It seems little Danny won't play here anymore, and he won't play much at Craig's blog. You can't imagine how awful I feel. To lose out on the comedy he brings to the table with each and every spewing of failed leftism is tragic. One has to go straight to his blog where he'll make demands that one supports a claim one's never made while refusing to support his own claims under the guise of "it's common knowledge" or some other dodge like that.
In a recent exchange, he made one of his standard claims that we conservatives are a violent lot, looking to cause all manner of death and destruction...because that's what the left is told to believe. Dan cites some goofy source to validate his claim, and most likely because that's what's implied by the headline of the sourced info. But the info itself doesn't prove or suggest that at all, even while making the same claim. The question asked of respondents (a lefty survey is what it is) was basically, "Today, nearly a quarter of Americans (23%) agree that “because things
have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort
to violence in order to save our country,” This is portrayed as "support" for violence rather than what truly is the case, which is that true Americans fear violence is what it will take to prevent further erosion of the nation by the Dan Trabues in power relentlessly mucking things up. It's not like anyone desires taking up arms even against lefties. Why they didn't simply ask if a respondent is looking to be violent isn't explained. They simply ask one question, and present it as if it means something the question doesn't affirm. And Dan runs with it like a happy little girl with a popsicle!
These kinds of distortions of actual conservative/Christian sentiment appears in pretty much every "survey" by "experts" Dan presents to validate his perverse world view and hatred for others. Another questions the definitionally accurate regard for illegal aliens as "invaders", and even uses the term "invading force" as if they're seen as an army. While no one suggests an army when justly accusing illegal aliens of invading our country, they accurately represent the very definition of "invaders".
Elsewhere I saw something which perfectly illustrates the immoral corruption of words and terms in Dan's effort to disparage better people as regards the word "immigrant". That word implies someone who came legally, not someone who intentionally rejected proper protocols for entering the country. "Migrant" might work for both, but "immigrant" is not an accurate term for the illegal aliens invading our country.
Dan likes to use this argument to paint better people as "xenophobic", or akin to "white nationalists" who oppose the invasion of illegal aliens because they don't like foreigners. But these types of people....leftists, mostly...don't like actual immigrants who did indeed follow our laws and protocols.
So anyway one looks at it, one sees Dan manifesting his blatantly morally corrupt character once again.
As to that, Dan listed his many good works to refute the notion that he's morally corrupt. He does this ignoring that he ignores the many good deeds Trump has performed (and I've presented them for his edification and like I said, he ignored it) in favor of calling him the most corrupt guy ever. Doing this is just another way Dan presents as a hypocrite, thereby adding validation to the fact of his corruption.
But hey...this is among the many reasons few visit his blog and/or allow him to comment at theirs. He's a pistol!
6 comments:
The problems with Dan in his jihad against these "violent" conservative groups he's so obsessed with are as follows.
1. He'll find something that tells him that these groups "doubled", which means the they went from .00001% of the population to .00002% of the population.
2. He'll assume that the existence of some fringe groups indicates that many conservatives support these groups.
3. He ignores or supports groups which have engaged in or are engaging in much worse violence than any of these groups he lives in fear of.
4. He bitches about "conspiracy theories" which have mostly been proven True, while uncritically buying this conspiracy theory.
5. He has, so far as I've seen, said nothing about the insurrection that recently happened at the White House, where leftist rioters engaged in much more violence than happened on J6.
6. We are inundated with video after video of people on the left engaging in individual and small scale violence, robbery, mayhem, and the like, yet Dan seems to believe that they pose no threat.
7. As we watch the news and see the increasing numbers of businesses closing down in urban areas because the can't function when they are constantly robbed, and looted and their employees threatened. One wonders why the threat posed by those who engage in this behavior isn't on Dan's radar.
Dan seeks validation for his hatred and bigotry toward those who have a devotion to actual truth rather than fictions the modern progressive finds so appealing. Thus, it's enough for him that some "expert" or someone he can put forth as one to whom we must give credence holds the same opinion as he. He doesn't feel any need to truly scrutinize what they say or why they say it. He contents himself with the fact that they do and thus, if they say it, then who are we to disagree or dispute?
As is all so common, when I take precious time of which I have so much less ever day to peruse any "evidence" he puts forth...in those rare instances when he thinks he has some to offer...I find his offerings to be woefully lacking in actually providing that support, most often not even saying what it's supposed to be telling us. There's nothing he offers which comes close to providing the level of support for his positions than anything I've ever brought to bear to support mine. Mine he simply dismisses for the most superficial of reasons rather than confronting the substance of the support, criticizing the source of the substance instead. (Vinny does the same thing in referring to my sources as "right-wing nutjobs" without debunking anything those "nutjobs" are saying.)
When Dan speaks of the rise in white supremacy, for example, he's typically citing the same "experts" who are ignoring real threats to our nation. His moron of a presidential choice speaks of it, the top dogs of the DOJ and FBI say it and he doesn't care that they are all regarded by honest people as incompetent political hacks. Being morally corrupt, Dan won't regard people and things objectively. He's got his agenda to push and he won't let truth or Truth get in the way.
It's strange that Dan's experts are always expert and always above reproach, in his mind. While any other experts are not really expert and are tainted by some ill motive or motivation.
Again, it's how he rolls. His are great, ours are crap...just because. Conservative missteps are horrid and vile crimes against nature, and modern progressive missteps are no big deal. Dan's support for sexual immorality and infanticide are wonderful defenses of the oppressed, while Trump's philandering is heinous moral corruption and oppression of women. More simply, if Dan likes it, it doesn't matter what it is. It's good. If it's truth, it's evil. That's how Dan rolls.
Strangely enough, Dan will accuse us of doing the same things he does.
Don't worry, at some point he'll be back. Dan, like his remora, need to be able to show off how smart he is and eventually his need to win will drive him back.
That "need" should compel one to present evidence in support of claims made, just as that same person demands such be done for counter claims. Dan insists on asserting what he would prefer truth and reality be, rather than proving his assertions or debunking with evidence the positions of others. It's childish petulance.
Post a Comment