days is an understatement, but it's just not true in any way. Rather, it is done to draw attention away from what America is supposed to be to what you leftists would prefer, since abiding republican principles...which means the principles of the US Constitution...doesn't work for you people. You want the majority rule of a true democracy, as is evident in the constant denigration of the Electoral College by your kind.
The difference between the two forms means that a democracy fails to protect the interests of the minority, indeed, allowing those interests to be completely ignored. As stated, it means 51% oppress the 49%. A republic allows for the interests of the majority to be addressed while protecting the interests of the minority. It's what those checks and balances are in place to do. A democracy means bad law gets forced upon the nation far more quickly than the deliberative pace of a republic...slowed by the input of the minority.
We are not both a democracy and a republic. We're a republic with democratic principles, but not at all a democracy. Among the many articles and essays I have on hand to explain the distinction, one suggests renaming it as a "democratic constitutional republic". Most of the essay simply explains why we're not a democracy, but the last paragraph or two offers that term to be more descriptive of what our government is. While I see no reason to alter the proper understanding in even that way, it at least comes closer to being accurate than merely pretending we're "both" a democracy and a republic. We are not.
Most of the essay simply explains why we're not a democracy, but the last paragraph or two offers that term to be more descriptive of what our government is.
You have an essay? Wow! I didn't know you had AN ESSAY. That changes everything. Of course it is no doubt the case that your essay came from the same kind of sources that left you so confused about simple concepts like postmarks and secret ballots, so you'll excuse me if I don't immediately embrace all of its conclusions.
The notion that a democracy is in any way inconsistent with a republic is an idea that the John Birch society promoted in the 1950s in order to justify its opposition to the civil rights movement. The idea had no historical or logical basis when the Birchers trotted it out, and it has none now. It is an invention of racist. right-wing ideologues.
As Winston Churchill once observed, “democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Democracy is not without its problems, but it's vastly superior to the autocracy or theocracy that you would have us live under.
"You have an essay? Wow! I didn't know you had AN ESSAY. That changes everything."
No, sad Vinny. What I clearly said spoke of "the many articles and essays I have on hand to explain the distinction" between a "democracy" and a "republic". But that revision of most recent history is not at all surprising given that which immediately followed:
"...it is no doubt the case that your essay came from the same kind of sources that left you so confused about simple concepts like postmarks and secret ballots..."
Not only was there no confusion, those "simple concepts" weren't the thrust of my point at the time. What's more, I did cop to the fact that I unintentionally conflated two or more articles I read explaining various examples of how your kind corrupted the 2020 election. The true issue then was that Georgia law should have been triggered by the findings of the Trump team...which were never rebutted in any way...regarding out of residency voting there. That law required withholding certification of their results...meaning a lower Electoral College total in Biden's favor...and/or holding a new election. You're good with the corrupted results over the heavy lifting of a new election, but counting their results as legit in light of the high number of invalid ballots no honest American of integrity should accept. You're clearly not among them.
"...so you'll excuse me if I don't immediately embrace all of its conclusions."
There's no excuse not to embrace conclusions based on facts and evidence. But then, there's that "honest and integrity" thing absent in your kind, so...
"The notion that a democracy is in any way inconsistent with a republic is an idea that the John Birch society promoted in the 1950s in order to justify its opposition to the civil rights movement."
Please provide a citation for this claim as I can find nothing which so much as mentions this. From what I could glean from my hunt, the JBS opposed the Civil Rights Movement (not "civil rights" for people of any race) on the basis of possible communist involvement.
More to the point, I haven't argued "consistency", but your insistence on conflating the two forms of government and attaching the word "democracy" to ours. There's a huge difference between being a democracy versus a republic with democratic principles. Ours is the latter, not the former and rather than pointing out the distinction being some kind of "racist, right-wing invention", the constant mislabeling of our form of government is an intentional strategy of your kind to move us from our form of government to one which can (you all believe) ease your ability to get your way on all that is anathema to American ideals.
Churchill was speaking rather generally about the concept of democracies. They come in various manifestations and those favored by your kind are the very forms our founders were intent on preventing. And the fact that your kind insists on using the term...especially when accusing better people of trying to destroy our nation...is just typical of the willingness of the left to pervert and corrupt words and concepts to push your vile agenda, which actually is destroying our republic.
Our current government...and the two major political parties which commonly do ideological battle within it...are truly rife with problems (though yours are intentional, ours are the result of spinelessness). But no one on my side of the divide seeks either an autocracy or a theocracy. THAT is an invention of you morally bankrupt lefty ideologues.
Please provide a citation for this claim as I can find nothing which so much as mentions this.
Really? I googled "democracy v republic John Birch" and I got lots of hits. I'm not surprised that none of your wingnut sites.
That law required withholding certification of their results...meaning a lower Electoral College total in Biden's favor...and/or holding a new election.
That's not what the courts decided. Of course, you're a Trumper, so you don't care about the rule of law. Some essay on one of your wingnut sites told you this and you believed it. No doubt the site also spread other election lies about Georgia like the alleged suitcases full of ballots and the alleged thousands of dead people voting.
"Really? I googled "democracy v republic John Birch" and I got lots of hits."
So I did as well. In doing so, I found much flowing from the JBS themselves, and while I gave a few a cursory look, I saw nothing that suggests, ""The notion that a democracy is in any way inconsistent with a republic is an idea that the John Birch society promoted in the 1950s in order to justify its opposition to the civil rights movement.", which is what I expected you to support with a citation. I'm fully aware that the JBS understands the difference between the two as I do, and thus why it's wrong to continually refer to our form of government as a democracy when it's just as easy, and far more accurate and honest (not a leftist concern) to call it what it actually and officially is.
But beyond the Bircher links, I saw only lefty links, like "The New York Mag/Intelligencer" piece which makes every effort to project nefarious intent upon those who insist on calling this spade the spade it is, rather than the misleading label you lying sacks insist on attaching to it.
Thus, to get "lots of hits" is meaningless if none of them provide the substance and evidence to support your claim about the JBS justifying it's opposition to the Civil Rights Movement by arguing a democracy is inconsistent with a republic. Thus far, I've found only an explanation for why the former isn't the latter. You, in the meantime, have found nothing but "hits".
It's also not lost on me the use of the tired tactic of the lefty to refuse to "do your homework for you" when the reality is that there is no evidence available to substantiate the lefty's claim. As such, I remain open to reviewing anything you might provide if you have anything to review, which it seems you do not. Bring an actual argument and we'll discuss it.
And of course, once again, I do not deal in wingnut sites unless it's those you or Dan provide. Dan never fails to produce crap.
"That's not what the courts decided."
A meaningless response given how so very few courts ruled on the merits of any claim of election irregularities brought forth by the victims of them. Here again would have been an opportune time to link to an actual report of whatever trial you think ruled that the Georgia law was not ignored in order to allow a flawed election result to stand.
"Of course, you're a Trumper, so you don't care about the rule of law."
Of course I'm a conservative...thus honest...and have great respect for abiding the law as written. Indeed, the very issue at the heart of the residency complaint in Georgia was the ignoring of the law in place at the time. So don't pretend you give a flying f**k about the law when you're so willing to ignore it because Trump was negatively impacted.
"Some essay on one of your wingnut sites told you this and you believed it."
Again, I don't site any so-called "wingnut sites" because I prefer honesty and facts which lefty wingnuts sites don't provide. I dealt with multiple sites which provided those none of your lefty liars have been able to rebut with anything akin to actual facts or evidence. Thus, you default to disparaging terms in your most typical manner.
"No doubt the site also spread other election lies about Georgia like the alleged suitcases full of ballots and the alleged thousands of dead people voting."
Now you're obligated to provide evidence that provides proof there was no legit reason to be concerned about the suitcases full of ballots other than just the assurance of some "election officials". "Oh, those ballots are cool!" "Well, then we're good." Lefty bullshit. Same old "Nyuh uh" response to legit concerns. Why you pathetic cretins feel you're not obligated to provide more than that does not compel honest people of character to change their minds.
But then, I've come to accept that every lefty with whom I engage is all talk, lacks any real devotion to truth, facts, morality, justice and American ideals. Never ashamed to acknowledge my own limitations, I'm amazed at how those limitations are never put to the test by your kind. Disappointing for someone like me who enjoys an intellectual challenge. Your kind always leaves me wanting.
Why you pathetic cretins feel you're not obligated to provide more than that does not compel honest people of character to change their minds.
There is nothing that can be provided to change the mind of a Trumper because any source that disagrees with the cult's party line is dismissed as a lefty liberal or a RINO. When men with impeccable conservative credentials like William Barr, Rusty Bowers, and Mike Pence don't support the Big Lie, they are tossed under the bus as never-Trump RINOs. When participants in the Big Lie, like Kenneth Chesebro, Jenna Ellis, and Sydney Powell enter guilty pleas, they are ignored. When Fox News pays hundreds of millions dollars to settle claims arising from its support of the Big Lie, that's deemed insignificant. When Rudy Giuliani admits to defaming Georgia election workers, his confession is explained away. Trumpers have wrapped themselves up so tightly in the cult's propaganda that no fact can penetrate. Honest people of character don't need to change their minds because they never fell for the Big Lie in the first place.
"There is nothing that can be provided to change the mind of a Trumper because any source that disagrees with the cult's party line is dismissed as a lefty liberal or a RINO."
It's just that sort of bullshit lefty projection which makes you so endearing. I don't "dismiss" your wacko lefty sources. I debunk them. You then respond that I cite "wingnut" sources and do nothing to prove false the claims of my sources. Indeed, my sources are generally more filled with citations than any I see of yours or Dan's (another projectionist).
"When men with impeccable conservative credentials like William Barr, Rusty Bowers, and Mike Pence don't support the Big Lie, they are tossed under the bus as never-Trump RINOs."
I love how lefty jackwagons are quick to praise center right figures as angelic warriors for truth "with impeccable conservative credentials" for simply abiding the real "Big Lie" that the 2020 election was fair and legitimately won. Barr famously did jack shit before announcing he found no evidence of widespread fraud. I mean sure...he spent like, what? twenty minutes? Rusty is another, who is beloved by you lunatic lefties for his "gripping" testimony before the J6 committee. AZ, in the meantime, has massive problems with election integrity. But hey!...he opposed Trump, so he's golden, right Vinny-boy? The same with Pence, who indeed had a degree of discretion he failed to apply in defense of those prepared to offer objections to counting the Electoral Votes before Pelosi & Co pretended there was a legitimate "insurrection" threatening their very lives. You're a freakin' tool, Vinny. And you're doing what you accuse me of doing, but in reverse. These people have "impeccable" credentials because they have taken the NeverTrumper side without you having done anything more significant than abiding the Lefty Big Lie about the election. THAT'S your "evidence".
And on it goes with the rest of your weak comment. Facts? When are you bozos going to bring any?
But you're right. Honest people of character (as well as those of us striving to be among them) haven't fallen for your Big Lie or any other lie you lefties so routinely and willingly and intentionally tell.
So I did as well.
So you were just lying when you claimed that you could “find nothing which so much as mentions this”? I'm not surprised as I've always suspected that you are perfectly capable of finding evidence for yourself if you ever had the slightest inclination to think critically about your own beliefs. You prefer to demand that others provide you with sources that you can then dismiss as leftist propaganda.
I love how lefty jackwagons are quick to praise center right figures as angelic warriors for truth "with impeccable conservative credentials" for simply abiding the real "Big Lie" that the 2020 election was fair and legitimately won.
I don't think any of them are angelic warriors for truth. I still think that Bill Barr is a loathsome turd and I think that Mike Pence is useless. They both enabled Trump for so long that their refusal to push the Big Lie doesn't begin to redeem them. I am gratified, however, that there is some limit to the lies they will support.
Barr famously did jack shit before announcing he found no evidence of widespread fraud. I mean sure...he spent like, what? twenty minutes?
Do you have any evidence that Barr only spent twenty minutes on this, or did you just make it up? Frankly, given the idiotic theories that Giuliani and Powell were pushing, it might not have required more than a few hours to refute them.
These people have "impeccable" credentials because they have taken the NeverTrumper side without you having done anything more significant than abiding the Lefty Big Lie about the election.
No. They have impeccable credentials because they have always espoused right-wing viewpoints and supported right-wing policies. These men supported Trump and tried to get him reelected.
Do you realize how ridiculous your position is? You want me to believe that men of proven Republican loyalty who supported Trump consistently suddenly changed their minds for no discernible reason and decided to join the Never Trumpers. The much more plausible explanation for their actions is that they were the loyal Republicans they seemed to be and that they only turned against Trump when he went too far for even their jaded sensibilities.
"They both enabled Trump for so long that their refusal to push the Big Lie doesn't begin to redeem them."
But they ARE pushing the "Big Lie". The REAL big lie that the 2020 election was not "stolen".
The real point here is that lefty jackwagons like you always praise a center-right figure who denounces Trump. Indeed, that's the only redeeming trait in your clouded eyes. You lying sacks of shit wouldn't laud their "impeccable conservative credentials" if they did nothing different in their political lives except to back Trump.
The founding fathers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor for their nation. These "conservatives with impeccable credentials" folded when the pressure was on. They were not representative of the spirit of the founders' pledge, nor of the adage "when the going gets tough, the tough get going", except that they went as far from the tough going as possible. True conservatism is more than opposing abortion and queers, or demanding smaller government. It's also standing up to the blow back for doing so, or more specifically here, standing up for what's right. Your kind has not grasp of what "right" is.
Yeah. Trump went too far for them. They don't have the spine Trump has. You're good with that.
You also lied in your claim I referred to democracy as "inconsistent" with a republic, when I simply cited they are not synonymous as you imply they are.
What are you talking about? Please show me where I claimed that you referred to democracy as "inconsistent" with a republic. The fact of the matter is that you did refer to the two concepts as being “disparate,” which means "markedly distinct in quality or character" or "containing or made up of fundamentally different and often incongruous elements.” So my use of the word “inconsistent” in no way "corrupted" your position. You really should avoid using words whose meanings you don't understand.
You are also still having trouble with the word “synonymous.” Just because I pointed out the simple fact that the United States is both a republic and a democracy doesn't mean that I consider the two words synonymous. "Republic" indicates that the power of the government is derived from the people as opposed to a monarchy or a theocracy where the power of the government is believed to be divinely ordained. "Democracy" refers to the process by which the people exercise their power. Some governments claim to derive their power from the people while providing them no meaningful say in the government, e.g., The People's Republic of China. Some governments have monarchs, but the people nonetheless exercise power through the democratic process, e.g., Great Britain.
It is true that people often use the terms “republic” and “democracy” interchangeably. That is because the United States is both a republic and a democracy and the concepts are complementary.
But this assumes I haven't waded through enough evidence and facts to support the beliefs I hold. Critical thinking demands weighing both sides by perusing evidence for both and by doing so, my beliefs are more than just a little well grounded.
It is not an assumption so much as an inference I have drawn based on your misunderstanding of concepts like postmarks and secret ballots. If you had actually done any critical thinking about the problem of wrong-county voters, you would have realized (as I did immediately) that it would have been impossible for the Georgia Secretary of State to remove the wrong county ballots from the totals and it wouldn't have taken me nearly as long to get that point through to you. By the same token, if you had actually done any critical thinking about the postmark issues, you would have realized (as I did immediately) that postmarks indicate when a ballot is mailed and not when it is received.
And how much digging am I required to do in order to confirm whether or not what you say is true?
You are not required to do any digging at all: you are free to wallow in your ignorance. The key to critical thinking isn't digging to confirm whether what I say is true: it's digging to confirm that what your own preferred sources are telling you is true.
The real point here is that lefty jackwagons like you always praise a center-right figure who denounces Trump.
I don't think that I'm praising Barr, but maybe "loathsome turd" means something different in MAGA land.
You seem to have trouble recognizing the difference between “denouncing” and “disagreeing." Pence, Barr, and Bowers didn't "denounce" Trump: they all supported him and said they would vote for him again. Pence has been particularly pusillanimous in avoiding any direct criticism of Trump.
You lying sacks of shit wouldn't laud their "impeccable conservative credentials" if they did nothing different in their political lives except to back Trump.
Don't be silly. I'm not lauding anyone's conservative credentials. I am simply acknowledging their existence. I'm also happy to acknowledge the conservative credentials of jackasses like Ron DeSantis even though he doesn't have the balls to stand up to Trump.
It's also standing up to the blow back for doing so, or more specifically here, standing up for what's right.
Arguably, Pence showed more spine than most of the Republican weasels who toed the MAGA line. I'm reluctant to give him too much credit as he appears to have been naive enough to believe that he could win the support of the kind of MAGA morons who wanted to hang him. More impressive are people like Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney who knew that they were writing their own political obituaries by telling the truth. They were the ones who actually stood up to blow back and showed spine.
Your sources aren't necessarily any more truthful than you or any other lefty or lefty source,
You are correct. The sources I cite aren't necessarily any more truthful than any others, but they are in fact more truthful than the ones you cite. Your sources have no interest in increasing your knowledge and understanding: they are simply trying to stoke your outrage by portraying routine glitches in the election process as vast fraudulent conspiracies. That's why you misunderstood how postmarks and secret ballots work: had your sources wanted you to understand the election process, they would have explained things accurately. Of course, if they had done this, you might not believe the Big Lie.
Yeah. Trump went too far for them. They don't have the spine Trump has. You're good with that.
I am definitely good with them refusing to help Trump undermine the Constitution. I'm also good with the fact that they aren't the kind of narcissistic sociopaths that Trump is. Trump's constant whining about how mean everyone is to him isn't my idea of “spine.”
You lose the debate as usual
Anonymous,
To whom do you speak?
Vinny,
"What are you talking about? Please show me where I claimed that you referred to democracy as "inconsistent" with a republic."
I know you like trying to tie these threads into knots in order to provoke some rhetorical error you think allows you to "win". But the proof has been quoted at least one or two times now. I'll do it again:
"The notion that a democracy is in any way inconsistent with a republic is an idea that the John Birch society promoted in the 1950s in order to justify its opposition to the civil rights movement."
WHO'S "notion"? If you're now going to say you weren't accusing me of having referred to democracy as "inconsistent" with a republic, the quote clearly indicts this phantom source as one who does what the JBS allegedly did (though you still haven't provided any evidence they said it, either. That is, this "notion" is "an idea" "promoted" by someone else. Who put forth this notion if you weren't referring to me? Is there anyone else here involved in this discussion whose comments only you can see?
"The fact of the matter is that you did refer to the two concepts as being “disparate,” which means "markedly distinct in quality or character" or "containing or made up of fundamentally different and often incongruous elements.”
I did indeed so refer to that distinction between the two. The point, of course, is that they are not the same. Further evidence of how much the founders regarded them so is in the fact the word "democracy" doesn't appear in any founding document, while "republic" does. Nothing in any of their writings suggests there's enough similarity to compel them to use the words interchangeably. When asked what kind of government was formed, Ben Franklin is said to have replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." What separates the two forms of government is that which makes the word "disparate" appropriately used in the context where I put it. That a degree of democratic principles are clearly present in how we run our republic doesn't mean it's legitimate to refer to our form of government as a democracy. And I again assert that a republic form of government as we have doesn't work for you lefties, and that's why you prefer to refer to it as a democracy...which it isn't...instead of a republic...which it factually is. Indeed, I can't see that it would effect the underlying falsehoods expressed every time you buffoons suggest someone like Trump is going to destroy the nation. Would that be any less of a lie if you said he's going to destroy the republic? No, because he was restoring our republic to something closer to what the founders put in place. It's YOUR kind which is destroying the republic and far more blatantly and obviously so.
So I continue with your tiresome and pathetically weak attempts to dig yourself out of the deep hole in which you find yourself. Were you ever employed as an excavator? You do this a lot!
"You are also still having trouble with the word “synonymous.” Just because I pointed out the simple fact that the United States is both a republic and a democracy doesn't mean that I consider the two words synonymous."
It's not a "simple fact". It's a simple-minded attempt to conflate the two words. The point is what form of government we have. It is NOT a democracy by definition (I refer to actual definition, not what you lefties put forth as a definition.)
As to your examples, the PRC is not a true republic but a dictatorship and Great Britain's "royalty" are figureheads with no real power other than to offer their opinions and perhaps influence Parliament. Try to focus on what OUR form of government is and leave the rest of the world to their own devices.
The best one can say is that we are a democracy in the general sense, but in fact we're a constitutional republic in the strictest most accurate sense. As such, I don't sweat the use of the term "democracy" in general. But to say we're a democracy and then wet your panties when corrected with the actual description is both curious and suspicious, given it's typically the leftist loons like yourself who get all bent over it.
But here in Honestyville, we understand that the leftist's penchant for corrupting terms as it suits them puts the general populace in great danger. Your kind depends upon assuming the authority to intentionally corrupt and twist meanings to serve your vile and selfish ends. While my kind have our own vile and selfish compulsions, we seek to rise above them, while your kind eagerly chooses to enable them. Our form of government protects against that as at its heart, we are obliged to abide the Constitution and thus our form of government is the rule of law, not of men.
Parts of our form of government, such as the Electoral College and until recently the appointment of senators by state legislatures, are clearly anathema to a democracy. Pushing that term typically done by the same lefties who wish to do away withe EC and would pee their Pampers if we returned to the original method of stocking the Senate. They severely interfere with majority rule, which is what the morally bankrupt left would prefer in order to impose their morally bankrupt agenda on the nation if they manage at least a 50.5% majority.
"It is not an assumption so much as an inference I have drawn based on your misunderstanding of concepts like postmarks and secret ballots."
Again with the "postmarks and secret ballots" as if that minor error had any significance to your perversion of the larger issue on the table at that time. But hey!...whatever it takes to help you sleep at night. If focusing on an insignificant misstep makes you feel intellectually superior, far be it from me to take away from what so very little you have.
"If you had actually done any critical thinking about the problem of wrong-county voters, you would have realized (as I did immediately) that it would have been impossible for the Georgia Secretary of State to remove the wrong county ballots from the totals and it wouldn't have taken me nearly as long to get that point through to you."
Thanks for backing me up. The problem with the residency issue was that the number of them, by Georgia law, should have negated the election results there. They don't have to remove them. The law requires them to remove the results of the election because of them and either start over or simply have no certified slate of Electors.
In the meantime, you've never presented jack shit which suggests the law as I understood it from actual journalists was untrue or in any way distorted. You prefer instead to focus on a throw away line when the law was my main focus. A law which doesn't work for lying lefties.
"By the same token, if you had actually done any critical thinking about the postmark issues, you would have realized (as I did immediately) that postmarks indicate when a ballot is mailed and not when it is received."
But you ignore that in some, if not all, of the battleground states in question, ballots with late postmarks were not rejected, especially where ballot counting went on for days (likely to insure a desired outcome, as it so routine with Democrats). What the postmarks indicate was never in question by me. You just need it to be. Feel free to dig up post with the date and time of the comment I posted which suggests otherwise. I'll wait here while you don't.
"Arguably, Pence showed more spine than most of the Republican weasels who toed the MAGA line."
More laughs! Pence is NOT a model of "spine". He was weak as the Indy governor and he showed his weakness in failing to do his duty in preserving the right of members of Congress to argue against the election results as is their right. You just talk out your ass, don't you, Vinny? Comes easy, I imagine, when your head is always planted there!
"More impressive are people like Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney who knew that they were writing their own political obituaries by telling the truth. They were the ones who actually stood up to blow back and showed spine."
Is this part of your stand up routine at Zanies? They were working hard to push the lie that Trump "incited and insurrection" and that the protest at the Capitol was one. None of that is true and they lied throughout the kangaroo court proceedings. Released footage is providing more and more proof of that. You're a genuine moron.
"The sources I cite aren't necessarily any more truthful than any others, but they are in fact more truthful than the ones you cite."
And the hits just keep on comin'! This isn't at all true! Not even close! What's more, when do you actually cite a source anymore??
"Your sources have no interest in increasing your knowledge and understanding: they are simply trying to stoke your outrage by portraying routine glitches in the election process as vast fraudulent conspiracies."
"Routine glitches"!! You're killing me, man! My sides are about to burst from laughter!
"Of course, if they had done this, you might not believe the Big Lie."
I don't believe "the Big Lie", which is that the 2020 election wasn't stolen...that it was as pure as the driven snow...that the 2020 election was the "most secure in history". Only a lefty jackass pretends to believe this crap.
"I am definitely good with them refusing to help Trump undermine the Constitution."
You mean with a knowingly invalid extension of the eviction moratorium? Or how about any of these:
https://amac.us/newsline/society/bidens-unconstitutional-overreach/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/equality-not-elitism/bidens-proposed-ban-on-noncompete-agreements-ignores-the-constitution
The two represent a very short list. But the left's attempts to portray Trump as a threat to the Constitution is spurious to say the least. Keep in mind that unlike Biden, Obama and most of the Dems who seek to deny the absolute right to life of the people in utero (as just one example), Trump did very little which was not within his authority and where he pushed the envelope, it was to benefit the nation, not his party.
"Trump's constant whining about how mean everyone is to him isn't my idea of “spine.”"
The NeverTrumper's constant mean attacks on Trump isn't my idea of "American". Pointing it out by the victim is not an indication of spinelessness. It's simply speaking the truth. Being a liar, you wouldn't understand.
Why is Vinny always so full of hatred and anger?
Why is Vinny always so full of hatred and anger?
Really? I'm the one who is always so full of hatred and anger?
Given that the names I've been called in these comments include "jackwagon," "shithead," "vermin," "lunatic," and "moron," I think I've been a model of civility.
Post a Comment