So Sleepy Joe will now have uninterrupted nappy time after January 20, 2025. He's dropped out of the race and...*snicker*...backs Harris!
I'm still trying to get details on this development, and can't get to the television for a while. But just this much is...I don't know what it is. Surprising? Shouldn't be. The guy shouldn't have been president at all...EVER...much less run for a second term after the mess he's made of the nation. He selected Harris more as an insurance policy (the way Obama selected him for VP) rather than because he believed her competent to take over. I don't know any Dem who would've been a better choice than her, anymore than I don't see any Dem as having been a better choice than Biden.
What matters at this point is how this impacts the election. Many were falling away from Biden because he's about to drop dead at any minute, not because of his career and presidency of incompetence. Will any be invigorated by Harris? We know that the superficial is what counts most for progressives. They'll see a woman of color and then pretend she's competent for the job so they can have a woman of color in the position.
I believe the Dems will offer other alternatives, but would they be serious about and "let the best candidate win", or would it be nothing but a token gesture because they fear the outcry of "THE FIRST WOMAN OF COLOR" is rejected because she's a total buffoon?
Again, I believe the stupidest voters in America will be energized by the mere fact that the Dead Man Walking dropped out of the race. "NOW Trump's gonna get it!" The stupidest voters in America would elect road kill rather than risk a safe and prosperous nation. So real Americans aren't out of the woods yet. They weren't before Joe bailed. The Dems will still cheat.
Whomever the Dem nominee is, the threat of increased suffering should that specific jackass win is still very real. As bad as Joe is, it's the party which needs to bail, too.
This changes nothing.
477 comments:
1 – 200 of 477 Newer› Newest»It is fitting that he is resigning in disgrace. He has lived a long life of evil and despicable acts. Of course, he’ll pardon his crack-addict (true) felon son among others. Good riddance. This could lead to major pass-the-popcorn infighting among the Molech-worshipers, but they are still likely to steal the election again. They stole 2020, they opened the border to flood us with criminals and drugs in a cynical attempt to get more Leftist votes, they tried to a$$a$$inate Trump, etc., all without any consequences. They are shamelessly evil and are willing to do anything to hold onto power. But what would you expect from people whose #1 goal is being to murd*r their own children up to their 1st breath? God is sovereign, though, so I’ll trust in Jesus regardless. He has reasons for subjecting us to these evils.
Loved the ad that is already out with Kamala lying about how sharp Joe was doing. Then there are the endless media and Democrat “sharp as a tack” commentaries strung together. And the recent Obama and celebrity endorsements and fundraisers where no questions were raised about his years-long dementia. Those filthy liars will never apologize, of course, but it would be great if just a few of their voters would see the light and peel themselves away from the Molech-worshipers and the Leftist media. How many times do you have to be lied to before you question everything they say?
Hopefully, the “never Trumpers” will realize that while Trump wasn’t as vocal about being anti-abortion as the Bush-types were, Trump actually did something to fight abortion. Same thing for many other issues. The lesser of two evils is less evil, and in this case, way less evil than the Left, including the “Christian” Left.
Last thought: I love that history will remember this conceited, evil, tough-talking man as someone so cowardly that he dropped out rather than lose. His defenders will say it was health-related, but his dementia isn’t new. He would have stayed in if it wasn’t obvious that he was going to go down in flames. He is leaving the stage as a sleazy, opportunistic, money-grubbing coward.
Yet Trump had the fortitude to endure the endless lies, the lawfare, and the a$$a$$inaction attempt. What a contrast.
OK, really final comment: Now you can ask the Molech-worshipers if they fully support Kamala or if they are misogynistic racists. Those are the only options, right?
If Harris is the eventual choice of the elites for the nominee, they'll then perform a miracle. They'll magically make her black.
FYI, while I agree that if Biden is unfit to run that he should resign now. I also am convinced that the left will use the fact that Harris is an "incumbent" to their advantage. I wouldn't put it past them to manufacture a couple of "events" to give her more credibility.
Under the name "Unknown", but signed "Dan":
You're scared, aren't you? Your [pervert Dan embraces grace here --MA] had ONE advantage, and that was Biden showing his age. But now the [pervert Dan embraces grace here --MA] you support doesn't have that advantage, such as it was.
Now, he's facing an intelligent, much younger woman of color who would make him mess in his Depends, which he no doubt wears, if they were in a debate [except that Biden dropped out of the race, so this ageist comment doesn't make sense. --MA]. That fearless, intelligent woman would devastate him in a debate (I'd doubt that he'd even agree to try to face her, idiot coward that he is), and I bet that frightens you, right?
I'd encourage you to re-watch the Harris-Pence debate where she destroyed Pence (who shows no great signs of intelligence, but is certainly smarter than Trumpf).
Dan
Kamala got her current position as Biden said--she was as DEI hire. She had no qualifications but was selected for her sex and skin color. Dan goes on about immoral behavior of TRUMP buy Kamala was committing adultery herself when she was just a lawyer!
I'd encourage Dan to watch the Gabbert-Harris debate exchanges in which Harris gets destroyed.
Harris has plenty of negatives, especially her role as DA. Her tendency to talk in circles, repeating vacuous platitudes will also not serve her well.
Dan's willingness to abandon the democratic process and to simply appoint a presidential candidate is touching.
Literally nothing about Harris is frightening, except maybe her laugh.
That's Dan demonstrating more kindness.
Glenn and Craig's responses are spot on, except for misspelling "Gabbard". Tulsi Gabbard leveled a barrage of examples of Harris' record as a California prosecutor. I've posted articles listing them as well. Hard to see how one who couldn't get a single state...including her own...to produce more than 1% support, or one who couldn't win any primary contests could legitimately be described as "intelligent".
It's wildly unintelligent to suggest it was only Biden's age which profited Trump in their contest, when Biden's record is the polar opposite of the Trump record of accomplishment which benefited ALL Americans. It's absurd. Biden's 60 years in politics provides nothing of significance to comment it at all.
Pence was never on my Top Ten list, to say the least. I found his greatest fault to be a spinal issue and it manifested during his time as governor of Indiana. His being picked for VP could very well have been to offset moral problems many had with Trump. But he didn't fare so well as a presidential candidate either, yet I don't see that he's outgunned by Harris in the intelligence department in any way. I fully doubt a review of the VP nominee debate would demonstrate he was destroyed at all.
I will say that I would have much preferred watching trying to best Vance. It would be massively entertaining in a very different way than seeing her go up against Trump will be.
As Craig says, there's nothing frightening about Harris beyond her laugh and the fact that abject morons believe anyone should be frightened of her.
Dan knows nothing except that Harris...or whomever her party nominates...is not a Republican, not Trump and just as vile and evil as Dan himself is.
My bad, on Gabbard.
But the points she made are valid. For someone like Dan who's convinced that the use of drug laws to incarcerate millions of black men, you'd think that supporting a candidate who was a major part of that "injustice" would be problematic. Not to mention her use of improper evidence and withholding of evidence.
It's enough that she's not Trump and that's all he cares about. He'll make up anything else he needs to buttress his narrative.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/magazine/kamala-harris-crime-prison.html
Italicized portions of the following were submitted under "unknown" and signed by Dan:
"Man! Browsing through Neil's crazy-sounding rants makes me worry about him. He sounds like a complete emotional train wreck, as if he's near complete collapse! Are you okay, brother?"
Neil's not your brother, nor do I think he'd be comfortable being referred to as such. What he "sounds like" to you is worthless opinion based on your grace embracing hatred of Donald Trump and your perverse defense of some of the worst people in America...the Democrat Party.
"It is fitting that he is resigning in disgrace. He has lived a long life of evil and despicable acts."
"Resign in disgrace? People the world over are singing Biden's praises. I've heard several people from around the world on radio this morning, deeply thanking Biden for all his work to make the world better."
First of all, if he's as fit as your lying Dem Party and leftist media enemy of the people have been telling us, then by what logic could he step down after saying just the day before that he's not going anywhere? It is difficult for any honest person to presume that he'd have been about to win a second term with his crap sandwich of a record as president. His own people were pushing to have him removed after his "off night" debate performance which exposed Biden as decrepit to a degree honest people clearly observed for a long time. And while one can say that people with diminishing mental capacity can arrive at a point where it accelerates terribly, this still leaves lefty liars with his crap performance as president. And as he was forced to quit the race (whether he'll likewise be forced to resign before his term officially ends seems likely but remains to be seen), I'd say that, hell yes, that's disgraceful...particularly given his own people were scrambling to "encourage" him. I think he was both threatened and bribed to agree to this move. What kind of a train wreck would dare presume to say that this is all good?
"Y'all seem to be disconnected from reality."
Y'all seem to be a lying, dumbass pervert.
"There's no disgrace in having to slow down in one's aged years."
The problem is he's been slow his entire political life. He was decrepit when running for the 2020 election. But "slowing down" is not that which indicts him. His stupidity and America-destroying policies are what is most disgraceful about this guy who should never have been allowed to sit in the Big Chair.
"Biden... Disgrace?"
Absolutely. He presided over 3.5 years of woeful incompetence of a level not seen in our lifetimes. Now, even his own don't want him after lying about him being "sharp as a tack"..."hard to keep up with"...and other blatantly bullshit defenses of a guy they all knew was well passed his sell-by date. The only real question with this guy is when did "stupid" evolve into "senile" and "cognitively impaired"? Joe Biden twenty years ago is no more intelligent than he is now.
It's also disgraceful to exist in the manner he supposedly did, as if he actually wrote that note posted to "X" rather than it being written and digitally signed by him, submitted by the guy who manages his "X:" account. Whatever happened to "our democracy"? He just crapped on 14 million primary voters whether he was forced to do it or not. A "decent" man wouldn't do such a disgraceful thing. But then, he should never have run in 2020.
"And not the" [Pervert Dan's grace embracing term for "better man than Biden"]" " Y'all are supporting?"
One doesn't disgrace one's self by presiding over the most beneficially effective presidencies we've seen since Reagan. One doesn't disgrace one's self because one won't pretend he wasn't robbed of a second term through various means of election fraud and chicanery. One doesn't disgrace one's self by suffering the abuse of the legal system by assholes willing and eager to do anything to railroad a political opponent the assholes can't beat on merit.
"?" (sic)
"Dan"
Italicized portions of the following were submitted under "unknown" and signed by Dan:
"Dan knows nothing except that Harris...or whomever her party nominates...is not a Republican, not Trump..."
"I know she's highly intelligent, given her advanced degrees, her intelligence in the spoken word and her distinguished career."
First off, good grades in school doesn't mean intelligent. She doesn't exude intelligence except to those dumbasses who hope she beats Trump if the Party allows her to be the nominee.
Second, she is almost Biden-like when it comes to the spoken word, except I don't think she'd be diagnosed as suffering cognitive decline. She's more moron than "intelligent in the spoken word". Her middle name could be "Word Salad Annie" (apologies to Tony Joe White).
Third, "distinguished career"???? That's hilarious as recent links I've posted attest to the contrary. I've another coming up shortly.
This notion that she's intelligent is understandable when believed by abject morons like Dan, who isn't smart enough to recognize intelligence...or the lack of it...but merely lauds everyone who isn't Trump or a political/religious opponent.
"Then there's Trump."
For whom I thank God daily. I wish he could've provided someone better, but Trump is far more than adequate when the alternatives are any Dem one could name.
"I know she prosecuted sexual predators while Trump..." [Pervert Dan embraces grace and bears false witness here]...is a far better person than Harris, Biden, Obama and all other
Dems despite his unfortunate character flaws. Here's a link which references Harris' "stellar" record regarding sexual predators:
https://www.sfweekly.com/archives/looking-back-on-kamala-harris-record-in-california/article_10316c0c-29e1-5ba4-a9c3-aea9effe926c.html
From the above link:
"Before entering public office, as a private attorney, Harris specialized in domestic violence and youth sexual abuse cases, including those involving teenage prostitues. As DA, she brought a less punitive approach to sex work, meeting with sex workers and pushing the vice squad to emphasize worker safety rather than criminalization."
Ah...a "less punitive approach", which means, not prosecuting prostitutes. She did, however, go after their customers, who agreed to a basic "service for pay" arrangement.
"But Harris continued a practice of using undercover cops to catch would-be johns before they solicited prostitution, which was revealed to disproportionately target Latino men."
Racist bitch.
"Her tough side really came out when it came to sex offenders. As DA, Harris co-sponsored a state law that would have banned sex offenders from social media sites."
Oh. MY. GOSH!!! That's what sex offenders fear most! Not being able to go on FaceBook! I take it back! She's one tough cookie!
"And as AG, she presided over “Operation Boo,” a mandatory curfew for all homeless sex offenders on Halloween."
Just Halloween??? WTF????
While I'm on the subject of sex offenders, look at this next link to see how they parse the term do absolve Biden of being so labeled. Clearly, inappropriate contact with a female by a man is situational. It depends who's making women uncomfortable. I didn't read the whole link, but I'm not sure they even consider Joe a sexual harasser. Cat calls and whistling by construction workers merits the term. An employer telling a female subordinate how hot she looks in that dress merits the term. Joe touching, hugging, kissing, sniffing? Not so much. Fuckin' lefties.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/13/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-misrepresents-harris-comments-women/
"I know she prosecuted scam colleges ripping off students, while Trump ran a scam college."
First, Trump didn't run his "university". He founded it. I've gone to seminars put on by similar enterprises. They all do basically the same thing for which Trump is pillaried. I've never joined any of them and have never bought their materials offered at the seminar. They are all very "fear of loss" oriented in their marketing. A couple have warned, "Don't tell me you can't afford this. How can you afford not to?" Some were not dressed better than I dressed for work when I had to wear a jacket and tie. The point here is that I saw the risk/reward ratio as unlikely for someone like me. Some people are stupid and think all will go swimmingly and then whine when they've spent and fail to understand how to do what is taught, to determine if what is taught is something they can even do, or otherwise weren't bright enough to know not to open their wallets. A lot of these "victims" are "get rich quick" types of people. They thought the ROI was going to be pretty much automatic.
The issue here is twofold. Was their marketing straight up lies or simply over hyping (certainly not 100% truthful, but if they believed they had a good offer...)? There was a lot of back and forth about what was said and what wasn't. In the end he settled and "victims" got something like 90% of their money returned to them.
The second issue is that Trump made a mistake by involving himself at all with this endeavor. Those seeking to start up the "university" merely wanted Trump's name on the door, but he saw it as more legit and wanted a piece of the action. Not his smartest move in the end, but not a bad idea at the time.
More importantly, to pretend he's alone in these kinds of things has resulted in the "student loan crisis" as explained in this next link from 2016:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/11/after_trump_university_why_not_sue_all_colleges.html
"I know she was a prosecutor, while Trump is a felon."
She wasn't a proper prosecutor as she has much against her while in that role, some very, very serious. As a link above states, she wasn't keen on justice, but racking up wins for her record. That is to say, she wouldn't take any case which she wasn't assured she could win. All those pot busts look great on her record. Busting johns, too. That Corinthian college thing seems like it was a slam dunk.
Conversely, it takes more than an initial conviction to be a felon. By the logic of pervert Trump-haters, all convictions later overturned means the once convicted are felons. To honest people, it takes exhausting all appeals and being sentenced. But "felon" doesn't mean one is guilty, especially if one is Donald Trump or a supporter of his prosecuted by Trump hating assholes.
"I know/have heard that she and Biden are highly respected by free nations around the world, while Trump is a laughing stock."
BWAAAAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Who told you that? The voices in your head? The crabs in your lady parts? That's too stupid to dignify with a reply. Likely, foreign progressive assholes like these two dumbasses and reject Trump because he doesn't take any shit.
"I know she had to overcome the hurdles of racism and sexism early in her career, while Trump had hundreds of millions and a college degree and company handed to him by his rich family."
You don't know jack about what she had to overcome. You know what she tells you, some of which has been debunked. Given her "early career" was mostly in California, it's absurd that either racism or sexism ever came into play. But you're free to actually provide evidence for your claims as you demand such from me at your Blog of Lies. Put up, dumbass, or pound sand.
You know less about Trump. His old man died with a net worth around 300 Million and he passed out like $20 million to his kids and grandkids. To denigrate a guy for having been blessed to be born in a family with some dough, as if he didn't increase his inheritance in the manner two out of three of the servants in the parable of talents did, is covetous class envy. In the meantime, would your girl have advanced without first having dated a married man? Hard to say. Seems unlikely given her performance as VP alone.
"And I look forward to hearing a lot more."
You look forward to swallowing like a whore in the back seat of her john whatever you here FROM her, because as you progs convict your opponents on mere allegation, so too do you assholes praise those you favor without legitimate cause. She's one of yours, so she's aces. A true moron manner of candidate selection so typical of your kind.
"Dan"
July 22, 2024 at 4:27 PM
Don't waste my time with lefty sites...especially a proven enemy of the people, like the NYT....who won't let me read their shit without paying. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a subscriber that vile rag, but you'll have to find a way to present their crap in a manner that allows me to read it for free. At the same time, knowing how you operate, I've no doubt you're NOT a subscriber. but saw the headline and a snippet and you think it's got merit simply because it appears to benefit Harris' well known crappy record. What's more, it seems to be one man's opinion and as it refers to his own situation, I'd have to take for granted that he's telling the whole story accurately. From the NYT? Naw...
"People the world over are singing Biden's praises"
Only because they've bought into the bullshit narrative that Biden voluntarily chose to quite as opposed to being forced out by donors, and the DFL elites. The very fact that Biden hasn't been seen since his unconventional announcement doesn't seem to be a good sign.
" given her advanced degrees, her intelligence in the spoken word and her distinguished career."
Advanced degrees are frequently seen by those on the left as a proxy for "intelligence", while there might be some correlation, I suspect that there is nothing that directly supports that claim that "advanced degrees" automatically indicate some specific level of intelligence. The vast number of clips of Harris rambling on and on in some circular repetition of a catchphrase or truism, seem to belie this claim about her "spoken word", the fact that her "distinguished career" is built on withholding evidence, imprisoning young black men for minor crimes, and relied heavily on help from the old guys she slept with seems like not that much of a flex.
The biggest problem Harris has is BIden. She's inextricably linked to his bad policy decisions, her incompetent run as "Border Czar" (her response to a journalist who pointed out the fact that she'd never been to the border alone debunks her alleged verbal prowess), and the fact that Biden was quite clear that her primary qualification was being a "black woman". Leaving aside the fact that she's not black, and that the left can't define woman.
As far as the NYT, remember that even a blind pig finds an acorn occasionally.
What's interesting in all the hype around Harris for president is the repeated conventional wisdom that there will be a white male chosen for her running mate. The unintended message being that the black woman can't quite make it without a white man to prop her up.
Caramid Conley, say his name. $3.5 million in damages for Harris' knowingly suborning perjury seems a bit light.
Only because they've bought into the bullshit narrative that Biden voluntarily chose to quite as opposed to being forced out by donors, and the DFL elites. The very fact that Biden hasn't been seen since his unconventional announcement doesn't seem to be a good sign.
I'm not saying that Biden is beginning to enter dementia. We don't know. No one knows. Dementia doesn't come with an announcement card. But, one of the signs of dementia is often the refusal to admit you can't do what you once did. Many folks with dementia fight having the literal and metaphorical "car keys" taken away from them. I've certainly seen it in my life and I'm sure everyone here has.
This is one of the difficulties of aging and of being an aging candidate moving into their 80s. Some large number/percentage of folks will experience some losses and dementia as they go through their 80s... but again, none of us know when specifically to start placing limits (except, perhaps, when it's too late and there's been an unneccesary car wreck, for instance).
People across the world are praising BOTH the way that the Biden/Harris team restored America's connections with the rest of the world and led the rest of the world in a positive way AND they're praising him for stepping down. The thing is, thankfully, no one person is indispensable. Biden is not the only person who can be president. Indeed, this is part of the malignancy of Trump - his insistence that HE is "the one" who can save the US, who can save the world, who can stop wars... No. No, he's not.
We are a nation and a world of great leaders and great collaborators. We need smart collaboration and leadership more than ever. Biden and Harris have demonstrated that the last four years and leaders the world over (our partners in the free world greatly fear Trump's chaos) are glad for their service and they're thankful for Biden stepping down, even if he had to be pressured into it by his colleagues.
Would that the GOP would learn from this. They/y'all have a much more unfit man who should be pressured to just go away by people on your side. If you don't own that, then you own the chaos and immorality and corruption of Trump, as will be recorded in the history books.
Time travel with me: Jump ahead 50, 100 years from now and read a history book. Y'all don't come out well. Trump was one damaged corrupt, not-very-smart deviant, history can have sympathy for that. But the millions who propped him up and defended him, THAT will be judged harshly.
I do think it's hilarious to suggest that Trump is scared of Harris; the former took on and beat the Bush AND Clinton dynasties, but he's frightened of a politician who didn't even make it to the primaries.
Trump "had ONE advantage, and that was Biden showing his age."
Never mind the inflation. And the border crisis. And the crime in our cities and the corruption in the capital. And the chaos overseas and our schoolchildren being sterilized...
Never mind all that, Biden as an issue might not be going away as easily as the man. The administration and the media lied for years trying to cover up his decline, Harris is right in the middle of that, and the Trump campaign is already rightly hammering her for it.
he's frightened of a politician who didn't even make it to the primaries.
1. Of course, he is, just look at and listen to him. He's panicking and angry.
2. In the first two days, Harris has had a record amount given to her campaign. She's had huge numbers of volunteers step up. The Democrat party is highly energized.
3. Just two days into her campaign and she's already leading Trump in polls. I would imagine that will only rise as her campaign builds.
4. Trump may be stupid, but he's not completely unintelligent. He can see the trends switching.
Of course, he's afraid. He hates losing.
It's always amusing when Dan pulls a quote from what someone has said, then proceeds with a rant that bears little relation to what he's allegedly responding to.
In the case of Biden, and the fanciful notion that he somehow significantly deteriorated between January and June, it's simply ridiculous. They (the DFL, MSM, APL) spent the entire primary season loudly proclaiming that Biden was the "only" candidate who could beat Trump and that he was "sharp as a tack" an fully engaged with every single aspect of the presidency. Then magically, in a couple of hours, that all changed. The DFL elites and the DFL donor class decided that they couldn't hide what's been obvious for some time and that they needed to do a complete 180 from what they'd said mere months ago. They decided that they needed to ignore the democratic process that had gotten us to this point, and simply force a change.
Could this have happened before or during the primary process, yes. Could they have been honest during the primarly process about Biden, yes. Could they have put forth an actual challenger during the primary process, yes. Could they have chosen not to expel RFK jr from the DFL and have allowed him to run, yes.
The fact that Biden was unfit is not news, it's certainly been known for more than 6 months. This is just one more example of the DFL wanting to ignore the democratic process, in the name of "saving democracy".
The notion of time traveling to a world in the future where Dan's political philosophy rules sounds dystopian.
Bubba, well said.
The last time Harris ran for president she was polling at less than 2% and bailed before her home state primary. I'm not sure how that translates into an opponent to be feared.
I see that a court stopped her from simply appropriating Biden's campaign war chest, I wonder if anyone will investigate the apparent straw donors Act Blue is allowing to hide illegal campaign contributions. It might be investigated at some point, but not before the election.
July 23, 2024 at 3:46 PM
"I'm not saying that Biden is beginning to enter dementia."
Just like Dan ignores the obvious regarding the conceived being fully human with the right to life endowed by its Creator...a right abused by those like Dan and his ilk...he ignores the obvious regarding Joe Biden's decline in capacity, both mental and physical. For those like Dan and his Party of Death and Lies, they'll carry on with such a charade until Old Joe treats the nuclear launch code as if a "Man From Uncle" decoder ring.
"This is one of the difficulties of aging and of being an aging candidate moving into their 80s. Some large number/percentage of folks will experience some losses and dementia as they go through their 80s... but again, none of us know when specifically to start placing limits."
Nonsense. It doesn't have to be specific, but based upon the honest assessments of those closest to him. But then, we're talking about the Biden family and the Democrat party, for whom power, self-enrichment and prestige on a national and/or global stage is what matters most. Talk about people thinking only of themselves! This is one of the difficulties of dealing with Dan and his "tribe".
"People across the world are praising BOTH the way that the Biden/Harris team restored America's connections with the rest of the world and led the rest of the world in a positive way AND they're praising him for stepping down."
Maybe lefties are, but honest people see in them nothing worthy of praise. They're pretending to believe he stepped down on his own volition, by virtue of his own introspective considerations. Lefties lie to themselves as they lie to all others, or they're simply lying to all others in pretending the shit they spew is pudding.
"Biden is not the only person who can be president. Indeed, this is part of the malignancy of Trump - his insistence that HE is "the one" who can save the US,"
How ironic, hypocritical and a wonderful example of projection! While Trump did no worse than every other candidate and insist he was the "best" one to serve America, Biden absolutely said he was "the only one" who could beat Trump...based mostly on the lie that he "beat him before"!
"We are a nation and a world of great leaders and great collaborators."
None of whom are among the current crop of Dem politicians. The smart lefty schemers are those foreigners who roll over the Dems and RINO Republicians. That's why they "sing praises" of the likes of Biden. He was such an easy mark for them. Trump never was and they didn't like being made to hold up their end of the bargains already in place, nor those Trump got them to join. America first leaders are never appreciated by those who can't get them to treat their countries as of first concern.
"...leaders the world over (our partners in the free world greatly fear Trump's chaos) are glad for their service and they're thankful for Biden stepping down, even if he had to be pressured into it by his colleagues."
So what you're saying is they're praising him for stepping down because he was forced. "I give Joe praise for changing his mind at the point of a gun." You're a moron. And this bit...(our partners in the free world greatly fear Trump's chaos). What "chaos"? The Abraham Accords? Moving our embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's actual capitol? The improvement over the NAFTA agreement? The trade deal with Japan? The lack of unvetted invaders flooding over our southern border? The lack of war? Where's this imagined "chaos" exactly? This is like your bullshit "con man" lie.
"Time travel with me:"
I got a travel suggestion for you, take a flying leap off a tall building and time your descent. ANY historian...any PERSON...you regards the presidency of Biden or Obama over that of Donald Trump is simply a Trump-hating liar. There's no data or evidence to support that incredibly stupid suggestion.
July 24, 2024 at 7:22 AM
"1. Of course, he is, just look at and listen to him. He's panicking and angry."
I've done both and there's no fear present at all. No panic. Angry? Did you hear that someone attempted to murder him? That would make me angry. Biden and his party have demonstrated all kinds of fear, panic and...especially where Addled Joe is concerned...anger. Indeed, it's been ongoing since Nov of 2016!
"2. In the first two days, Harris has had a record amount given to her campaign. She's had huge numbers of volunteers step up. The Democrat party is highly energized."
Most of that "record amount" was the result of very wealthy donors. As of April 2024, Forbes reported there's 756 billionaires living in 43 of the 50 US states and DC. A representative portion of that number presumed to be Democrat and Trump-haters, getting to that record amount is no great feat, no matter how much it moistens your lady parts to hear it.
I'm quite sure the party is energized by the greatest embarrassment of their corrupt history. To think all the election fraud resulted in this guy, who was detrimental to the nation his entire political career and for whom he's now way being the ability to cover...that's gotta make the absolutely giddy.
"3. Just two days into her campaign and she's already leading Trump in polls. I would imagine that will only rise as her campaign builds."
Good luck with that. The natural bump she got will have to contend with all the facts about her career being brought up to the American people.
"4. Trump may be stupid, but he's not completely unintelligent. He can see the trends switching."
There's no such switching going on, even after switching clowns behind the wheel of the clown car. I heard a great analogy which describes the truth America is now facing:
A restaurant (the Dem Party), has been serving crappy food which sickens its patrons (America and Dem voters). A sign goes proclaiming the restaurant (the Dem Party) is under new management. But inside, as the cooks (the Dem Party underlings) are still dishing up the same crappy food which sicken America. This is what has happened. This changes nothing.
Of course, he's afraid. He hates losing.
I missed the last line:
"Of course, he's afraid. He hates losing."
Of course he hates losing. Normal people do. He's not afraid that he will. He didn't last time. He's not even afraid the Dems will cheat again. He takes it for granted just like anyone who's familiar with their history.
Jesse,
You should "buy" it because fraud most definitely occurred. The evidence which was never truly adjudicated bears it out. Subsequently there came about a number of other cases demonstrating fraudulent practices. It's not even debatable.
What should never be ignored is the willingness of Dem voters and Trump-haters to ignore reality in order to validate their baseless opinions about Trump's proven ability as president. It won't take a lot of fraud to compound the effect of that self-deceiving attitude.
But those like us can only challenge lefties we know with the truth and the facts which bear it out.
Italicized portions of the following were submitted by Dan:
"Hey, good for you, Jesse! Don't believe fearmongering about election fraud."
Fearmongering suggests warnings about that which isn't true or hasn't happened. Dan lies again. Intentionally, albeit without having done jackshit to rebut or rebuke any credibly claim of it. Those like Dan...pretty much the entirety of leftism...never feel obligated to support their allegations, claims and assertions.
"Craig:"
"They (the DFL, MSM, APL) spent the entire primary season loudly proclaiming that Biden was the "only" candidate who could beat Trump and that he was "sharp as a tack" an fully engaged with every single aspect of the presidency."
"I know of no one (outside of Biden) who said this, although I will allow that it's possible that some have said it. The MSM is only reporting what people are saying. I suspect that the MSM absolutely did NOT report that Biden was the only candidate who could beat Trump."
How about one Kamala Harris, Liar? Fox has run a montage of her insisting there's nothing wrong with Biden cognitively. I believe KJP has also insisted he's totally a genius. But worse, the fact that not all who deal with him routinely are out in public saying he's unfit is as much evidence of complicity in the obvious lie as actually lying like Harris and KJP. I know I could likely find more examples of Dems lying about his condition, but that should be enough to respond your your ludicrous ignorance of what has been said often in one way or another.
As to the question of anyone besides Joe claiming he's the only one who can beat Trump, that was said by around 14 million primary voters who's seen the real threat to democracy now that they've all been disenfranchised.
As an aside, in reference to those 14 million disenfranchised primary voters, I've heard several Dems...the latest being scumbag Jamie Raskin, and I believe the despicable Jim Clyburn...and useful media idiots saying that those 14 million voted for Harris. What a crock of the type only a Dem isn't embarrassed to spit out to the American people! NOBODY votes for VP. People vote for the president and think very little of the VP in a manner which impacts their voting choice, because it's unlikely the VP will do much to make any difference to Americans. Even when a voter finds the VP choice to validate their opinion of the presidential candidate, that doesn't mean they're casting a vote for VP. There is no such ballot selection for VP, as it's a package deal.
When John McCain ran against the execrable and empty suit Barack Obama, he got stronger support with his selection of Sarah Palin for his VP. I never liked McCain, but already knowing Obama would be the worthless piece of crap he proved to over eight years, I saw the selection of Palin as hopeful, since she was clearly more conservative and what's now known as "America First!" But her name wasn't on the ballot. I voted for McCain more because Obama was repugnant and only on the ballot because he's half black. Palin was a plus, but that's as far as that goes. Now, Dems pretend people voted for Harris when they voted for Biden. Just another example of the bullshit they feed swallowed so eagerly by their sheep.
"The reality is that in January - amidst widespread concern that Biden may be slipping in his age - Biden gave a good and compelling State of the Union speech, and many of us who were worried about his age beginning to impair him were somewhat relieved. Still, it was a concern."
The reality is that there are drugs to treat early stage dementia which can result in the appearance of normal cognition and Joe more likely than not was given them before his SoU address. But again, he showed signs when he was running for the job and many were already talking about elder abuse with regard to his family...and the party who was marketing him as a unifying moderate...and their encouraging and supporting his run.
"But as I've noted repeatedly: The problem with rapid decline in aging (as everyone in my world and I suspect most adults have dealt with in their parents and even themselves) is that it's not easy to say, "Oh, they have definitely reached the stage where they're not fully capable.""
But none of them were running for president or serving as one. The bar is set a bit differently for the leader of the free world who has control of the nuclear launch codes. And honest observers of the political scene long regarded him as a clown long before he ran for the 2020. LONG before!
"I'm not saying that this is where Biden is..."
Of course you're not, because he's a Democrat and not Trump. But you were more than ready to take the word of unprofessional shrinks who saw fit to diagnose Trump from afar and present their "findings" on national news outlets. Once again, minimize negatives of your own and inflating the slightest negatives of your opponents. That's what liars like you do.
"...but the appearance he projected throughout June was highly alarming and that is the REASONABLE cause for so many people calling for him to withdraw. There's nothing diabolical or twisted or sneaky in any of that."
Stop it. Stop trying to conjure a false reality to pretend your kind have been acting honestly and for the sake of the nation rather than themselves. The mere support for him in 2020 proves how dishonest you and your kind are.
"Now, maybe we'll find that people on the inside DID know there was something more seriously wrong as early as January, but we haven't seen evidence of that, yet."
Harris...KJP...Dr. Jill...everyone close to him in the administration. Also, every lefty media hack who followed him as part of their job.
"The declines of aging are subtle and hard to spot, as I and others who've lived through it with multiple loved ones."
Which of them were President of the United States?
"We always want to give as much respect and space as we can for as long as we can. That's what we have done with Biden and maybe we're jumping the gun too soon on him, but I don't think so. Given that he's the leader of the free world, we gave him as long as we could. This was about grace, not secret gov't overthrows or sneaky tricks to play on the [Pervert Dan embraces grace again with another false characterization of a better man and president] you guys are running with."
Yeah, moron. You keep drinking that Kool-Aid!
"Jesse is right, it is looking like Harris may well be the next president and it's nobody's fault but the GOP's."
No he's not. It's always possible that Dem cheating will again prevail, though I don't know how they get so many already filled out ballots changed to her name so quickly. It's not looking like Harris may even get passed the convention. I don't know if there's been enough done to ensure that an honest election is more likely than previous, but hopefully the pain honest people of the Dem and independent variety is enough to at least keep them from voting, if not voting for the former president who made life better for all of them.
"You can't keep propping up a [Pervert Dan again embraces grace here with another false characterization of one of the best presidents in his worthless lifetime] who's character and behavior is strongly disliked by 55%+ of the nation and expect to still win."
Looking a Statista poll from June showing the same dislike of Harris, with 44% strongly disapproving. With the spotlight on her, and myriad examples of her poor performance and extremist lefty policy preferences being exposed constantly, it's hard to see how even her tepid support will get her over the finish line. That's assuming Obama lets her run the race.
"Put a woman in charge!"
What an abjectly dumbfuck thing to say! Not really surprising, though. Anyone who thinks we should "put a woman in charge", or "put a Latina" in charge, or "put homosexual in charge" or "put someone with a tail in charge" is not an adult and should be encouraged not to vote. Such people are destroying the nation.
"2. In the first two days, Harris has had a record amount given to her campaign. She's had huge numbers of volunteers step up. The Democrat party is highly energized."
The vast majority of this seems to be large amounts of money filtered through straw donors on Act Blue, which has eliminated matching the address with the credit card account.
Beyond that, since the big DFL donors ran Biden out it's no surprise that they've thrown money at Harris. For some reason the DFL elites and donor class is obsesses with Harris to the point that they've decided to eliminate the last bit of democratic process from the DFL by preempting an open convention.
I guess the DFL is no longer pro-choice.
"Put a woman in charge."
1. The DFL literally can't define woman.
2. This slogan seems to imply that there are significant differences between men and women.
3. As you note, inserting black/Jew/Latino/Asian/Native American into that sentence would never be considered.
4. Jill's likely been in charge for a while, and it hasn't gone particularly well.
5. This is what happens when you focus on race/gender/orientation instead of competency and qualifications.
About record breaking donations for Harris....
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/07/is_everything_kosher_about_the_126_million_that_poured_in_for_kamala.html
The video within from O'Keefe provides quite enough detail to justify suspicion about the contributions. I wonder if Dan's name and address shows up on the FEC list. But then, Dan's stupid enough to donate money three times a day ever day.
I would also insist to both Dan and Jesse that this money laundering constitutes more evidence of election fraud. "Election fraud" is not just dead guys voting, and in 2020 and 2022 it manifested in a variety of ways which validates concerns that the "defenders of democracy"...the lying Dem Party of Death, Deceit and Perversion...will surely engage in some form of fraud again in 2024.
When actual evidence is produced about any "money laundering" that may have occurred, I will gladly join with you in condemning "money laundering." In the meantime, it seems like just another far-right, hyper-emotional and irrational conspiracy theory.
Fair enough?
There was no serious election fraud. Trump actually lost. May your eyes be opened to your delusions and you find a way to make peace with your soul and reality and just move on.
[rolls eyes]
Read all about the conspiracy theories from an actual journalistic group with actual integrity and then, move on...
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/23/nx-s1-5048718/biden-harris-conspiracy-theories
But then, crazy is as crazy does, amiright, big guy?
July 25, 2024 at 5:02 PM
"When actual evidence is produced about any "money laundering" that may have occurred, I will gladly join with you in condemning "money laundering." In the meantime, it seems like just another far-right, hyper-emotional and irrational conspiracy theory.
Fair enough?"
No. There's nothing fair about it. The link I provided contains evidence in the video links it provides. You should actually check out the links presented to provide evidence and support for claims, rather than just dismissing out of hand. I know that's a big ask for given you don't even review links YOU provide, satisfying yourself that evidence exists because the headline gave you a tingle. O'Keefe's video report invites you to do what he does and see for yourself. That's like Paul telling people to speak to those who witnessed Christ's death only to soon after see Him walking about. He has info from the FEC and has confirmed by talking to people on that list at the addresses attached to those people who attest that they never made the size and number of donations attributed to the names of the people at the address attached to the names...by the FEC. Are going to suggest a clerical error of that proportion? Really? You're that much of a useful idiot sheep? (Rhetorical question. I know the answer to it.)
"There was no serious election fraud. Trump actually lost. May your eyes be opened to your delusions and you find a way to make peace with your soul and reality and just move on."
There was very serious election fraud. Trump most likely (if not absolutely) won. May your head be extricated from your ass so as to allow you to see more than what you choose to see. Your soul is very likely already lost, so it's too late for you there. But to reject the only president in the last almost 16 years who actually served all Americans in obvious and tangibly beneficial ways confirms your abject stupidity.
Roll that.
July 25, 2024 at 5:06 PM
"Read all about the conspiracy theories from an actual journalistic group with actual integrity and then, move on..."
I laugh every time you point to a source like NPR and proclaim them "an actual journalistic group with integrity", especially after I've debunked that perception. Indeed, here's another example of their "actual integrity" sure to moisten your lady parts given your perverse obsession with defending the indefensible (it hearkens back to a recent confirmation of your dishonesty in another discussion at Craig's blog):
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/npr_says_babies_arent_babies_until_theyre_born.html
"Integrity" has no connection to a cesspool with so low a regard for the most defenseless and vulnerable people...more justifiably labeled the "absolute least of these".
But your link, is laughable.
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/23/nx-s1-5048718/biden-harris-conspiracy-theories
It's no more than a report of those with an opposite opinion of what your kind disparagingly regards as "conspiracy theories". The problem is, unlike the conspiracy theories of your kind...the threat of white nationalism to this nation, Trump's plan to be a dictator, Russian collusion, cops targeting black dudes, Israel is genocidal...and an absolute ton of other nonsensical claims you dumbfucks make as a matter of routine, our "theories" are backed by evidence, logical conclusions of chains of events and that which comes to pass proving the speculation was true, factual or most likely. Indeed, most of what you morons call "theory" is speculation based on what's available. The inability to pry more info from your kind who's in power doesn't help a bit.
In any case, your article makes much of that which is conjecture and speculation of this type while we continue to hear crap such as the attempt on Trump's life was set up by Trump, who doesn't care that anyone might die or be seriously injured, because that's the kind of hateful shit which spews from the morally bankrupt minds of the progressive left. The racist, homophobic Joy Reid posted a moronic and cringe worthy social media post suggesting that Trump & Co is hiding info about the attempt. You're a moron.
"But then, crazy is as crazy does, amiright, big guy?"
And you're worse than crazy, am I right, little bitch? Damn right I am! Pervs like you do what pervs like you do. You pervert.
And you're worse than crazy, am I right, little bitch? Damn right I am! Pervs like you do what pervs like you do. You pervert.
There's that grace. That love for humanity. That respect for women.
Of course, I'm not crazy. It's a ridiculous bit of hyperbole.
Of course, I'm not a little bitch, that term that demeans women.
Of course, I'm not a pervert. I am a faithfully married man to one woman for 40 years. I am a good father (so they say) of two wonderful, impressive children doing work to help the world (one child is working literally to save the whales and dolphins and our oceans, another child has been a peace corps volunteer who worked against human trafficking and taught English - in amazing, powerful ways - to students in Albania and is currently working as a policy wonk helping improve human lives in NYC, if you'll excuse a minute of bragging) married to a wonderful woman who has been helping house homeless families, homeless veterans, helping to reach people with addictions, etc, etc, etc and who has worked in helping create a cleaner world and helping those with disabilities to live better, more empowered lives. I and my loved ones are dedicated members of our church in an urban setting... we're deacons and worship leaders and preachers and ministers of one sort or the other...
To say that I'm a "pervert" is to pervert the meaning of the word. What you're trying to say is that I, in good faith and in an attempt to be a good and gracious man, disagree with your human traditions when it comes to LGBTQ folks and abortion. But disagreeing with your personal traditions doesn't make one a pervert, does it.
I'm in absolutely no way boasting about myself... What I'm saying is true for nearly all my progressive friends and family. I'm just noting that ANY rational person who looks at lives like mine, my wife, my family, my church family, my work colleagues... they would say that this is a good man, the opposite of perverted. EVEN IF they disagreed with my opinions about abortion and LGBTQ folks, they wouldn't say I'm a pervert.
But you would. In spite of reality.
As if disagreeing with your personal opinions is somehow perverse.
You're going to have to get over yourself one day, little man.
July 25, 2024 at 9:27 PM
"There's that grace. That love for humanity. That respect for women."
That's funny coming from the fake Christian who constantly expresses abject hatred for Donald Trump without ever explaining how his presidency caused you any harm...insisting he's a con man without every explaining the con...etc.
That's funny coming from the guy who pretends he has some superior love for humanity while he defends practices which result in grave harm and death by their very nature...abortion (to both women and people in utero, Americans (by virtue of disastrous leftist open border policy), illegal aliens (by virtue disastrous leftist border policy), Israeli allies and American military (by virtue of disastrous leftist foreign policy which enriches terrorist states), mentally/emotionally disturbed people (by virtue of disastrous leftist policies based on false science), even more Americans (by virtue of disastrous DEI policies which elevate on the basis of irrelevant immutable traits and perverse desires over merit and ability)...etc.
That's funny coming from the guy who pretends to care about women when he supports abortion, which harms both pregnant women and of course half the murdered infants, open borders...which invites assholes who rape and murder women (both ours and illegal alien women and girls)...the lie of "gender identity" ...which leads to males competing in female competition harming women physically as well as harming their chances to compete in fair contests and all that winning will bring for them...etc.
You like to pretend that calling a little bitch like you a little bitch demeans women, though you can't draw a straight line between calling a little bitch like a little bitch and any alleged harm you pretend it does to women. It's like say that calling you an asshole demeans assholes. It's a cheap and low-intellect way of adding to your list of false things you say about those who call you out for being a little bitch.
"Of course, I'm not crazy. It's a ridiculous bit of hyperbole."
I didn't call you crazy. I said you were worse than crazy. Not hyperbole at all given your evil.
"Of course, I'm not a little bitch, that term that demeans women."
Again, you only says it does, ignoring the fact that women use the term liberally themselves. Imagine that. Dan thinks women demean themselves by calling another woman a bitch! What a moron!
Of course, I'm not a pervert."
Of course you are, as explained so exhaustively and comprehensively many times. You're lame-ass repeating of your self-serving autobiography doesn't account for your support for sexual perversion as well as your constant perversions of facts and truths. No amount of good deeds on your part mitigates your perverse love of perversion. What's worse, as you seek to do so in repeating your self-serving autobiography, you expect that your evil should be overlooked, that your deeds erase the evil you promote, defend, celebrate and enable. In the meantime, you absolutely reject any possibility that the good works of Donald Trump can do the same for him. No. Like the fake Christian you are, pretending "embracing grace" is a principle those like myself should abide, you focus on his sexual immorality...calling it perversion for extra effect...and NEVER list his many, many good works. Trump's been a sinner, certainly. You promote, defend, celebrate and enable it. You pervert all which denounces the sins you embrace.
" we're deacons and worship leaders and preachers and ministers of one sort or the other..."
You're blasphemers of the Holy Spirit by saying evil is good and good is evil and in doing so have created for yourself a false god you refer to as God, and you mock Christ by calling yourself "Christian" while doing it. You preach evil and pretend it's "OK" because you're "nice" to the sexually immoral. I'm nice enough to them by treating them no different than anyone else. You're "nice" by appeasing them in their desires to indulge their sinful compulsions.
And who the fuck is "we". Once again you ally yourselves with people whom might not exist, or don't exist as you portray them, when I'm not concerned with anyone but those who visit here and expect visitors to have the spine to defend themselves without bringing in phantom "people like me".
"To say that I'm a "pervert" is to pervert the meaning of the word."
This is like reverse projection, taking on that which I've already affirmed about you. To reiterate, you're a pervert because you falsely assert that homosexual behavior (by which I mean all LGBTQ+Whatever behaviors) is "normal" and no worse morally than behavior which aligns with our biology and the Will of God. You pervert Scripture to pretend there's some way to insist that God might bless the perverts you d/s/e/c. You pervert science to suggest there's a way to insist that such behaviors and their underlying compulsions are "normal" or "natural" and you pervert those words to do it. You pervert the word by applying it to Trump in order to more aggressively demonize him like a good grace embracer should, when his history of sexual immorality does not fit the definition of "perversion" because he indulged normal sexual instincts and compulsions.
Thus you fit the word "pervert" in a variety of ways and that which I've presented above constitutes a short list. There are a lot of people who indulge in sexual perversion of the type which excites and arouses you. But they don't go as far in perverting all else as you do. People like Tammy Bruce, Douglas Murray, Richard Grenell and Guy Benson. Aside from their own sexual compulsions, they don't pervert reality to pretend bullshit ideas are truth. You're a pervert through and through.
"What you're trying to say is that I, in good faith and in an attempt to be a good and gracious man, disagree with your human traditions when it comes to LGBTQ folks and abortion. But disagreeing with your personal traditions doesn't make one a pervert, does it."
What I've been "trying to say" is just what I've been saying. You're a pervert because of your response to truth...from both Scripture and science...is to pervert it to defend LGBTQ behavior and the unjust killing of people in utero, as well as how you pervert facts and reality on a host of issues. To write off truth, fact and reality as mere "personal human traditions" of those who abide and defend truth, fact and reality, is itself a perversion. Indeed, your every defense against the charge only serves to validate in the most complete manner. Thanks for the help.
"I'm in absolutely no way boasting about myself..."
You're doing far worse than merely boasting about yourself. You're making excuses for your perversion and pretending listing good works mitigates that fact. It doesn't. And again, you don't give Trump the same consideration you're demanding now for yourself. In so doing, you're perverting the concepts of equality and fair play.
"What I'm saying is true for nearly all my progressive friends and family. I'm just noting that ANY rational person who looks at lives like mine, my wife, my family, my church family, my work colleagues... they would say that this is a good man, the opposite of perverted. EVEN IF they disagreed with my opinions about abortion and LGBTQ folks, they wouldn't say I'm a pervert."
They're welcome to their false opinion. But they'd be stretching the truth at best, if not totally rejecting it, and like you, pretending your "life" makes your perversion a fiction. And again, if all those you mention are like you, then they're perverts as well. So you'd be doing them a favor by not pretending there's no difference between you and them, because that means they're as evil as you are.
"But you would. In spite of reality."
I do because reality is not mine to pervert as you clearly believe it is yours to twist to your liking.
"As if disagreeing with your personal opinions is somehow perverse."
I haven't stated "opinion" about what perversion is, but only stated fact. It's a fact that if one like you perverts so much...as you clearly do as has been confirmed so many times...you are thus a pervert.
"You're going to have to get over yourself one day, little man."
Now you're perverting my character (as you always do) to suggest I'm a "little man" by holding firmly to Truth and facts. My doing so is hardly a sign that I'm in need of "getting over myself". I've clearly gotten over myself if I subordinate my personal opinions to Truth and facts. My personal opinions can't exist without the Truth and facts upon which they are based and so dependent. Referring to my "personal opinions" or my "human traditions" as you do does not constitute a fact-based argument against Truth and facts I continue to present and defend. It's a perverse attempt to suggest they're neither Truth nor facts without doing the heavy lifting of actually supporting the claim.
You're going to have to focus on Truth and facts, rather than perverse alternatives.
"Fair enough?"
That's "fair enough" for Dan because he knows that any "investigation" will take long enough that he'll be able to blow the results off as old news and irrelevant if Harris wins.
"There was no serious election fraud. Trump actually lost. May your eyes be opened to your delusions and you find a way to make peace with your soul and reality and just move on."
Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
We know that GA and AZ had significant amounts of voter fraud and we know that various jurisdictions had more votes than registered voters.
We know that Dominion voting machines are hack able and are not as secure as claimed.
What we don't know, and likely never will, is exactly how many votes in what specific precincts were actually fraudulent and how it actually affected the vote totals.
What's important in Dan's comment is that by labeling it a "conspiracy theory" and by minimizing the amount of fraud, he can justify doing nothing to combat whatever level of fraud or error actually exists. He can justify extending the voting period, carpet bombing absentee ballots, and un monitored drop boxes as being just fine.
Dan writes an entire comment boasting about himself and how wonderful he is, then claims that he wasn't actually boasting about himself.
Given the potential range of perversions, I fail to see how being married and monogamous is proof that you are completely free from perversion.
Indeed, Craig. But for me what's worse about the "fair enough" crap is that the link I provided and the videos within it represent evidence he pretends he's willing to consider. So, if he's actually willing to consider evidence which might indict his laughable alternative to Trump in any way, he certainly isn't considering any presented in the link...which he clearly never read, much less scrutinized. That's not to say the evidence is conclusive, particularly as it indicts Harris in any way. But it's clearly evidence of wrongdoing justifying deeper scrutiny by law-loving law enforcement. To suggest otherwise...by implying evidence wasn't brought forth in the linked piece...is to pervert the meaning of evidence, and to again downplay any actual or possible wrongdoing on the part of his preferred politicians solely for the purpose of denying Trump and the American people a fair election. Such was done with regard to Bernie Sanders. Such has been done to Bobby Kennedy Jr. It's the prog/marxist/Dem/leftist way.
People like Dan are happy with the fraud. If they cared about fair elections, why ignore and dismiss claims made without investigation and judicial scrutiny? Because fair elections isn't the point for such people. Winning by whatever means necessary is.
As to your second, that's exactly my point...one of two actually...that good deeds doesn't excuse the bad, nor does it mean that one shouldn't be labeled on the basis of the bad. A "good man" assumes no defining bad behaviors. No list of good deeds is honestly presented when the purpose is to minimize the bad deeds or to suppose there's enough on the "good deed" side of the ledger to absolve one of the bad, even while still perpetrating them. To Dan, doing so is as if to say, "Oh, Danny! You do so many wonderful things, I don't even care about the constant child molesting!" It doesn't work that way.
My other point is how he'll produce these lists of his wonderfulness and never ever give so much as a thought to Trump's, which is not inconsiderable. No. There, Dan will only focus on the wrongs and inflate them beyond all reason to portray them as hellishly evil and worse than anything anyone's ever done before, while at the same time acting as if no "good deeds" have been or are ever done by Trump. It's Double-Standard Dan at his most perverse.
Craig:
Given the potential range of perversions, I fail to see how being married and monogamous is proof that you are completely free from perversion.
I (and people like me - the liberals that you all love to hate, and WHY it's not about me) are objectively good people doing objectively good things. Helping children, helping the disabled, helping the homeless, being family for LGBTQ folks who've been rejected by their own families and churches, welcoming immigrants, adopting children (in one form or another)... We're faithful to our families, we tend to be respectful and loving even towards our family and friends and strangers when they abuse us and, for instance, accuse of of being perverts.
It's just a bit weird how ferociously many of those on the right react to people who, in good faith, disagree with your personal opinions and traditions on issues like abortion or LGBTQ matters. It's often not enough to say, "Wow, I really disagree with that position you hold, liberals..." There's so much name-calling, attacks and demonization (literal, oftentimes) of people who are clearly good, decent, loving family people.
Do you all ever stop to think about how it comes across to the world at large?
Again, Craig...
Given the potential range of perversions, I fail to see how being married and monogamous is proof that you are completely free from perversion.
And yet, a man who has been a serial cheater on his wife, who has boasted about sexual assault (and once again, "grab them by the pussy..." IS literally sexual assault), who has laughed and boasted about abusing his power to ogle half-naked teen-aged girls, who has been documented as the most prolific liar to ever serve as president, who is a convicted felon amid a swamp of his supporters and former underlings who are also convicted felons... that you can't call THAT perverse. Heck, Marshal even specifically defends abusing his power and position to ogle half-naked girls as specifically NOT perverse, but just normal.
???!!! Holy cow!
It's just strange and I don't think you all even see it.
Yeah, the Act Blue thing seems like it could be a big deal if it allows people who have poverty level incomes to make multiple 4 figure donations to DFL candidates without verifying the billing address matches the actual address.
It may turn out to be nothing, but if we ignore it and say "Ohhhhhhhhhhh, we need more evidence to even begin to consider investigating.", it's likely to get worse.
My problem, which I coincidentally just posted about, is that to define Trump (for example) solely on the basis of a few incidents or alleged incidents, as "bad" ignores the fact that Trump has done good things as well. The reality is that, like everyone but Dan, Trump has done both good things and bad things. Why should any of us be judged entirely by only the good or only the bad?
I think that, excepting those who've committed serious crimes, that we should be judged by the entirety of our actions, not by our worst. Even having said that, I don't think it's inappropriate to acknowledge that a serial "child molester", might have done some good things. That doesn't mitigate his crimes nor the appropriate, but acknowledges the reality that none of us is all good or bad.
See my post on the subject, It's pretty similar.
First, we must keep in mind that Dan is not a serious person with regard things like religion and politics. He lacks intelligence and certainly wisdom, and he is typical of those attracted to an idea, stubbornly stick to it and ignores any evidence or argument which should easily lead to a correction or adjustment of those beliefs.
This article to which I linked provides enough to at the very least, provoke actual investigation...with a determination to keep his bias out of it...in order to actually find out what is true or most likely true. But he doesn't work that way, as evidenced by his unwillingness to even read his own links offered to us. Worse, he presumes we're like him except for our opposing points of view.
As to "serious" crimes, the word "crimes" might suggest to some "legality", when I'm more concerned about morality. Not saying you're playing fast and loose, but Dan chooses to falsely believe one can live in a homo/lezbo relationship and not be in severe trouble eternity-wise because they otherwise do "nice" things. Such a lifestyle is perversion by definition and to gloss over it due to "good deeds" is to enable its continued perpetration. Enabling by choice makes one complicit. You and I don't enable or condone or in any way agree with Trump's personal infidelities. Thus, we are not as if we are indulging in them ourselves, nor do we promote them simply because we support his candidacy for the good of the nation.
And while Dan ignores the fact that we all have our issues, it's his assuming authority to dictate which issue should be condemned, regardless of it's severity, and which should be regarded as not an immoral issue at all, also regardless of its severity. Dan's the arbiter of such things and God must comply.
I'm "happy with the fraud..."? That is, of course, a lie. The reality is, at least from what I've seen, that far and away, the TEEENY-TINY bit of fraud that happens is happening with the GOP supporters trying to falsely vote. I don't want to see that happening. And I wouldn't want to see it happening EVEN IF it were Democrats (which again, generally is not the case and even so, it's a TINY little fraction of a number.)
Even if 20 GOP voters and 2 Democrat voters tried to vote twice in my Louisville... there are tens of thousand voters. The reality is, that little bit of cheating is meaningless. EVERY election expert is saying that the data shows we have no serious election fraud problems... serious, in the sense that it even comes close to impacting an election.
IF you want to present actual election experts citing a real concern (again, beyond the random GOP cheater), present it. But when election experts across the political spectrum are saying there is no fraud (and they are) or even anything close to it, then I really don't care what conspiracy theorists think in their heads or using their super-special spy systems they think they've put in place.
Data, gentleman. It's all about the data.
Such a lifestyle is perversion by definition and to gloss over it due to "good deeds" is to enable its continued perpetration
In your vulgar, Neanderthal OPINION that may be the case, IN YOUR MIND, in YOUR subjective opinion. But reasonable people of good faith disagree with your wild and harmful theories.
Do you understand the difference?
Look, let's say I'm right about the obvious notion that LGBTQ folks should have full and free liberty to live their own lives without the religious or political opposition of bigots. Let's say you are MISTAKEN (and clearly, you are).
Does your good-faith sincere belief about opposing human rights for LGBTQ make you a pervert? Or does it just mean you were wrong?
And given the reality that, if you're wrong, that you're actually causing active harm to many people by holding that personal religious opinion... even so, does that make you a pervert, in your mind?
Maybe so, but you tell me.
IF it turns out you're wrong and you've actively been causing and trying to cause harm to innocent fellow humans, will you eventually feel awful about the harm you've done?
I know that I have felt awful for the active harm I caused when I believed much as you do... and I was nowhere as belligerent or hateful as you are with your words and policies you advocate. Thankfully, there is grace (including the grace of a loving LGBTQ community) that forgave me and welcomed me into the beloved community of God.
We welcome you to join us, Marshal. Or at the very least, to stop being so overtly harmful. Remaining silent is always an option, too.
July 26, 2024 at 1:23 PM
"I (and people like me - the liberals that you all love to hate, and WHY it's not about me) are objectively good people doing objectively good things."
First of all, despite your comment directed at Craig, it's my blog so I'll respond to your crap sandwich comment...because I can...because it's my blog and here at my blog, I rebuke lies like yours.
Second, if you insist on recruiting without their consent those you refer to as "people like me" in order to bolster your lies and perversions, then I have no choice but to regard them as absolute clones of you and consider them lying perverts, too. So think of how you're exposing people you say are like you as lying perverts. To contrast that cheap ploy, you'll note that I commonly refer to "honest, intelligent/wise people" as those I wish to be counted, meaning I'm not saying I'm counted among them now. This also means that I'm removing myself from the discussion...except to express truths and facts you pretend are no better than some wild hunch or opinion, because you're a liar...and referring to those who align with truths and facts I acknowledge as such. Are they "like me"? No. I seek to be like them as I seek to be worthy of God's benevolence.
Third, you again think that listing good deeds diminishes the grave sinfulness of the behaviors you champion. They don't. Given Scripture refers to "good deeds" as filthy rags in the Eyes of God, given what He truly expects of us, why would a supposedly serious and prayerful student of Scripture demand better of human beings when considering the abominations you d/e/c/s? (This is shorthand for "defend/enable/celebrate/support" with the letters in no particular order)
As such, I'm not at all interested in yet another boring recitation of that which you present to diminish your perversions. All sorts of bad people do nice things. They're still bad people. Truly "good" people put God's Will above all worldly desires. You don't do this.
"...being family for LGBTQ folks who've been rejected by their own families and churches..."
And again with this shit, as if you've ever presented the other side of the story. What of the families and churches who so persecuted your beloved perverts? When do we get to hear from them? How do they respond to charges leveled against them by the abominable? Since we never hear their side...because you and other perverts don't take the time to truly consider their perspectives, so keen on your in promoting as "OK" your perversions...I have to conclude that you're hiding relevant, pertinent facts regarding the ouster of your beloved deviants. I have to conclude those families and churches tried to reason with your perverts about the Truth of God's Will regarding their choices to indulge their compulsions, refused to submit to God's Will and by so doing left their families and churches with no choice to be send them packing until such time that they repent. Tell me this is not so. You can't because you have no fucking idea. You just buy into the sob stories and condemn better people on the basis of those sob stories.
"...we tend to be respectful and loving even towards our family and friends and strangers when they abuse us and, for instance, accuse of of being perverts."
Liar. You condemn and disparage those to hold fast to the clearly revealed Will of God, people like Donald Trump and host of others. I don't "accuse" you of being a pervert. You ARE a pervert, as has been so accurately explained so often.
"It's just a bit weird how ferociously many of those on the right react to people who, in good faith, disagree with your personal opinions and traditions on issues like abortion or LGBTQ matters."
Why should it be? LGBTQ behaviors are perversions. Abortion is murder. There's no honest argument against these truths. There's just your cheap rationalizations.
"It's often not enough to say, "Wow, I really disagree with that position you hold, liberals...""
It's well beyond that act of civility because your kind dispensed with civility long ago, by presuming to accuse those who hold fast to truth and facts and science on these issues. You regard truth, facts and science to be oppressive to your kind who finds these things to inconvenient for your personal preferences.
"There's so much name-calling, attacks and demonization (literal, oftentimes) of people who are clearly good, decent, loving family people."
You're doing it again...pretending good deeds covers for outright moral degradation. And when you won't extend the same consideration to those like Donald Trump, then your perverse hypocrisy is evident as well. Keep it up. You're doing fine. You're totally affirming every negative thing I've ever said about you. Well done!
"Do you all ever stop to think about how it comes across to the world at large?"
No. Because the world is a sinful place, and what the world thinks is only of value in determining just how fucked up it is. You're part of the fucked up part. I seek to be a part of the world straining to please God in spite of those like you.
"And yet, a man who has been a serial cheater on his wife,"
Truly one of the few truly acts of immorality of which he's indulged.
"... who has boasted about sexual assault (and once again, "grab them by the pussy..." IS literally sexual assault),..."
A perversion of reality, as he's only spoken of what it's like to be a rich guy targeted by women who will give him consent to do anything. To date, the only woman who's accused him of sexual assault failed to prove it ever happened, another (Ivanna) recanted her accusation and no one else has bothered to try and do anything about what they claim Trump did.
"...who has laughed and boasted about abusing his power to ogle half-naked teen-aged girls,..."
The best which can be said is that he walked into the dressing room of teen beauty pageant contestants, not that there's any evidence he did so with intent to "ogle". Citing an interview on a Howard Stern radio show, where guests routinely play along with Stern's lecherous questions...especially when on is a guy you think "lies all the time"...is absurd. I've read no interview with any of those contestants who expressed more than shock that a man (Trump) walked into their dressing room. These contests are heavily chaperoned. If Trump walked in on naked teen babes, he most assuredly was hustled right out. If he enjoyed the show in the meantime, he's a normal American male. Most Christian males appreciate the sight of hot babes. Only sanctimonious assholes pretend they clench closed their eyes making a cross out of their index fingers as if to ward off vampires when so confronted.
"...who has been documented as the most prolific liar to ever serve as president,..."
...by the liars of the leftist press, like WaPo and dicks like you, while ignoring serious lies from Democrats and their own lying selves.
"...who is a convicted felon..."
...of crimes invented for the purpose of being able to regard him as such. All manner of legal analysts and "experts" from both side of the divide have affirmed that. Liars like you don't care. You have the ability to further disparage a better man than you and you'll take it. Bitches.
"...amid a swamp of his supporters and former underlings who are also convicted felons..."
Also victims of Democrat abuse of power, even if they've done something wrong at some time in their lives. Dickhead liar.
"...that you can't call THAT perverse."
Clearly it's not enough for Dan to have Trump's immoral behavior acknowledged as immoral and less than what we'd like in a president. No. Dan needs to TRUMP it up to the highest level of evil he can muster, because that's what embracing grace is all about. Lying, punk-ass bitch.
"Heck, Marshal even specifically defends abusing his power and position to ogle half-naked girls as specifically NOT perverse, but just normal."
But it IS normal, except I suspect you're trying to frame it in a manner which suggest a leering, drooling old man "eyeing little girls with bad intent" like Aqualung, instead of what tens of millions of normal men would do at the moment they are confronted with images of naked females. Try pretending you're "holier than thous" at your Blog of Lies, pervert. You speak of this so much that I have no doubt you fantasize about having such an opportunity, you pervert.
"It's just strange and I don't think you all even see it."
We see a fake Christian from Louisville, KY posturing as a holy man, while attacking someone he doesn't know with the worst accusations he can muster from that which he cannot confirm just because he doesn't like America enough to set aside his true flaws as he expects other to set aside his own. A hypocrite of perverse proportions.
July 26, 2024 at 4:36 PM
"I'm "happy with the fraud..."? That is, of course, a lie."
No. I don't believe that for a minute.
"The reality is, at least from what I've seen, that far and away, the TEEENY-TINY bit of fraud that happens is happening with the GOP supporters trying to falsely vote. I don't want to see that happening. And I wouldn't want to see it happening EVEN IF it were Democrats (which again, generally is not the case and even so, it's a TINY little fraction of a number.)"
Now you're just willfully, purposely and intentionally lying. This isn't your blog. If you're going to make bullshit claims, you'll need to provide support at least equal to the evidence I've supported to affirm lefties, Democrat cheating on a scale unheard of prior to 2020. I'll provide again one of the most egregious examples of election fraud and interference (which I regard as all under the banner of election fraud for obvious reasons). The Dems suppressed information vital to public perception of the Biden campaign...namely, the Hunter Biden laptop story. Three different surveys indicated percentages of Dem voters who would not have voted for Biden had they been aware of what Biden and his party suppressed, in some cases by abusing federal agencies for the purpose. Even in the survey with the smallest percentage of Dem voters asserting they would not have voted for Biden, that percentage reduced the alleged 80+ million votes for Biden enough to be lower than Trump's total. That's the survey with the LOWEST percentage asserting such. Biden's total of popular vote would be far less by either of the results of the other two surveys. Here's a link describing the willful distortion of information useful to voters deciding how to vote:
https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2022/03/poll-media-suppression-of-hunter-biden-laptop-story-made-joe-biden-president/
It's true that there are those who pretend the surveys and such do not result in enough changes of heart to change the outcome of the election. But requires believing that even lefty voters don't mind being fucked around by Dems and their media lapdogs. Some certainly wouldn't care what nasty shit Biden was involved in, as their hatred for Trump is so irrationally intense that Satan himself would be eagerly chosen, in much the same way Trabue-like Jews chose Barabbas.
Then of course, the laptop was "confirmed" by 51 former intelligence people who never examined the laptop as "Russian disinformation" further convincing some Dem voting morons that evil forces were lying about the Bidens.
Then again I reference once more the situation with the Georgia Sec of State in which Trump was falsely accused of trying to get Georgia to lie about their vote totals, when in fact, using Georgia's own data, it was confirmed more people than the margin of Biden's win total had voted contrary to existing Georgia residency laws. Three times as many from a single county. This should have triggered a rejection of the vote and the slate of electors...that is, the Georgia count should've been uncertified. This would have altered the Electoral count.
Then there's the several states who acted contrary to their own laws regulating elections and did so without the consent of their legislatures, exploiting the COVID lie to interfere in how elections are run, resorting to methods easily abused. These are three of the most obvious methods employed to defraud and disenfranchise voters in 2020, and it's not a comprehensive list of infractions at all.
The fact is that you, Dan, never did jack shit to confirm or deny any claim of voter fraud or irregularity. To dare imply that GOP voters constitute any significant percentage of voter fraud is itself fraudulent. Fraudulence is lying. You lie again. Lying is what you do. Liar is what you are. You have absolutely no evidence that the election was fairly run. Save your lies for your Blog of Lies. They don't fly here.
"Even if 20 GOP voters and 2 Democrat voters tried to vote twice in my Louisville... there are tens of thousand voters. The reality is, that little bit of cheating is meaningless. EVERY election expert is saying that the data shows we have no serious election fraud problems... serious, in the sense that it even comes close to impacting an election."
And who are these so-called "election experts" to which you're always referring? You've never said. I insist they are those who should have put the people and the integrity of the voting over which they presided but didn't. Such people counted the same fallacious votes and surprisingly came up with the same total. Not convincing expect to assholes who think an effective president like Trump is a problem for America. Dumbass lying little bitch!
"IF you want to present actual election experts citing a real concern (again, beyond the random GOP cheater), present it."
I've presented evidence enough, both now and in many posts since the elections was stolen from Trump. What you're doing now is the same bullshit you pull with regard to what or who is a reliable news source. That is, YOUR sorry ass doesn't get to determine what constitutes an "actual election expert" much less one who is honest.
"But when election experts across the political spectrum are saying there is no fraud (and they are) or even anything close to it, then I really don't care what conspiracy theorists think in their heads or using their super-special spy systems they think they've put in place."
Who are these people you never cite? Only those trying to cover their asses. Only those who are shills for the Dem party. You're a lying pervert, Dan. You gotta bring the same outrageous level of evidentiary support for your wild assed bullshit assertions as you demand for those speaking the obvious truth at your blog. Don't come here and pretend you've ever actually investigated this issue, you lying sack of shit! You just parrot what you've been told by lying leftists, like the good useful idiot you are.
"Data, gentleman. It's all about the data."
Why don't you bring some, bitch. Show how allegations of election fraud and irregularity have been resolves. I'll wait here while you don't do a fucking thing, shithead.
July 26, 2024 at 4:43 PM
"In your vulgar, Neanderthal OPINION that may be the case, IN YOUR MIND, in YOUR subjective opinion. But reasonable people of good faith disagree with your wild and harmful theories."
I don't spout "theories", little bitch, unless I state that I am. What I bring to the table on the subjects which most separate us are fact you reject without factual basis of any kind. You might find it "embracing grace" to regard those who abide the Truth of the Lord as "neanderthals", but that has not real effect on those who abide the Truth except to acknowledge your perversion for what it is. You falsely assert this notion of "good faith" as if you're actually discussing the matter in such a manner. But then, lying is what you do.
"Do you understand the difference?"
Yes. You promote baseless, fact-free personal opinion as legitimate arguments, while I cite actual fact from both Scripture and science. You assert disagreeing in "good faith" implies your opposing opinion is based on either, when it so clearly and obviously doesn't have basis in anything but your personal preference for what reality should be, rather than having any concern for what it is. That might fly in lying lefty circles, but not anywhere actual fact and logic exists.
"Look, let's say I'm right about the obvious notion that LGBTQ folks should have full and free liberty to live their own lives without the religious or political opposition of bigots."
Stop right there. It's never been about pervs living as they choose. It's about pervs asserting legitimacy for their perversion and imposing that falsehood on the general public through laws passed by morally bankrupt legislators or defended as "constitutional" by equally morally bankrupt judges.
"Let's say you are MISTAKEN (and clearly, you are)."
No. Let's not as clearly I am most certainly not mistaken in any way that you've ever been able to demonstrate.
"Does your good-faith sincere belief about opposing human rights for LGBTQ make you a pervert? Or does it just mean you were wrong?"
Neither, because I'm not opposing human rights for anybody. And fuck your "good faith" concerns, as if I'm not expressing truths and facts in support of what I'm actually opposing. You want to try again to describe my position or are you intent on just lying about it?
Good fucking gosh I could not be more clear in expressing myself than I've ever been and still you lie, you pervert@!
"And given the reality that, if you're wrong, that you're actually causing active harm to many people by holding that personal religious opinion... even so, does that make you a pervert, in your mind?"
There's no such reality. I'm not causing any harm at all by defending truth and fact and you've yet to draw any line between doing that and actual harm which resulted from doing so. It's just something you like to say to avoid being truthful, pretending that I'm so stupid as to knuckle under to this crap that truth brings about harm to the perverted. Why do you persist in this perverse lie? When will we see any evidence that truth harms the perverse?
"Maybe so, but you tell me."
No. It means you're a pervert for the mere suggestion that truth harms the perverted.
"IF it turns out you're wrong and you've actively been causing and trying to cause harm to innocent fellow humans, will you eventually feel awful about the harm you've done?"
It can never turn out that way because my position is fully informed and confirmed by honest understandings of both Scripture and science. There's no way you can explain how truth and facts harms your beloved perverts in any way. What's worse is that you won't even try to support that moronic contention, but simply default to it as if it has any leverage in your favor. You're a pervert who defends the ability of perverts to act perversely. You're given over to your corruption. Nothing could be more plain.
"I know that I have felt awful for the active harm I caused when I believed much as you do..."
You've never been anything like me, because I never opposed the perversion which arouses you in the manner you project upon me. My concern for sinners is a Christian concern. Not a worldly self-aggrandizing fake concern as you so clearly promote and project.
"...and I was nowhere as belligerent or hateful as you are with your words and policies you advocate."
You see belligerence where none exists except for that which is focused on your perverse lying and corruption of fact, truth and reality. Indeed...if I'm at all belligerent to anyone, it's no where near as strong as my belligerence toward an inveterate liar and fake Christian such as you.
"Thankfully, there is grace (including the grace of a loving LGBTQ community)"
That's funny. That I should be concerned about "grace" from a community which wallows in perversion, as if my objection to perversion is predicated on their response to that truth. You're a fucking pervert to even suggest such a thing. No homo has anything to fear from me personally, unless that fear is focused on the truth I defend and promote regarding the immorality of their lifestyle choices and their determination to codify their perversions into law, which corrupts young minds. Too fucking bad if they regard that as actual harm. I'm more concerned about the harm to bodies and souls due to living a perverse lifestyle. Sue me, bitch.
"...that forgave me and welcomed me into the beloved community of God."
More humor, in suggesting perverts' opinions are essential to one who claims to care about the Will of God. If the world hates me while I abide God's Will, I'm in a good place. You clearly prefer the adulation of the world over the pleasing of God's Will. Good luck with that, pervert.
"We welcome you to join us, Marshal."
I's rather suffer crucifixion.
" Or at the very least, to stop being so overtly harmful."
No harm results from promoting and defending God's Truth. Rejecting it causes lots of harm to lots of people. Perversion kills.
"Remaining silent is always an option, too."
You might want to STFU then, while I continue proclaiming God's Truth.
"Do you all ever stop to think about how it comes across to the world at large?"
Not really, because you don't represent the "world at large" and you don't do what you demand others do.
"And yet, a man who has been a serial cheater on his wife, who has boasted about sexual assault (and once again, "grab them by the pussy..." IS literally sexual assault), who has laughed and boasted about abusing his power to ogle half-naked teen-aged girls, who has been documented as the most prolific liar to ever serve as president, who is a convicted felon amid a swamp of his supporters and former underlings who are also convicted felons... that you can't call THAT perverse. Heck, Marshal even specifically defends abusing his power and position to ogle half-naked girls as specifically NOT perverse, but just normal."
You'll note what Dan has done here. He was allegedly responding to my point that his claims of marital fidelity do not demonstrate that he is free from perversion. Instead he's moved the goalposts away from his claims about himself and launched into one more attack on Trump. It's strange how he's so quick to attack others to divert from himself.
"I'm "happy with the fraud..."?"
It's hyperbole, you maroon. I know it's more correct to say that you're comfortable with the current level of fraud and that you see no reason for DFL election fraud accusation should be investigated. Or that as long as some small amount of fraud goes your way, you'll just accept it as inevitable and move on.
" The reality is, that little bit of cheating is meaningless."
There we have it. Dan says that cheating in elections is "meaningless". I guess if your vote is of so little value to you that you'll give it away because there's been a "little fraud", that's your prerogative.
"EVERY election expert" (provided Dan defines who is an "election expert" and limits that title to those who say hat he wants to hear) is saying that the data shows we have no serious (as long as election fraud is not "serious" then Dan has no problem with it apparently) election fraud problems... serious, in the sense that it even comes close to impacting an election."
We literally just saw GA acknowledge significant election fraud, and we've seen proof that Dominion lied about the security of their voting machines. We've seen actual video footage of ballot drop boxes being stuffed in NH, but as long as it's not enough to bother Dan, it's perfectly oK with him.
Trump, yesterday:
""You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years and you won't have to do it any more. You know what? It will be fixed, it will be fine, you won't have to vote any more, my beautiful Christians. I love you, Christians. I'm not Christian. I love you. Get out. You gotta get out and vote."
!! HOLY CRAZINESS. Where are my good conservatives? Does ANYONE want to try to make sense of this senility moment?
But good on the age- and wealth-addled Trump for at least finding room in his brain to admit the obvious, "I'm not a Christian." Not a surprise to anyone, but still, significant for his base, one would think.
No more voting? ANYONE want to condemn this or take it on?
However far extremist right you all are, I can't imagine you're okay with the notion of "not having to vote anymore..."
!!!
I mean (and I'm really trying to clean up my language), HOLY SHIT!
I mean, a "slip of the tongue..." ??? But he KEPT saying it and repeating it.
Holy God have Mercy on us all on earth and in heaven and in all possible realities and universes! Can you all at least condemn unequivocally THIS crazy set of comments?
Am I correct in my understanding that Dan thinks that merely holding and expressing the belief that certain behaviors are immoral actively harms those that engage in those behaviors?!
That's a pretext for thought crimes, and I can't imagine he believes that in all cases: Dan surely doesn't believe he's harming politicians merely by denouncing their vices.
The following is from Dan Trabue, submitted on July 27, 2024. I have edited this comment because of Dan's ongoing eagerness to be a turd.
"If a" [Pervert Dan embraces grace here] "tells you he's a sexual predator... IF he boasts and laughs about it, BELIEVE HIM.
If a fan of dictators and strongman authoritarians TELLS you he's wanting a dictatorship, BELIEVE HIM."
My response:
Pervert Dan's pervert friends are serious when they...often proudly... acknowledge their perversion, but Dan doesn't BELIEVE they're perverts. Worse, he pretends they're normal and even Christian. Pervert Dan perverts lewd discussion as an admission of guilt...that Trump has actually engaged in behaviors as he's described during these lewd discussions when obviously it was lighthearted joking around. Pervert Dan perversely needs these ribald expressions to be true to rationalize and justify his church lady panty wetting about Trump.
Pervert Dan perverts Trump's attitude toward dictators and strongman authoritarians and then perverts what was clearly a sarcastic shot at Dem/prog/lefty/marxist (same things) who like to pretend Trump is a dictator. Thus, pervert Dan lies twice here. And note the hypocrisy:
While Christian teaching clearly condemns the perverse sexual behaviors Dan embraces so gracefully, it's indeed true that pervs can also possess traits or abilities worthy of praise. Pervert Dan praises the good deeds of his pervert friends often. But he won't extend that courtesy and graciousness to anyone he opposes, be they Trump, conservatives, or foreign dictators and authoritarians...as if they haven't any notably positive traits at all! Trump's not afraid to express admiration for abilities demonstrated by otherwise contemptible dictators, just as I've expressed praise for the artistic ability of Adolf Hitler or the musical ability of Elton John.
Bubba,
"Am I correct in my understanding that Dan thinks that merely holding and expressing the belief that certain behaviors are immoral actively harms those that engage in those behaviors?!"
Yes. You are indeed correct. When one speaks the truth about the complete and total prohibition against any form of sexually immoral behavior...which is any which is not between one man and one woman married to each other...but specifically about the deviant homosexual variety of which Dan is so enamored, or about that behavior's physical risks well known to the medical community, that leads to some manifestation of physical/mental impairment by those who indulge in such behaviors. It's a fantastic phenomenon! If one speak of these things publicly, those who practice these behaviors who are within earshot suddenly break out in hives, they'll then convulse and lose control of all bodily functions. Cramping and joint pain will result.
It's always seemed a bad ploy for Dan to suggest this crap. Given how nasty his kind get toward Christians and conservatives, it's rather hypocritical. Worse, it ironically supports the contention that these people Dan defends are indeed truly psychologically disordered if hearing truth impacts them negatively. But the harm they "suffer" is guilt. It's a response to the "the truth hurts" reality. What's worse, Dan expects that this will stifle truth. He also believes that we must stifle the truth lest some asshole exploits the truth to rationalize physically attacking the pervs Pervert Dan loves so much. That speaking the truth incites such behavior against Pervert Dan's beloved perverts.
Dan,
You're required to provide links for your quotes and alleged facts. Given your history of dishonesty, the odds that you're perverting quotes and "facts" to deceive are incredibly high. I'm not up for tracking down your info, especially after well known facts I express at your blog results in deletion if they're not supported with evidence. With links, I can then view your quote in the context from which you ripped it...which is what I believe explains why you don't provide links in the first place.
Thus, your comments from July 27, 2024 at 5:11 PM & July 27, 2024 at 5:13 PM are suspect.
I will say that your suggestion that Trump's comments indicate senility is a stretch and another intentional lie. He shows no such signs, and you've said nothing when Biden's been showing many signs of senility since he ran for the 2020 election stolen on behalf of your kind, and likely some time before that as well.
Finally, know that every time you dare invoke the name of God the Father, Son or Holy Ghost here, it's regarded as clearly mockery of Him. You prove constantly you're no Christian.
At some point I'll post the links but we now know to a high degree of certainty that there was fraud/errors in GA and AZ to the tune of over 100,000 votes in each state. Might not have swung the election, but enough to have flipped those two states. We also have virtually indisputable evidence that the Dominion machines are nowhere near as secure as they promised.
These three facts alone should be enough to give a serious look at multiple states, and to ban Dominion machines from being used in the future.
Bubba...
Am I correct in my understanding that Dan thinks that merely holding and expressing the belief that certain behaviors are immoral actively harms those that engage in those behaviors?!
Depends on the behavior and towards whom the "beliefs" are directed and if there is harm involved.
For those who have for centuries denounced "homosexuality" and "transgender people" as deviant, sick, immoral, hell-bound... that very real history of attacks against LGBTQ people HAS resulted in a great deal of harm. People have been beaten to death, murdered, abused, assaulted, imprisoned, kicked out of their families and their churches because of the dominance of that religious message. (Whether from Christians or other extremists).
Do you deny the reality of those centuries of oppression and abuses including right up to today? Because you shouldn't. It's real. It's factual. It's historic.
In that real world context, the continued "expressing" of those personal religious opinions is still causing harm. Still causing attacks against LGBTQ folks. Still resulting in people being kicked out of their homes, families, communities and faith communities.
Do you deny that reality?
The notion that "God is on our side, if you dare to disagree with us and our religious opinions on this matter, you are rejecting "god" and you WILL go to hell." is incredibly toxic and dangerous. Because if "god" is on your side, well, then the atrocities done in "god's" name may be vast and murderous.
So yes, some messages - especially those against traditionally oppressed people - DO literally result in harm to real world humans. Including self-harm, for those poor innocent bystanders who believe "Well, my Mom and pastor must be right. I'm homosexual and I'm transgender, so I must be evil and hell-bound. I may as well do the harm to myself that I 'deserve,' according to these people who are my role models..."
Do you deny that reality?
OF COURSE, those sorts of messages cause harm. The data is indisputable. Now, you can HOLD those messages and opinions in your head and probably cause no harm, but as soon as you start preaching it against people, calling for legislation against those people, kicking those people out of your homes and churches, of course, you're causing harm.
As someone connected to churches that reject that sort of message, we hear all the time about the devastating reports of harm caused by that sort of "expression" you may feel compelled to say because you really believe in it for yourself.
Just like the messages of racism and misogyny and "miscegenation" all caused real world harm.
You can't possibly not know this. However, I do get that you've blinded yourself to this reality.
I remind you of the message from St James:
The tongue is set among our members,staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell.
He recognized the harm caused by the spoken word and he described it as being of "hell."
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Creator,
and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness.
Don't curse your fellow humans, created in God's image. It causes harm.
And just to be clear: ME saying we should not oppress traditionally oppressed people with our words IS NOT "oppressing" you all. Just to head that sort of nonsense off at the pass.
Live and let live, little brothers. If you can't say something nice, then say nothing at all.
Finally, know that every time you dare invoke the name of God the Father, Son or Holy Ghost here, it's regarded as clearly mockery of Him.
Because disagreeing with you in good faith about the nature of God or morality is the same as mocking God?
Little brother, your arms aren't that long.
Release the arrogance. That is the way of the Pharisee, not the Christ.
IN the name of Jesus who came for the least of these, I pray that God almighty opens our eyes to harmful words and actions.
I will say that your suggestion that Trump's comments indicate senility is a stretch and another intentional lie.
It's an opinion, not a lie.
I didn't say that his crazy nutty claims were an indication of senility, just craziness. He's long been clearly emotionally and mentally damaged, so we can't write it off to mere senility. Maybe the age-related declines is making his normal irrational nuttiness worse, but he's always been rationally-impaired.
Ask anyone who's not a blind partisan. Ask experts. Ask educated people who've studied mental illness.
Just don't close your eyes to simple observable reality.
"At some point I'll post the links but we now know to a high degree of certainty that there was fraud/errors in GA and AZ to the tune of over 100,000 votes in each state"
No. You won't. Because it's imaginary. By which I mean to say, it didn't happen in the real world.
I tend to think of you, Craig, as the conservative here most grounded in reality.
Then you make vague casual conspiratorial nutty sort of hints at insane claims like this.
No rational person cares what Trump or Qanon are telling you.
Leave whatever crazy conspiracy silos you're visiting and apologize for these sorts of crazy claims.
Be a better human.
Save yourself.
Dan
Dan has been claiming for quite some time that words, thoughts, or beliefs when expressed can actually cause literal harm to people. He uses this to justify his personal censorship practiced at his blog, and to advocate for censorship (self or official) on a larger scale. Like so many things, when harm can mean virtually everything and anything, it actually means nothing.
Yes, Dan, you and your ilk are weird and not grounded in reality. You want to normalize homosexuality, transgenderism, and drag queens reading story books to children. You are as weird and debased as they come.
I decided to troll Dan in the comments section over here:
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2024/07/kamala-harris-our-next-president.html
He deleted my last comment, and, if Art doesn't mind, I will post it in this thread to bother him:
"I don't care about her educational background or skin color, stupid. Her ideas are bad for this country. Kamala may not be stupid, but she is a loon. Your long-winded, whiney replies show that my comments do indeed hit your nerves. I am so amazed by your godliness and humility, that I almost apologized for my naughtiness."
Dan has been claiming for quite some time that words, thoughts, or beliefs when expressed can actually cause literal harm to people.
Well, I know objectively that some words DO cause harm because I have objectively been around the victims of those words. One can't oppress people (people of color, women, LGBTQ folks) for centuries and then drop back to "only" trying to oppress them by words and actions like kicking them out of homes and churches, and then claim, "Where's the harm?"
The harm is in being disenfranchised. The harm is being literally demonized. The harm is being rejected by your family and your church (synagogue, mosque)... THESE are the people who should love you most and be on your side the most. When your beloved community rejects you and not only rejects you, but assures you (tries to) that you're a disappointment to God, that you're evil, that you're an abomination, that you are not fully a human, etc, etc, etc... it causes harm. Telling women what medical decisions that they must make (or face criminal action) has led to physical harm. Threatening transgender youth and their parents with prison for the "crime" of being trans causes harm. Denying people their human rights is by definition, harm.
Shall I provide the data and research? Or will it matter to you all?
You see, the difference is: If YOU don't want an abortion, literally no one cares and you can make your own decision. But at least in some states, if a woman and her family and medical team think an abortion is the best thing, you all want to prevent it.
In the recent past: IF you didn't want to marry a guy, you didn't have to. BUT, if a gay guy wanted to marry a guy, they couldn't. Nor could they even be open about who they are. That causes harm. In our past and in other nations now, IF you are outed as gay, you risk being imprisoned and possibly harmed. IF conservatives were fully in control again, there is a real likelihood that they would remove the right to marry from LGBTQ folks.
IF you are not transgender and don't want to change your gender, literally no one cares and you don't have to. BUT, if the conservatives have their way, if you are a transgender youth, YOU all want to tell them what they can and can not do.
You see, the main difference is in control. We are fine with live and let live. You make your decisions and we'll make ours. But that's not the way of the MAGA GOP and much of conservative religionist history. You all want to make your decisions AND force your opinions on others.
That's the problem. "Only words..."? Well, that causes harm, too. But we're not saying you can't THINK bigoted, disenfranchising, harmful thoughts, just that you keep it to yourself.
Live and let live. Or, as some might say, Grace.
August 1, 2024 at 5:11 PM
Bubba asked...
"Am I correct in my understanding that Dan thinks that merely holding and expressing the belief that certain behaviors are immoral actively harms those that engage in those behaviors?!"
To which Dan responded:
"Depends on the behavior and towards whom the "beliefs" are directed and if there is harm involved."
No. No it doesn't. It matters not what behavior is regarded as immoral, nor to whom the expression of that belief is directed. No harm is inflicted on anyone by expressing beliefs. Period.
"For those who have for centuries denounced "homosexuality" and "transgender people" as deviant, sick, immoral, hell-bound..."
Such as God, Christ, St. Paul and millions and millions of people truly devoted to the faith such that they actually put the faith above their own personal desires, compulsions and temptations.
"... that very real history of attacks against LGBTQ people HAS resulted in a great deal of harm."
Uh...no. Dan's suggesting that speaking the truth as so clearly, unequivocally and unambiguously revealed in Scripture is an "attack". That's like preaching against theft and murder is an attack.
"People have been beaten to death, murdered, abused, assaulted, imprisoned, kicked out of their families and their churches because of the dominance of that religious message. (Whether from Christians or other extremists)."
First, in Dan's well known desire to over-hype to his advantage, he lists "beaten to death" and "murder" as two different things, then follows up that abuse and assault with "abuse" and "assault". He could simply have said that perverts have been assaulted merely for being perverted, often to the point of death. Dan loves to pad his lists so as to project the notion that he has more of an argument than he does.
Secondly, this quote of Dan's is meant to imply that all harm inflicted upon his beloved deviants could only possibly be the consequence of actual Christians preaching God's Truth about the abominable degree of sinfulness of the deviant sexual behavior in which they indulge. That is to say, that no one who is totally without knowledge of God or His Will couldn't possibly be opposed to the practice of the deviant sexual behavior of those who indulge in it...that they wouldn't find it the abnormal behavior it is and act upon that alone. No. Dan's heresy requires that speaking the Truth is a great danger to those who reject it. Well, it is, but in more of an eternal consequence.
"Do you deny the reality of those centuries of oppression and abuses including right up to today? Because you shouldn't. It's real. It's factual. It's historic."
I most certainly deny Dan's understanding and portrayal of it. It's tainted by his own perverse love of perversion.
"In that real world context, the continued "expressing" of those personal religious opinions is still causing harm. Still causing attacks against LGBTQ folks. Still resulting in people being kicked out of their homes, families, communities and faith communities."
This is an abject lie. No harm whatsoever is caused by speaking God's Truth about prohibited behaviors. None. What's more, no one has ever been "kicked out of their homes, families, communities and faith communities". We know this to be true based only on the fact that after repeated requests to hear from those who allegedly did the kicking, those requests remain unfulfilled. An anecdote:
As a young lad in my teen years, I was quite the rascal to say the least. I did not obey my widowed mother as regards the rules of her house, as they "cramped my style". I liked the nightlife...I loved to boogie, to put it one way. I had my own limitations, lines I wouldn't cross, but I crossed Ma's quite a bit. She cast me out on more than one occasion despite my pleas to the contrary. But did she cast me out for my infractions? For any specific deed I indulged? Only for one...my refusal to repent and behave as she believed was most appropriate and as well as for order in her home. It's very similar to God's Will in the sense that His home (the universe) has expectations for behavior, too, and He likewise will cast out those who reject His Will.
This is what is preached to Dan's beloved rebels and it is most likely, if not always, their refusal to abide His Will which eventually sees them cast out as the unrepentant reprobates they are. Then they run off to Jeff St where they say, "Don't worry! We welcome the sinner to come among us and continue sinning any old way the sinner prefers! We'll say those mean old Christians are extremists and meanies!"
"Do you deny that reality?"
Again, I deny Dan's perversion of it.
"The notion that "God is on our side, if you dare to disagree with us and our religious opinions on this matter, you are rejecting "god" and you WILL go to hell." is incredibly toxic and dangerous. Because if "god" is on your side, well, then the atrocities done in "god's" name may be vast and murderous."
This conflates all who insist their understanding of God's Will is true. It's done purposely in defense of the indefensible. And again, as has been said and proven before, I do not insist anyone is in disagreement with me, as if I made up the rules, as if I've altered God's Will in any way based on how Scripture presents it so clearly and unambiguously to us. To any who suggest that God's Will includes enabling, supporting, celebrating and defending behavior God clearly prohibited without caveat or exception...that is, those like Dan..., it is they who are imposing their will, not respecting and abiding God's. Indeed, Dan is no different and clearly no better than any others who claim the title "Christian" but acts in a manner in conflict with that clearly revealed Will, such as actually harming others out of animus.
"So yes, some messages - especially those against traditionally oppressed people - DO literally result in harm to real world humans."
So no, no message of truth regarding behaviors result in harm simply because those who indulge the behaviors are suffering harm. The real harm is in suggesting this lie is a reality. It is meant to stifle the Truth and in doing so, tolerance of evil behavior becomes more widespread and the evil behavior is indulged more than it would otherwise have been with the Truth preached and observed.
"Including self-harm, for those poor innocent bystanders who believe "Well, my Mom and pastor must be right. I'm homosexual and I'm transgender, so I must be evil and hell-bound. I may as well do the harm to myself that I 'deserve,' according to these people who are my role models...""
Do you deny that reality?"
The reality is that homosexuals who respond in that manner are merely validating the truth that they are disordered people who need God's Truth more than fake Christians like Dan are willing to provide. Dan likes to pretend he cares about the needy. Who's more needy than one who risks their salvation in the belief that their sinful behavior isn't sinful and therefore must be avoided for that one's own sake and for God's Glory?
"OF COURSE, those sorts of messages cause harm."
OF COURSE they don't.
"The data is indisputable."
What "data"? Dan's never provided any such data which draws a direct and unmistakable line between preaching God's Truth and harm to those who reject that Truth. Indeed, Dan has no such data to present because none exists. That's just Dan bloviating.
But let's say such data does exist, and the preaching of God's clearly revealed Will about the abomination of sexually deviant behavior Dan loves so much results in harm to those who indulge in that abomination. Are we to believe that we must never preach the Will of God? I know later Dan will pervert a few passages to suggest this crap, but perversion is Dan's thing. The problem isn't the preaching. The problem is in those who don't like what is preached.
"Now, you can HOLD those messages and opinions in your head and probably cause no harm, but as soon as you start preaching it against people, calling for legislation against those people, kicking those people out of your homes and churches, of course, you're causing harm."
This is like saying jailing thieves and murderers is causing harm to thieves and murderers. It's absurd and the level of depravity of Dan's perversion. And to dare suggest that we must keep our thoughts to ourselves, when what we're thinking is absolute goodness and truth is taking his depravity to an extreme. He's gonna have to go pound sand up his ass despite his head taking up so much room there.
"As someone connected to churches that reject that sort of message,"
Like the heretical Jeff St church Dan attends.
"...we hear all the time about the devastating reports of harm caused by that sort of "expression" you may feel compelled to say because you really believe in it for yourself."
First of all, you hear all the time one side of the story. You never hear the other side because you never freaking seek it out. You're too into sexual perversion to even want to know.
Secondly, we feel compelled because we see people running hard to perdition, enabled by heretics concerned more with posturing as Christian than with actually being Christian...which is harder.
"Just like the messages of racism and misogyny and "miscegenation" all caused real world harm."
None of those messages equate to the Truth of which I speak. Indeed, Dan's doing what those people are doing...preaching perversions of the Truth...and any harm which results in on Dan and other heretics and lovers of sexually deviant behaviors.
"You can't possibly not know this. However, I do get that you've blinded yourself to this reality."
To Dan, abiding God's Will, and encouraging others to do so as well, is "blinding" one's self to Dan's perversion of reality. And what follows is where Dan perverts Scripture to stifle the Truth and perversely paint the preaching of it as doing harm to others:
"I remind you of the message from St James:
The tongue is set among our members,staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell.
He recognized the harm caused by the spoken word and he described it as being of "hell.""
Dan needs to prove or provide evidence which suggests that James was decrying those who preach the Word of God.
"With the tongue we praise our Lord and Creator,
and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness."
Preaching God's Will is not "cursing" human beings. It is leading them to salvation. Stifling the preaching of God's Will by perverting Scripture is enabling their path to perdition.
"Don't curse your fellow humans, created in God's image. It causes harm."
Again, Dan equates preaching God's Truth as cursing others and harmful. How perverse!
"And just to be clear: ME saying we should not oppress traditionally oppressed people with our words IS NOT "oppressing" you all. Just to head that sort of nonsense off at the pass."
But it's definitely "suppressing" those who speak the truth, and such an attitude has indeed led to oppressive behavior, as merchants have been forced to promote the vile message Dan preaches about deviant sexual behavior or suffer civil penalties. Others have faced retribution for failing or refusing to use "preferred pronouns" and other absurdities. The bottom line here is Dan promotes sin and attacks as hateful those who promote the Will of God.
"Live and let live, little brothers. If you can't say something nice, then say nothing at all."
Says the guy who calls us "little" brothers while insisting we're hateful for preaching the Will of God...that preaching the Will of God is now somehow no longer a "nice" thing to say and mustn't be said. So here's something "nice". IF Dan would once and for all pull his head out of his ass and actually become the Christian he only pretends to be, his future will be wonderfully enhanced by doing so.
August 1, 2024 at 5:13 PM
I said...
"Finally, know that every time you dare invoke the name of God the Father, Son or Holy Ghost here, it's regarded as clearly mockery of Him."
Dan responded...
"Because disagreeing with you in good faith about the nature of God or morality is the same as mocking God?"
Dan's not disagreeing with me. Dan's disagreeing with God's Will as so clearly and unequivocally presented in Scripture. Dan's never provided factual evidence from Scripture to support his perversions of it as possibly being truer or more accurate understandings. Dan merely asserts that what I present is false because it's not convenient for him otherwise. And given how often he perverts Scripture, and given how it's ultimately God's decision, I find it hard to believe that Christ will not one day say to Dan, "I never knew you". For one like Dan who embraces so much which is so much in conflict with God's Will, his invoking of God's Holy Name is a mockery.
"Little brother, your arms aren't that long."
It's not much of a reach, weak sister.
"Release the arrogance."
I'm not "arrogant" because I stand by the Truth I repeat. You're arrogant for asserting it isn't without legitimate supporting evidence.
"That is the way of the Pharisee, not the Christ."
The way of the Pharisees was Oral Law, not the Written Law given Moses by the Father. Christ cited only the Written Law, which is what I do. What you do is to pervert the Written Law as the Pharisees did.
"IN the name of Jesus who came for the least of these, I pray that God almighty opens our eyes to harmful words and actions."
Except for those times I refer to you as a fucking moron, or a dumbass, my eyes are wide open enough to see a liar and a pervert like you. Hell...I could be totally blind and not miss that which is so blatantly obvious. You might want to pray for your own eyes to be opened...or simply not squeeze them shut to the obvious Truth on which you piss.
August 1, 2024 at 5:52 PM
I said...
"I will say that your suggestion that Trump's comments indicate senility is a stretch and another intentional lie."
To which Dan replied...
"It's an opinion, not a lie."
That's funny coming from a guy who calls Trump a liar when most of what are referred to by lying leftists as "lies" are no more than Trump's opinions. But you stated your "opinion" as if fact. It follows after this next lie:
"I didn't say that his crazy nutty claims were an indication of senility, just craziness."
You clearly said ("asked", actually), "Does ANYONE want to try to make sense of this senility moment?" Again, this implies that he's actually senile. How does one who is not senile have a "senility moment"?
"He's long been clearly emotionally and mentally damaged, so we can't write it off to mere senility. Maybe the age-related declines is making his normal irrational nuttiness worse, but he's always been rationally-impaired."
This is just the ranting of a clearly emotionally and mentally damaged Dan Trabue who believes himself able to diagnose what he in fact is actually projecting onto the man he hates as all good grace embracers do.
"Ask anyone who's not a blind partisan."
More projection. We have three presidential records to compare and I choose the one whose record was beneficially effective for all Americans, not the two buffoons Dan stupidly insists are better people and presidents than Trump. This isn't blindness on Dan's part. It's stupidity and/or willful dishonesty.
"Ask experts. Ask educated people who've studied mental illness."
Dan needs to find me one who has actually diagnosed Trump in person, rather than from afar. He cites those who share Dan's grace embracing animus toward Trump and pretends they're objective professionals.
"Just don't close your eyes to simple observable reality."
I haven't. I can clearly see that Donald Trump is the best president we've had in many decades. He clearly surpassed Obama in half the time and Biden/Harris have been complete clusterfucks. THAT is the blatant reality. Stop lying.
August 1, 2024 at 9:31 PM
This is Dan's response to Craig, which I'll let Craig handle on his own. Dan's response is filled with hot air, but no substance whatsoever. It's another example of his standard "Nyuh uh" reply.
Dan simply rejects all evidence as "insufficient" for resulting in a false win for Biden. There's been so many types of evidence brought to bear, most all of it never legitimately adjudicated, much less scrutinized honestly. At some point, one must face the facts that constant dismissal of each and ever example actually indicates there was quite enough to result in Trump being robbed of his rightful second term.
But Dan's a liar and a coward with no evidence to respond to charges of fraud and irregularities and interference. He just says, "Nyuh uh".
Dan needs to find me one who has actually diagnosed Trump in person, rather than from afar.
Of course, in the real world, reasonable diagnoses CAN be made from afar in at least extreme cases.
IF there is a loud POP as if a gun going off
and IF a man falls to the ground and blood starts oozing from his chest
and IF there's a bullet-shaped hole in his shirt that anyone can see from afar, along with the blood coming from said hole, along with the obvious physical the stricken man appears to be in
THEN, even from afar, EVEN a non-expert can reasonably say, "This man has something wrong with him... perhaps that was a bullet shot and he's been shot. Or stabbed, but clearly, he's having a medical problem right now..."
Like that. If the symptoms are obvious and extreme enough, if the known data is out there for all to see, then even from afar, experts can make reasonable rudimentary diagnoses... as could even relatively informed non-experts.
Your candidate is oozing blood and it can be seen by all but those who deliberately blind themselves.
Look, you are aware that people can be conned... can be taken in by tyrants and convinced to believe awful, false things, right? That IS a real-world phenomenon you are aware of, right?
How do you know you are not one who's been conned?
Hitler had people convinced that Jewish people, the media, black people and LGBTQ people were the enemy of the state. He was able to convince a whole nation to go along with atrocities in the name of these clearly false claims.
If it could happen then, how do you know you haven't been conned today?
"Dan simply rejects all evidence as "insufficient" for resulting in a false win for Biden..."
Dan listens to election experts. Across the political spectrum. According to all the actual experts Across the political spectrum, there was no problems with our elections. To the degree we've had .01% of problems, it tended to Trump supporters voting twice or something like that. Not sure why that's hard to understand.
The data is what the data is. The actual experts are saying what the actual experts are saying.
You'll have to excuse me if I listen to experts and not Giuliani and other goofballs.
Dan
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4385239-voter-data-expert-trump-campaign-2020-election-not-stolen/amp/
I can clearly see that Donald Trump is the best president we've had in many decades.
So, Marshal thinks in his head that according to him in his opinion Trump is not only a fair to middling president, he's the "best president" in "many decades."
On the other hand, dozens (hundreds? thousands??) of expert historians, scholars, presidential researchers, etc, etc, etc from ACROSS the political spectrum think that not only is Trump one of the worst presidents in "many decades," but one of the worst (if not THE worst) in all of US history.
Who has more credibility?
Be serious. You're entirely welcome to think irrational, unsupported thoughts, but you can't ask the rest of us to ignore expert opinion from across the political spectrum to go along with your personal hunches.
That's simply not credible.
Dan, I appreciate your confirming what I thought you meant.
If you really want people to live by, "If you can't say something nice, then say nothing at all," then you should at least try to live by the motto yourself. On top of your unhinged ranting about Trump, you should drop the condescension of that "little brothers" crap and not accuse me of having "blinded" myself to reality.
(And about "reality," again you have one set of standards for yourself and one for others: you crown yourself the arbiter of reality while everyone else only has their opinions and hunches.)
You're not really asking to "live and let live" when you think people should suppress their sincerely held beliefs on religion and morality, and I think it's entirely fair to be wary of where your train of thought leads.
"And just to be clear: ME saying we should not oppress traditionally oppressed people with our words IS NOT 'oppressing' you all. Just to head that sort of nonsense off at the pass."
You believe that expressing certain beliefs regarding morality is ITSELF harmful, and the obvious conclusion is that things that cause harm should be criminalized, is it not?
Here you've JUST argued that words can be oppressive. It's inconvenient to you to point out that your words could qualify, too, but what makes that nonsense? Saying it's nonsense does not make it so.
---
You quote James, who also wrote, "You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God."
And, "each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death."
These sorts of warnings are evidently not inconsistent with his warnings about the tongue and about cursing others. James does not prohibit us from repeating what we sincerely believe to be God's will regarding human behavior.
A half-dozen swing states simultaneously stopped counting votes on election night, when Trump was ahead on all counts. When they resumed, Biden gained an immediate lead and never looked back. That EXTREMELY suspicious chain of events has never been adequately explained: being told to shut up doesn't count.
Dan, as a follow-up, I would ask your thoughts on I Corinthians 6, specifically an abridged take on 6:9-10, where I omit the most contentious item from the list to focus on other items.
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers... nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Paul's assertion IS consistent with the Sermon on the Mount, where...
- Jesus taught that one's righteousness must exceed those of the Pharisees in order to enter the kingdom of heaven (Mt 5:20)
- Jesus equated mere lust and outright adultery (5:27-28)
- and Jesus taught the path is broad AND heavily traveled that leads to destruction (7:13)
But it seems your argument is that we must not believe Paul (or at least, repeat Paul) if the groups he criticizes have been harmed through social stigma and other means.
Idolators, adulterers, and thieves.
Idolators have been frequently persecuted in monoculturally Christian communities, and even today there remains a stigma around being a Wiccan or neo-pagan.
(Should there not be a stigma around practicing a false religion?)
Adulterers have historically been shunned with that scarlet letter.
And thieves have been arrested and even killed: horse thieves were summarily hanged in the Old West.
I asked if holding and expressing the belief that a certain behavior is immoral is harmful. Your answer can easily be adjusted to include other behaviors.
"Depends on the behavior and towards whom the 'beliefs' are directed and if there is harm involved.
"For those who have for centuries denounced [theft] and [thieves] as deviant, sick, immoral, hell-bound..."
("Will not inherit the kingdom of God" is how Paul put it.)
"...that very real history of attacks against [kleptomaniacs] HAS resulted in a great deal of harm. People have been beaten to death, murdered, abused, assaulted, imprisoned, kicked out of their families and their churches because of the dominance of that religious message. (Whether from Christians or other extremists)."
Historically thieves have been treated AT LEAST as poorly as homosexuals.
QUESTION: Why does your argument not work for thieves? Or idolators? Or adulterers? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
More specifically, what's the difference for Christians, since against all evidence you continue to insist to be a Christian disciple? It's not enough to have a moral philosophy that determines theft to be wrong as a matter of human property rights, Christians believe that morality is most fundamentally about God's will and not man's rights.
"The notion that 'God is on our side, if you dare to disagree with us and our religious opinions on this matter, you are rejecting "god" and you WILL go to hell.' is incredibly toxic and dangerous."
("Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." How very toxic!)
Can God reveal to us that some seemingly harmless behaviors are outside His will for our lives? Has He not done so? Do we not have a responsibility to believe God, both by accepting that revelation for ourselves AND by sharing it with others?
I was under the impression that we were under strict orders to teach others all that Jesus commanded us, but your approach undermines those orders as you argue that obedience is harmful, toxic, and dangerous.
August 2, 2024 at 4:05 PM
"Of course, in the real world, reasonable diagnoses CAN be made from afar in at least extreme cases."
No they can't. They aren't diagnoses which would survive judicial scrutiny, nor the scrutiny of even the leftist psychological associations bigwigs. It's not professional and it's far less credible than on-site analyses. That is, you're speaking of a field of "expertise" which isn't precise up close and personal and you want to pretend that armchair assholes can provide credible analyses watching TV in their shorts. But hey! If it's Trump they're diagnosing as mentally unstable, it's all good to you asshole Trump-haters. Geez! Christians don't do such things. Indeed, as far as that goes, you've provided a veritable cornucopia of evidence that your claim of being Christian is a steaming pile of feo.
"IF there is a loud POP as if a gun going off
and IF a man falls to the ground and blood starts oozing from his chest
and IF there's a bullet-shaped hole in his shirt that anyone can see from afar, along with the blood coming from said hole, along with the obvious physical the stricken man appears to be in
THEN, even from afar, EVEN a non-expert can reasonably say, "This man has something wrong with him... perhaps that was a bullet shot and he's been shot. Or stabbed, but clearly, he's having a medical problem right now...""
Dan's asocial inability to author an intelligent analogy rears it's ugly head yet again. This is absurd. There's no comparison between seeing an injury inflicted upon a person versus your subjective choice to describe Trump in the most grace embracing manner any non-Christian hater could, while pretending it's a serious and objective observation. Lie much? Of course you do. Joe Biden would be proud!
"Like that. If the symptoms are obvious and extreme enough, if the known data is out there for all to see, then even from afar, experts can make reasonable rudimentary diagnoses... as could even relatively informed non-experts."
What you laughingly refer to as "known data" is in fact, hateful subjective opinion about someone you so clearly hate with all your worthless being.
"Your candidate is oozing blood and it can be seen by all but those who deliberately blind themselves."
My candidate oozes an obvious love of country and it's people. He oozes leadership and the willingness to risk to serve this country and fellow Americans. This has been patently obvious since he was inaugurated back in 2017. The only people who see what you see are simply other Trump-hating assholes who don't actually see such things...unless they're emotionally damaged...but project those things out of rank animus.
"Look, you are aware that people can be conned... can be taken in by tyrants and convinced to believe awful, false things, right?"
Yes. You're obvious proof of that.
"How do you know you are not one who's been conned?"
Because I've not lost a thing while he was president, and he's gained nothing from me for his work aside from my gratitude at his serving well and reversing a great deal of the shitshow Obama had made of this country. Cost of living was low. Inflation was tiny. My wages increased and many who struggled to find work found all manner of it. The economy was booming and far fewer invaders were traipsing across our border unencumbered by overworked border patrol/immigration officials. No wars broke out or other invasions took place during his time in office. ISIS and other enemies were made more impotent, others where wary of Trump's willingness to slap the piss out of them. Decent...though not good enough...justices were placed on the SCOTUS and others throughout the federal court system, such that the US Constitution is followed more properly and accurately. This is by no means an exhaustive list and yet you want to pretend I'm "conned" by acknowledging and appreciating his good work? You're a moron.
"Hitler had people convinced that Jewish people, the media, black people and LGBTQ people were the enemy of the state. He was able to convince a whole nation to go along with atrocities in the name of these clearly false claims."
He'd love the Democrat Party. Shit! He did love the Democrat Party and got ideas from watching two of the biggest socialists in American history at that point in time, Wilson and FDR!
Trump has only spoken of the leftwing media assholes as enemies of the people and he absolutely wasn't the first to easily identify them as such. But the radical leftists encouraged by your Dem party assholes have wrought all manner of atrocity in this nation...from murdering innocent people in utero, to destroying cities and properties and lives in response to the deaths of thugs in police custody, under the lie that cops target innocent angelic black dudes because they're black dudes. You've allowed criminals, terrorists and lethal drugs into the country to harm Americans. Trump does not go far enough in identifying the enemies of the people. You're among them and your party of choice is your overlords.
"If it could happen then, how do you know you haven't been conned today?"
Because I'm not a dumbfuck leftist from Louisville, KY who asks clearly dishonest and stupid questions like that.
August 2, 2024 at 7:48 PM
"Dan listens to election experts."
Dan listens to whomever says what he wants to hear. He listens to other morons in positions of authority or power and believes them because the truth is inconvenient. He listens to those who seek to cover their own incompetence.
"Across the political spectrum. According to all the actual experts Across the political spectrum, there was no problems with our elections."
Even if I choose to pretend all such "experts" aren't Trump-hating assholes who aren't willing to allow him to be robbed, there's way too much to pretend that the election was legitimate and that those who claim it was as pure as the driven snow aren't necessarily doing the job to confirm that as they should or are even able.
"To the degree we've had .01% of problems, it tended to Trump supporters voting twice or something like that. Not sure why that's hard to understand."
This is rank bullshit. This is Dan asserting a reality he wishes existed, not a fact he can come close to validating.
"The data is what the data is. The actual experts are saying what the actual experts are saying."
The data goes beyond what your "experts" choose to examine. I refer once again to the Hunter Biden laptop story and how three separate surveys indicate enough people admitting they'd not have voted for Biden had they been aware of the story Biden & Co worked to suppress and succeeded in doing so. The survey with the smallest percentage of those who would not have voted for Biden still reduced his popular vote total to below what Trump's total was. To pretend that wouldn't have flipped a state or two...maybe three... and given Trump the Electoral win requires the level of intellectual bankruptcy and corruption only a lefty possesses. Add to that the several states who altered their election procedures without their legislatures approving and you can write off at least another three or more swing states from the Electoral total. Note that I haven't gotten to the more blatant acts of fake ballots, ballots "lost" or destroyed, double voting, dead people voting and the plethora of other methods so common to the Democrat party for over one hundred years.
"You'll have to excuse me if I listen to experts and not Giuliani and other goofballs."
I don't excuse assholes who are so willing and eager to tolerate electoral abuses of very kind so long as Trump is victimized by it. Now, the entire fucking country has been victimized because of assholes like you.
August 2, 2024 at 7:50 PM
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4385239-voter-data-expert-trump-campaign-2020-election-not-stolen/amp/"
The first problem with this is the assumption that because a person or organization was hired by the Trump campaign, then they are pro-Trump people willing to put their own animosity aside for the cause of truth, justice and the American way.
The second is that your link does not provide the details of this guy's methodology. In the meantime, I have a guy who explains his methods in great detail, and what follows is just a snippet of how they are being done in several states now to reduce the many problems which resulted in the 2020 election being stolen from Trump:
https://www.omega4america.com/so-who-really-won-georgia-in-2020/
I chose this particular example from the site for two reasons:
1. It validates my belief, compelled by articles from other sources, that Georgia was one of several states who's slate of Electors should not have been certified, and their number removed from the totals for the candidates. This points to one of the concerns of the Trump team, though I don't know if they were aware of what this group found. But it does validate that there were far more than enough to have rendered the Georgia count illegitimate and thrown out or a new vote taken with the problems rectified. Since the latter required more time and money, the result is that the Georgia election should have been tossed as illegitimate by their own law.
2. It speaks to a method which has been used for other purposes and has been proven effective in a way traditional methods have no ability of being. If you take the time to watch the video (I've no confidence you have the integrity to do so, nor to do so with an open, honest mind), you'll see why your "experts" aren't as expert as you so desperately need them to be.
Now, it should be said, because it wouldn't be totally honest if it wasn't, that what this group has found in Georgia and other states doesn't necessarily indicate criminal intent on the part of every voter whose vote should be considered invalid by Georgia law, but that such things happen all too frequently and manipulation is far more commonplace than leftist assholes pretend, and was indeed a factor in the 2020 being stolen from Trump. Said another way, intentionally or not, the election was absolutely stolen.
You don't care. Trump lost and that's all that matters despite the fact that when he did, so did we.
August 2, 2024 at 9:05 PM
"So, Marshal thinks in his head that according to him in his opinion Trump is not only a fair to middling president, he's the "best president" in "many decades.""
No. I Know in my head and heart that Trump is the best president we've had in many decades. All measures bear that out as I pointed out two comments ago. Those aren't "in my head". They're what's been recorded as true and factual. Data, as it were. But it's enough for me to say that he was head and shoulders better than Obama, accomplishing on behalf of We The People more than twice as much as Obama thought possible in half the time as that empty suit. And Harris/Biden isn't even worth the effort to compare, so damaging to our nation as they've been. A person has to be an absolute lying dumbfuck to suggest otherwise. No person can make a legit argument to the contrary without lying. That's where you come in.
"On the other hand, dozens (hundreds? thousands??) of expert historians, scholars, presidential researchers, etc, etc, etc from ACROSS the political spectrum think that not only is Trump one of the worst presidents in "many decades," but one of the worst (if not THE worst) in all of US history."
You're basing this on one...maybe two...surveys which I've clearly demonstrated to nothing to compare presidents on the basis of the benefits to America of their policies. Those you've cited in links were laughable and did not even constitute a third of all historians, scholars, researchers, etc., etc., and assumes that because some of the identified as Republican or conservative that it means they're not Trump-hating assholes, too. But now that you've found that spurious "survey of experts", it's gospel truth based on their low regard for Trump. But again, as I've pointed out before, anyone who ranks Trump lower than William Henry Harrison is an "expert" of no integrity. Shit. I'll take on any of those assholes in a debate about why Trump should be in the top half of all presidents, if not higher.
"Who has more credibility?"
Honest people. Not your Trump-hating "experts". And certainly not a perv like you.
"Be serious. You're entirely welcome to think irrational, unsupported thoughts, but you can't ask the rest of us to ignore expert opinion from across the political spectrum to go along with your personal hunches."
Sure I can when your "experts" never mention facts about policies and their impact. And to be even more serious, I don't expect lying assholes like you to let facts get in the way of "expert" testimony about that which has no bearing on the true value of any president. Again, your surveys are crap.
Ah, Bubba my friend,
You absence from these here blogs over the last year or two has served you well. You return to say much of what I've said repeatedly over the years and a far more Christian manner than I'm wiling to extend to a proven reprobate. Good on you. I hope it wears slowly.
This is why you're missed.
Thanks, Marshal, much appreciated! I genuinely don't have the bandwidth to make commenting a habit again, but I do wonder just how far Dan is willing to go down his own personal rabbit hole.
Bubba:
Historically thieves have been treated AT LEAST as poorly as homosexuals.
QUESTION: Why does your argument not work for thieves? Or idolators? Or adulterers? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
Are you actually serious?
What is the difference between thieves and LGBTQ folks? Well, thieves are actively causing harm and LGBTQ folks are doing no harm to no one.
THAT is the difference.
As to the rest of your examples, we err in our thinking we treat the Bible as a rule or rulings book. I believe you all (and me, once upon a time) thought, If we can just find a clear ruling or statement about an action in the pages of the Bible, we have objective proof of immoral behavior.
But no, that's not what the Bible is.
If the Bible were a moral rules book, it would be a pisspoor one. The biblical authors allow that enslaving people is a moral option... that selling one's daughter into a forced marriage is a moral option... that stoning people caught in adultery is a moral option.
There are an endless number of problems associated with trying to treat the Bible as a rule book. It's not. It's just not. The Bible never tells you it's a rule book and God hasn't told you all that. It's a religious tradition some humans have developed, and if you all hold that opinion, then you're welcome to that personal opinion so long as you don't harm someone in the process.
Stoning adulterers to death is a moral wrong.
Thievery is wrong, because it causes harm.
Imprisoning people because of their sexual orientation is wrong.
Even if your far right religious opinions (Christian or Muslim or otherwise) believes it's right, you don't get to push those opinions off on other people when it causes harm.
In the real world, LGBTQ have endured centuries of abuse just for being who they are.
Thieves have not been oppressed because of who they are. They've been caught and punished when they caused harm to others.
Adulterers, by and large, have not been oppressed because of who they are or even for their adultery. At least not in centuries... except in some more conservative extremist religious areas of the world.
Understand the distinction?
We should not create laws that punish people just for being who they are, loving who they love, so long as they are causing no harm. That is an abusive/oppressive religious approach and THAT actually has caused harm, is still causing harm.
We should not create laws that dictate to women what medical decisions they make. That causes harm. EVEN IF some religious people believe that in their religious opinions, more weight should be given to the fetus than the mother, it's harmful to allow religions to force others who don't share their opinions when it can and does cause harm.
You are free to follow your religion. You are not free to harm others in the name of your religion.
Marshal...
He'd [Hitler] love the Democrat Party. Shit! He did love the Democrat Party and got ideas from watching two of the biggest socialists in American history at that point in time, Wilson and FDR!
It's ironic. Historians consistently place FDR in the top three best presidents in US history and Wilson has tended to either be in the top ten or the top 15.
Trump, on the other hand, is universally reviled as one of the worst presidents in US history.
ALL of this is according to historians across the political spectrum.
Scholars and historians recognize that part of Trump's problem is his tilt towards authoritarianism, his demonization of immigrants, LGBTQ folks and women... all having much in common with Hitler.
So you demonize some of our best presidents and prop up/defend/vote for/promote one of our worst, according to scholars.
You know, sometimes experts are actually pretty correct and sometimes, folks who aren't expert just can't accurately see the big picture and can be terribly wrong.
Bubba...
You believe that expressing certain beliefs regarding morality is ITSELF harmful, and the obvious conclusion is that things that cause harm should be criminalized, is it not?
That's not my opinion. There may be times - using words to incite riots and cause threats to people is already a crime as it should be - when it should be so, but there are many factors involved.
I do think, generally speaking, intentionally causing or provoking harm to innocent people is a bad thing and should have consequences.
Do you not agree?
Bubba...
But it seems your argument is that we must not believe Paul (or at least, repeat Paul) if the groups he criticizes have been harmed through social stigma and other means.
My opinion is that we ought not cause intentional harm to innocent people. Holding people accountable for causing harm is not causing harm, it's holding people accountable.
That seems obvious and straightforward. Do you disagree?
So, obviously, LGBTQ folks being themselves, getting married, having children, being transgender, dressing in whatever clothes they want... these things do not cause harm to others, they don't harm you.
If you had the power and the votes, would you criminalize/make it impossible for LGBTQ folks to get married again? Would you criminalize them making their own medical decisions about their bodies, as many conservatives are trying to do? Would you block LGBTQ folks from adopting or otherwise having children? Would you ban drag shows? Ban books in schools about the LGBTQ experience or just featuring LGBTQ characters/stories?
Do you see how them being themselves causes you no harm, but people like you trying to impose their religious beliefs on others - and with the force of law - that DOES cause harm. It is an affront to human rights and human dignity and removes levels of self-determination. Do you see the difference between the two things?
Consider the religious extremist parents who are personally "affronted" that libraries have books with gay characters or themes. Now, they have the right to be personally offended. They even have the right to say, "I don't want my child to check out that book."
But once they move from there to, "AND, I don't want ANY children to be able to check out that book..." THAT is the moment they move from their own personal freedom to oppression and harm.
Do you agree? Would you speak out to such religionists to tell them to stop their harmful words and attempted policies?
Data on the Big Lie so many marks and useful idiots purchased...
"The various claims of evidence alleging a stolen 2020 election have been exhaustively investigated and litigated. Judges heard claims of illegal voting and found they were without merit..."
https://campaignlegal.org/results-lawsuits-regarding-2020-elections
"More important, claims of voter fraud made by others were verified as false, including proof of why those claims were disproven..."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2024/01/02/trump-lies-voter-fraud-2020-impact-2024-election/72057016007/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/exhaustive-fact-check-finds-little-evidence-of-voter-fraud-but-2020s-big-lie-lives-on
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4385239-voter-data-expert-trump-campaign-2020-election-not-stolen/amp/
You keep trying to litigate a case closed long ago. You lost. There's no debate amongst experts. The main cheating and lying was done by Team Trump.
You've been played for a fool. Move on and try to regain your dignity.
Dan
Dan:
"What is the difference between thieves and LGBTQ folks? Well, thieves are actively causing harm and LGBTQ folks are doing no harm to no one."
I preempted that particular response by mentioning adulterers and idolators along with thieves, and I wasn't asking the difference between these groups. I was asking why your argument didn't hold for all groups.
You regurgitate your rant about how the Bible isn't a rule book -- funny how, when Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment, He quoted Scripture, which He affirmed to the smallest penstroke; you focus on OT laws for Israel and I merely quoted Jesus and Paul -- and you digress into discussing laws about homosexuality (and even abortion) when my focus has ENTIRELY been on merely holding and expressing beliefs regarding morality.
I wonder aloud if you support criminalizing such expressions of religious belief, and you don't exactly say what you DO support:
"That's not my opinion. There may be times - using words to incite riots and cause threats to people is already a crime as it should be - when it should be so, but there are many factors involved.
"I do think, generally speaking, intentionally causing or provoking harm to innocent people is a bad thing and should have consequences."
WHAT consequences, specifically, Dan?
You say that merely expressing the belief that homosexual acts are immoral causes active harm to homosexuals: what should be the consequence?
How exactly would you have me held accountable for holding and expressing the radical belief that God made us male and female so that a man (male) would become one flesh with his wife (female)?
Your definition of harm is expansive indeed: even wanting a school library to curate its inventory, you say, "THAT is the moment they move from their own personal freedom to oppression and harm."
I think it's a fair question to ask you what consequences you support for such oppressive and harmful words and deeds.
I'm glad to answer (answer again) the questions you're asking me, Bubba, but in a good faith effort to engage in respectful dialogue, feel free to answer the questions I've put to you, too. Conversation is a two way street.
You say that merely expressing the belief that homosexual acts are immoral causes active harm to homosexuals: what should be the consequence?
How exactly would you have me held accountable for holding and expressing the radical belief that God made us male and female so that a man (male) would become one flesh with his wife (female)?
There are a wide range of hurtful, ignorant behaviors in question here, so it really depends.
But given the example you've selected: "I, Bubba, hold the opinion that only men and women should marry..." That is FINE for you to hold that opinion. No one cares about your personal human opinion, on that matter.
But you don't get to dictate laws based on your personal human opinions informed by your personal human religious traditions.
DO you agree with this commonsense, basic human rights position?
But should you be punished for holding that opinion for yourself?
No.
Should you be punished for trying to implement it as law?
No. But your personal religious opinions should be rebuffed and rejected as antithetical to a free human republic that respects human rights.
Should you be punished by law if you kick people out of your family or church because they're LGBTQ and you disagree with that in your personal human traditions?
No. You will be recognized as reprehensible for such awful behaviors, but you should have no civic punishment.
BUT, should you be punished if you say that gay folks are hated by "god" and they will be punished by "god" (in your personal human religious opinions AND THEN, someone takes it upon themselves to start killing gay folks?
No.
But you are part of the problem in that case. That level of literal demonization is deadly and dangerous.
Not all active harm can be punished by law, because of the great vagaries of that sort of abusive and destructive/dangerous language, but it can be punished by you all being rejected by polite, moral society.
There are more than one way to punish someone.
You should know. Conservatives have been punishing LGBTQ folks for centuries in ways that don't involve legal penalties.
How, how about you answering some questions?
It's like this: White folk for centuries have been speaking abusively of people of color and women. They've denied the vote, denied jobs, denied opportunities, denied credit cards (unless the husband signs for the woman!), etc.
Those are ALL horribly harmful.
Do you agree?
Start answering questions if you want to ask me questions.
Those are ALL horribly harmful... but due to the vague and widespread source of those literally harmful behaviors by racists and sexists, it's not possible to penalize one person for those behaviors.
BUT, if it turns out that one particular employer refuses to hire a person of color, a woman, a LGBTQ person because they are a person of color, a woman, LGBTQ... THAT person can and should be penalized and we are able to do so because our laws have caught up with basic human rights morality.
Do you disagree that the bigot who refuses to hire someone due to color, gender or sexual orientation should rightly be punished/held accountable?
If so, why?
Put another way, if a black man applies for a secretary position at an office and the black man is far and away the best candidate who has applied, and the KKK member says, "no, I'll never hire a black man to work for me..." do you think that racist should have that right? Or, do you agree with our current laws and agree that he should be penalized for his racist actions because it causes harm?
Start answering questions.
August 3, 2024 at 9:21 AM
"What is the difference between thieves and LGBTQ folks? Well, thieves are actively causing harm and LGBTQ folks are doing no harm to no one."
That's not even close to true. That is, your claim that your pervs are causing no one any harm. Indeed, it's willful, intentional lie. The list of harm caused by this woeful community of condemned are many and have been listed for you many times without legitimate, evidence based rebuke. They do damage to their bodies which are unique to them and rare among normal people, because their sexual practices specifically involve the perverse use of their sexual organs. This is particularly true of homos. They've harmed the culture by their imposition of their "religion" of legitimizing their perversion, both legally and culturally. Worse, they've done so without any factual basis, but by an agenda based on lies and falsehoods.
But the most serious harm they cause is to our young:
https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v14n2/Vol.%2014,%20No.%202,%203%20Baldwin.pdf
I actually had a couple of other links to provide, but this one is particularly good for exposing your moral corruption and perversion. It's from about 24 years ago, but I doubt you could find any legitimate research to prove it's in error. A couple of things stood out to me about this report:
1. It shows the desire of homosexuals for the young is incredibly ubiquitous in the queer community. It manifests in the words of leading pro-homo activists and their major organizations...and worldwide to boot. It is their intention to lower, if not eliminate, age of consent laws in their assertion that kids are sexual beings who have the right to explore their sexuality as they see fit to do so. Such a thing requires further destroying the notion of family and parental authority, so they can get jiggy with 13 year old boys.
2. The pro-mo research insists that among those man/boy relationships they defend, they assert that often the young boy initiates the sexual episode. That is, they say "they want it". From what one asshole told me, that's "rapey" talk! And as this lust for boys is so widespread among them, it shows up in most all their literature. Now, I recall that same asshole outraged at Judge Roy Moore for approaching teen girls...one as young as 14, as it turned out...in search of a wife while he was in his 30's, in a time and place where older prospects were taken while he was in the military, and where young wives were still a thing about which most people were not concerned.
So here's an entire community with a notable percentage keen on sex with young boys, where seeking older men is almost never desired, and you support these people after having disparaged an actual good man for seeking a wife among the only pool of available prospects, which happened to by too young according to Dan Trabue.
The harm done by your beloved pervs is a lengthy list of disparate examples. And you pretend no harm results from them whatsoever.
Read the link, Perv. Try to find a way to rebuke the info contained therein. That is, try without more lying.
"As to the rest of your examples, we err in our thinking we treat the Bible as a rule or rulings book."
No we don't. You err by rejecting Biblical teaching on behaviors you favor.
"I believe you all (and me, once upon a time) thought, If we can just find a clear ruling or statement about an action in the pages of the Bible, we have objective proof of immoral behavior."
One who seriously and prayerfully studies Scripture doesn't have to search out what that serious and prayerful study should have made clear.
But there's no better source for "objective proof" of what is or isn't moral than the Christian Bible.
"But no, that's not what the Bible is."
Uh...yes it is. It's more than that, but it's that, too.
"If the Bible were a moral rules book, it would be a pisspoor one."
Not at all. But you're a pisspoor example of a Christian (not that you are one), and that's taking into account my own shortcomings.
"The biblical authors allow that enslaving people is a moral option... that selling one's daughter into a forced marriage is a moral option... that stoning people caught in adultery is a moral option."
And here you go again perverting Scripture to pretend you have a point. Worse is your implication that the men who penned the books of the Bible invented the whole thing.
"There are an endless number of problems associated with trying to treat the Bible as a rule book."
They all are responses from assholes who find Biblical teaching personally inconvenient...as you do. Abiding Biblical teaching on morality...properly and EASILY understood...improves the world. It causes problems only for those who wish to be their own god...like you.
"The Bible never tells you it's a rule book and God hasn't told you all that."
Uh...God says to obey His Commandments. Christ says the same and Paul and other Epistle writers encourage abiding the Will of God...including moral law.
"It's a religious tradition some humans have developed,..."
Yeah....humans like Paul, James, Peter, John, Jude and all other founding fathers of the Christian church.
"...and if you all hold that opinion, then you're welcome to that personal opinion so long as you don't harm someone in the process."
Oh, good! No harm is done by those like me or others who find your crap the crap it is. Preaching or repeating truth...especially God's Truth...causes no one harm.
"Stoning adulterers to death is a moral wrong."
Then God would not have commanded it. It's illegal now, and Christ's blood sacrificed for our sins removed any obligation on our part to employ capital punishment for that and other sins.
"Thievery is wrong, because it causes harm."
No. Thievery is wrong because God commanded that we not do it.
"Imprisoning people because of their sexual orientation is wrong."
God commanded death as punishment for homosexual behavior. He didn't command imprisoning anyone for their sin nature. In this country, the same applied. Being oriented to perversions is not a crime. What's more, your beloved pervs seeks to remove age of consent laws to prevent sentencing for child molestation. Are you opposed to imprisoning those minor attracted persons who appease their "orientation"? That would be wrong, wouldn't it?
"Even if your far right religious opinions (Christian or Muslim or otherwise) believes it's right, you don't get to push those opinions off on other people when it causes harm."
Sure we do. All we need to do is have a majority of the population's support or desire for such laws. We are indeed far "right", as in we're totally correct on this issue. You pervert the position to make it seem malevolent. It isn't. You just need to be perceived as such and like a good perverted sheep, you perpetuate that lie, too. To make it sound even worse, you dare draw a parallel with good Christians with muslims. But there's nothing at all extreme about abiding the clearly revealed Will of God.
"In the real world, LGBTQ have endured centuries of abuse just for being who they are."
Boo-hoo. The truth is that they've met with suffering because they've been discovered acting on their perverse compulsions. Adulterers, minor attracted people, the incestuous, the bestial...they've all been "abused" because of their immoral behaviors once discovered.
"Thieves have not been oppressed because of who they are. They've been caught and punished when they caused harm to others."
What harm? Taking stuff? How does that harm someone when there's no physical contact? They are oppressed not for their covetous orientation, but because they acted on it, just like your pervs have. The real difference is you dismiss the harm of your perverts' sexual behavior and subjectively so.
"Adulterers, by and large, have not been oppressed because of who they are or even for their adultery. At least not in centuries... except in some more conservative extremist religious areas of the world."
Uh...yes they have. Usually by the wronged husband. But there were breach of contract laws governing such things. It's amazing how you'll pervert truth and facts to defend perversion!
"Understand the distinction?"
There is none. You just force one into the issue because of you lust of perversion.
"We should not create laws that punish people just for being who they are, loving who they love, so long as they are causing no harm."
Well, we fell for that shit with Lawrence v Texas. From that point the pervs could live as they chose, but they lied about what they were seeking and pushed against morality and propriety to force their perversion more solidly into law. Now, good people suffer. Children suffer. The culture has suffered and suffers more grievously now.
"That is an abusive/oppressive religious approach and THAT actually has caused harm, is still causing harm."
Bullshit. You still haven't produced any evidence connecting moral laws with harm to you perverts. You pretend it's some religious extremism, as if all of our laws aren't based upon Christian values and teachings. You pretend that because heathens might like the laws that their Christian origins don't exist. But that's just more perversion of reality and history.
(More on this bullshit later)
"We should not create laws that dictate to women what medical decisions they make."
We don't. We seek laws which outlaws needless infanticide on the lie that it's ever necessary to save a woman's life.
"That causes harm."
That's an abject lie! I've presented this man's testimony before, and this is part of the total interview with Lila Rose:
https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v14n2/Vol.%2014,%20No.%202,%203%20Baldwin.pdf
Notable in this short video is the Doctor's reference to purposely vague terms to allow for abortions. This is exactly the kind of vague crap Dan's "do no harm" position is to prevent speaking truthfully about his pervs or any other issue he defends.
"EVEN IF some religious people believe that in their religious opinions, more weight should be given to the fetus than the mother, it's harmful to allow religions to force others who don't share their opinions when it can and does cause harm."
Multiple lies in the above. First, I'm unaware of any religious person who believes "more weight should be given to the fetus than the mother". That's absurd. They're both people and equally endowed by their Creator with the right to life. There's no harm done where no harm results from delivering the child instead of ripping it to shreds on the bullshit pretext there was no other way to treat the woman's condition.
"You are free to follow your religion. You are not free to harm others in the name of your religion."
Not a problem. No harm is caused to anyone by promoting the principles and concepts of Christianity. That perverse people are put out by laws or practices which abide Christian teaching is not "inflicting harm". It's whiny assholes bitching they can't indulge in the sexual practices of their choice. It's selfish men and women who put their obsessive desire for sexual self-gratification over the life of another human being.
Dan's totally into indulging any sexual practice so long as the person doing the indulging isn't Donald Trump. THEN Dan talks about "perversion" by perverting the word to do so.
August 3, 2024 at 9:39 AM
"It's ironic. Historians consistently place FDR in the top three best presidents in US history and Wilson has tended to either be in the top ten or the top 15."
Most historians are thus moronic assholes. Aside from his "New Deal" extending the depression longer than it should have gone, his attempt to pack the SCOTUS because they found much of his New Deal unconstitutional, his adultery, etc., there were these manifestations of cowardice and moral bankruptcy:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/fdrs-failed-moral-leadership/
Wilson was a racist, an even worse one by the standards of his time. He had no love of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution's separation of powers:
https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/2012/09/constitution-201-woodrow-wilson-and-the-rejection-of-the-founders-principles/
Only moronic asshole progressives laud these two as among the best. They weren't.
"Trump, on the other hand, is universally reviled as one of the worst presidents in US history."
By assholes suffering from TDS. You default to one or two surveys which include less than a third of all historians and political scientists in the country (if that much) and pretend their nonsensical criteria for judgement and rankings are serious for the purpose. I haven't forgotten your links to these crap sandwiches, and I don't ignore your irrational devotion to them as gospel. Trump personal flaws don't compare to those of either of these two jackasses, and his record as president is superior. You're just too much a grace embracing hater to accept reality.
"ALL of this is according to historians across the political spectrum."
None of them honest.
"Scholars and historians recognize that part of Trump's problem is his tilt towards authoritarianism,..."
And how did that ever manifest exactly? Did he force you to wear a mask? Did he force you to take a jab? Did he force you to pay for the debts of others? Did he try to disarm you? Did he try to remove political opponents by lawfare or kicking them off ballots?
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/where-is-democrats-outrage-at-bidens-authoritarianism/
"...his demonization of immigrants,"
ILLEGAL immigrants, you liar!
"...LGBTQ folks..."
When did he demonize perverts? I recall nothing of the kind.
"...and women..."
He treated asshole women the same way he treats asshole men. He otherwise loves women.
"...all having much in common with Hitler."
What a rank and knowing lie you tell! He has NOTHING in common with Hitler. Democrats do.
"So you demonize some of our best presidents and prop up/defend/vote for/promote one of our worst, according to scholars."
Unlike you, I don't need leftist scholars and Trump-haters telling me who was or wasn't a good president. And given those same bullshit artists ranked the incompetent marxist Obama over Trump...who did more for all Americans in four years than Obama never did in eight is all I need to know about the credibility of the "scholars" your revere simply because they hate Trump as much as you do.
"You know, sometimes experts are actually pretty correct and sometimes, folks who aren't expert just can't accurately see the big picture and can be terribly wrong."
Neither is the case here, except that you can see the big picture with your head lodged so firmly up your ass. You're a political and theological moron. That's not a dig. That's a blatantly obvious fact! You prove it with remarkable regularity!
Much more Trabue stupidity and lies to address. Stay tuned.
Don't forget FDR imprisoned in concentration camps Americans of Japanese decent. He didn't do the same for those of German decent, which pretty much shows he was a racist.
Dan, thank for you answering my question. I don't see where you had answered it in the affirmative previously, so I appreciate your doing so now.
As I said previously, you have a very expansive definition of harm, but it's also extremely selective.
- You don't seem to recognize the harm in exposing innocent schoolchildren to what is genuinely graphic sexual materials, but you think curating those materials out of the library (though not the general marketplace), "THAT is the moment they move from their own personal freedom to oppression and harm."
- You have nothing to say about killing a child in the womb, but you think removing the choice of infanticide from the scope of medically available options is harmful.
- And, now, all of a sudden, ostracism isn't quite so bad.
You write:
"Not all active harm can be punished by law, because of the great vagaries of that sort of abusive and destructive/dangerous language, but it can be punished by you all being rejected by polite, moral society.
"There are more than one way to punish someone.
"You should know. Conservatives have been punishing LGBTQ folks for centuries in ways that don't involve legal penalties."
I'm not sure what you mean by saying harm cannot be punished because of language's vagaries, maybe you mean "vagueness," and it sure seems like you're writing that in sorrow and regret, that you wish the state could be more bold in censoring thoughts you don't like.
But here you clearly allude to ostracism and stigmatization, EXPLICITLY the kind that you've JUST been describing as active and overt harm to innocent human beings.
You don't seem to care about that kind of harm, per se, just when it's directed to particular groups of people. More than that, YOU WANT AND INTEND to inflict that kind of harm against others.
To punish them.
Even your motto of "if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all" goes out the window with your name-calling: others are reprehensible and dangerous demonizers and oppressors.
It all comes down to Lenin's formulation of Who? Whom?
You don't want polite society to embrace literally everyone.
You want to chase out the Christians -- the theologically orthodox Christians who recognize Scripture's clear teachings regarding God's will for human sexuality.
YOU CLEARLY DON'T HAVE AN INSTINCT AGAINST OSTRACISIM, DAN. YOUR PROBLEM ISN'T WITH OSTRACISM, IT'S WITH THE BIBLE, ITS AUTHOR, AND ITS ADHERENTS.
You're not anti-harm. You're anti-Christian.
Dan, your rant against the Bible is tiring but possibly worth addressing.
"There are an endless number of problems associated with trying to treat the Bible as a rule book. It's not. It's just not. The Bible never tells you it's a rule book and God hasn't told you all that. It's a religious tradition some humans have developed, and if you all hold that opinion, then you're welcome to that personal opinion so long as you don't harm someone in the process."
The Bible's NOT a religious tradition. The Bible never tells you it's a religious tradition, and presumably God hasn't told you that, either, but once again you don't make the slightest effort to live up to the high and often ridiculous standards you seek to impose on others.
The Bible does tell us what it is, Dan.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. - I Tim 3:16-17
We have two adjectives, "breathed out" and "profitable," and they naturally lead to two nouns: REVELATION and INSTRUCTION. Indeed, not all instruction is a rule of human behavior -- God reveals and instructs us in who He is, what He has done in history, and what He promises to do -- but part of the instruction DOES reveal how God intends to carry out our lives.
These are some of the most famous passages in Scripture, from those ten rules that God personally carved in stone to the "I tell you" commands in the Sermon on the Mount.
And those sections that do not directly frame the lives of Christ's New Testament disciples are still, as Paul insisted, "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." ALL Scripture qualifies, including those sections of the Old Testament you would denigrate as evil, as when God judged the world in the time of Noah, judged Sodom and Gomorrah, and judged the wicked Canaanites using the army of ancient Israel as His instrument.
I can very safely say that your view of Scripture is not supportable by Scripture.
But Scripture isn't everything. Indeed, it is our sole authority in this post-apostolic age, when Christ and His Apostles are absent from the earthly church, but its authority is still derived from its authorship.
Scripture is merely the written artifact of divine revelation, so your problem is not chiefly with it but with HIM, with God who sent His Son, the Prophets who predicted His coming, and the Apostles who supplemented His teaching.
You're railing at the wrong person, in part because you're not honest about your opposition to God Himself.
Dan,
If Christ is who He says He is, and if therefore Scripture is WHAT He says it is, authored by God and affirmed to the smallest penstroke, it would be foolish to set aside what is often otherwise unattainable wisdom in deliberating any matter, including the very important subject of politics.
You ask:
"But you don't get to dictate laws based on your personal human opinions informed by your personal human religious traditions.
"DO you agree with this commonsense, basic human rights position?"
Do you? Seriously? How often have you invoked the Bible's teachings regarding care for the poor in order to support a political platform of welfare programs?
It's not as if you're a Randian capital-L Libertarian who actually has a consistent view on human rights. In the example scenario you give, you deny the business owner his private-property rights to dispose of his wealth as he wants by hiring who he wants, and you deny freedom of association.
You write at length (if not eloquently or even sensibly) about human rights, but you're willing to compromise on the subject in order to conform to the leftism that is no less religious because it is godless.
You're happy to dictate laws and even rewire all of society (wielding the power of ostracism, etc.) based on your own leftist religion. I don't see why people of other faiths can't do the same, much as you must hate having competition.
There IS NO human-rights principle, much less a "basic" and "commonsense" principle, that says people must set aside their religious beliefs in settling political issues.
That is just your leftism talking.
Bubba points out what has long been established by Dan himself: Dan is truly a man of self-serving double standards.
I'm pleased Bubba responded sooner than I expected he might, so rather than go through everything again, I will instead focus on Dan's most laughable questions and statements...or at least some of them:
August 3, 2024 at 10:34 PM
"I'm glad to answer (answer again) the questions you're asking me, Bubba, but in a good faith effort to engage in respectful dialogue, feel free to answer the questions I've put to you, too."
I love when Dan speaks of "good faith" in discourse, as if he truly ever engages in "good faith". Deleting comments and responses on the flimsiest of reasons does not demonstrate "good faith". Implementing and/or altering rules of engagement at the drop of a hat does not demonstrate "good faith". Fortunately, this is Dan's Blog of Lies, so everyone gets to speak their mind (such as Dan's is) and make their arguments (such as Dan's are).
"There are a wide range of hurtful, ignorant behaviors in question here, so it really depends."
None you've proven to be so, but rather only asserted as so. Speaking truth...in this case God's Truth, as so clearly and unambiguously revealed to us in Scripture...is not in any way "hurtful" or an "ignorant behavior".
"But given the example you've selected: "I, Bubba, hold the opinion that only men and women should marry..." That is FINE for you to hold that opinion. No one cares about your personal human opinion, on that matter."
Double-Standard Dan (A.K.A., "Pervert Dan") had no problem with the perv nation's "personal human opinion" being forced upon an non-consenting nation.
"But you don't get to dictate laws based on your personal human opinions informed by your personal human religious traditions."
But evidently, it's OK for perverts and their morally bankrupt enablers to do so, as they've done. Our "personal human opinions" at least has their basis in both Scripture and the U.S. Constitution. Not so with the pervs and their enablers.
"DO you agree with this commonsense, basic human rights position?"
There was no "basic human right" assaulted by the position of moral and intelligent opponents of the perv agenda. That's just something pervs and their enablers like to say in order to force compliance in those ignorant of how "rights" works
"Should you be punished for trying to implement it as law?
No. But your personal religious opinions should be rebuffed and rejected as antithetical to a free human republic that respects human rights."
Only if they actually are, which is not the case with righteous response to your perv agenda.
"Should you be punished by law if you kick people out of your family or church because they're LGBTQ and you disagree with that in your personal human traditions?"
No, but that's never the case. They're cast out for refusing to repent of their obvious breach of Christian behaviors. They're never cast out for their deviant orientations any more than any sinner is who seeks to subordinate their sinful urges to the clearly revealed Will of God.
"No. You will be recognized as reprehensible for such awful behaviors, but you should have no civic punishment."
Not at all "awful" behavior, but what Scripture teaches us what to do when faced with those who put their personal desires above God's Will: 1 Cor 5:1-5,13, Titus 3:10-11, Matt 18:17, 2 Thessalonians 3:6,14-15 (this is what we intend...not what Dan chooses to believe about us), Rom 16:17-18.
"BUT, should you be punished if you say that gay folks are hated by "god" and they will be punished by "god" (in your personal human religious opinions AND THEN, someone takes it upon themselves to start killing gay folks?"
First, we're not like leftists like the Westbury Baptist Church, so we don't ever say "God hates fags!". But God does indeed hate homosexual sexual behavior enough to call it an abomination, and to have done so without providing any caveat or scenario in which it might be engaged and not still be an abomination to Him.
Second, it's typical of Dan to lie that the criminal actions of anyone can be tied to preaching the Truth of God. Just as Dan perverts Scriptural teaching to indulge and enable abominations, so too might others. That's not on those who abide God's Will and righteously preach His Word. That's more on enablers like Dan who lead others to believe it's OK to indulge in sexual deviancy, thereby exposing them to the risk of physical assault by assholes who pervert Scripture in a manner different from how Dan does.
"But you are part of the problem in that case. That level of literal demonization is deadly and dangerous."
Not a part at all. How absurdly false to suggest such a lie! But it's typical that Dan will say anything to preserve his right to indulge in perversion and deviancy...which he does by defending others in their indulgence of it.
"Not all active harm can be punished by law, because of the great vagaries of that sort of abusive and destructive/dangerous language, but it can be punished by you all being rejected by polite, moral society."
I have no problem being shunned by perverts like Dan. Dan is not part of any "moral" society given all the immorality he champions. He's part of that which has degraded American culture and he mocks the Lord in doing so.
"Conservatives have been punishing LGBTQ folks for centuries in ways that don't involve legal penalties."
They invited their exclusion from "polite, moral society" by refusing to repent of their depravity.
"How, how about you answering some questions?"
I'm always amused every time Dan pretends we don't answer questions. What a hypocrite!
August 3, 2024 at 10:40 PM
"It's like this: White folk for centuries have been speaking abusively of people of color and women. They've denied the vote, denied jobs, denied opportunities, denied credit cards (unless the husband signs for the woman!), etc."
There it is...Dan can't help himself but to get racist with his self-loathing white guilt. Most of what he references above were the actions of Democrats. What's more, "white folk" were not alone in the poor treatment of "other" people or women over the centuries.
"Those are ALL horribly harmful.
Do you agree?"
Totally irrelevant to the tangent you chose to take this discussion...a tangent irrelevant to the post.
"Start answering questions if you want to ask me questions."
Gee! Is this Dan's Blog of Lies, or Marshal Art's blog where truth is presented?
"BUT, if it turns out that one particular employer refuses to hire a person of color, a woman, a LGBTQ person because they are a person of color, a woman, LGBTQ... THAT person can and should be penalized and we are able to do so because our laws have caught up with basic human rights morality."
There's no "human rights" violation in the choosing of associations or employees based on one's own criteria. None. This was a legit argument by the few Republicans who opposed Civil Rights and public accommodation laws. Those laws did indeed trample basic human rights as they were properly understood by the founders. They imposed on individuals laws which only should have been imposed on the federal government. Dan might not like that an actual Christian does not want to hire a pervert like Dan, but it's the right of anyone to associate or do business with whomever one chooses based on one's personal criteria for doing so.
"Do you disagree that the bigot who refuses to hire someone due to color, gender or sexual orientation should rightly be punished/held accountable?
If so, why?"
Absolutely not, for the reasons already given in response to Dan's previous stupidity. If one chooses to bear the consequences of potentially less profits in order to hire based on criteria Dan dislikes, there's no legitimate cause to punish such a person beyond what possible consequences such a refusal may bring on its own. Dan want's to punish people based on Dan's low opinion of such people. Dan can go pound sand up his ass where his head still allows room to do so.
"Put another way, if a black man applies for a secretary position at an office and the black man is far and away the best candidate who has applied, and the KKK member says, "no, I'll never hire a black man to work for me..." do you think that racist should have that right?"
The racist does have that right. Bad law denies him the ability to exercise it.
"Or, do you agree with our current laws and agree that he should be penalized for his racist actions because it causes harm?"
It does not cause harm anymore than any situation in which one is denied because the position is filled, determined to no longer require filling. Failing to find a job for any reason is "harmful" as regards lack of income, but why one is denied doesn't matter. It's really not a matter of any potential harm which might be caused, but simply that enough people disapprove of racism...except for those like Dan who continue to be racist in their denigration of white people.
"Start answering questions."
No one is under any obligation to bow to Dan's demands here at this blog. Dan's yet to prove harm is caused by preaching the Truth of God, can't find any way to support that laughable premise, so now Dan's babbling on about racism. Dan's obliged to answer the challenge of supporting that laughable premise rather than arrogantly making any demands of others.
So much to respond to (and so few answers to my questions). A couple of quick points... Marshal:
Double-Standard Dan (A.K.A., "Pervert Dan") had no problem with the perv nation's "personal human opinion" being forced upon an non-consenting nation.
In a progressive (and reasonably conservative) nation, a person can choose who they want to marry, they can choose to have children, they can choose the medical procedures that they and their medical team think best.
IF you don't want an abortion, Marshal, in a progressive and reasonable US, you do not have to have one.
If someone DOES want an abortion, though, in a more-fascist, modern conservative state, they CAN'T because Marshal and other religious extremists don't want to have one for themselves NOR do they want others to have that liberty to make that decision.
IF you don't want to marry a guy, Marshal, in a progressive and reasonable US, you do not have to marry a guy. No sweat, we truly don't care who you marry.
BUT
If a fella DOES want to marry a guy, though, in a more-fascist, modern conservative state, they CAN'T because Marshal and other religious extremists don't want to marry a guy themselves NOR do they want others to have that liberty to make that decision.
IF you don't want your child to read a book about LGBTQ issues, Marshal, in a progressive and reasonable US, you can choose to not allow them that privilege.
If someone DOES want to read such a book, though, in a more-fascist, modern conservative state, they CAN'T because Marshal and other religious extremists don't want their children to read it NOR do they want others to have that liberty to make that decision for their children, at least at the school setting.
What double standard?
I'm consistently in favor of you making your decisions for yourself, and you're inconsistent in that you want to make decisions for yourself AND you want to impose your wishes on others.
That's an actual example of inconsistency and double standards... one standard for you and those who agree with you, but a different standard for those who dare to have an opinion different than yours.
We had a delightful sermon today from a trans youth at our church. They focused on the Scripture from Acts 10, where God taught Peter to see beyond his religious traditions and opinions... to recognize that his personal religious opinions do not always align with God's.
About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance.
He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds.
Then a voice told him,
“Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
"Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied
[speaking back to God, taking his personal human religious opinions and traditions over the very words of God!].
“I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
The voice spoke to him a second time,
“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.
While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”
Peter was slow and obstinate and downright rude to God, in favor of his personal human opinions.
BUT EVENTUALLY, Peter got it.
Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.
Words to live by and understand and implement in your life.
Some may want to reply:
But, but, but... the OT has rules that are very clear that we should NOT eat unclean animals! If it said that in a place in the OT, then it must be a universal rule that I'm understanding perfectly!
But those who reply thusly are missing the point... they're following human opinions and interpretations of an ancient text and in the process, insulting God. But God is clear:
Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.
The mere presence of a verse or two in the OT does not make transgender folks, LGBTQ folks - created by and beloved by God almighty - "unclean," no matter how much you may want to tell God otherwise.
Dan:
"DO you agree with this commonsense, basic human rights position [that we not ought to create laws based upon our personal religious opinions/traditions alone or primarily?"
Bubba:
Do you? Seriously? How often have you invoked the Bible's teachings regarding care for the poor in order to support a political platform of welfare programs?
Yes. I agree that we should not create laws based primarily upon our/my personal religious opinions. Because of course, not. I've been quite clear about that over the years.
I think the problem you all have is that you can't understand nuanced positions - or at least, demonstrably haven't understood my nuanced positions and words.
I have never at one time ever said, "The Bible says we should take care of the poor and marginalized, therefore and for THAT reason, we should create laws to take care of the poor and marginalized."
That is not my position and has never been my position. EARLY ON in my move towards progressive thinking, I may have used phrases that sounded more like that, but that was before I was commenting on blogs, if I'm not mistaken. There was certainly a time after I moved (was pushed) away from conservative fundamentalism that I leaned a bit towards liberal fundamentalism, but conservative words helped me understand that fundamentalism of any sort is problematic and certainly not a basis for creating laws.
Do you now understand that this is NOT my position and never has been my position? If not, what can I tell you to help you understand? I don't know how to be more clear than to say, "NO. THAT IS NOT MY POSITION."
I have engaged in conversations with christian conservatives who say they value biblical teachings and take them seriously and even literally and cited those verses so as to say, "IF you take teachings found in the bible seriously and literally - and especially so for the teachings of Jesus - THEN one can't ignore the consistent drumbeat of the fundamental nature of God's love and action for the poor and marginalized. It's an appeal to your alleged love of the Bible.
That is NOT and never has been what I've said about reasons for creating laws.
We should make laws that are practical and commonsense and that serve to promote and protect human rights and to prevent unjust harm. Period. I believe in the crazy notion, for instance, that
IF the data says (as it does) that
by providing rehab, drug rehab and education to imprisoned people that
THEN said prisoners return to jail much less frequently
AND
the cost for paying for those programs are significantly less than the cost of imprisoning them again and again...
AND
when those prisoners get out, not only do they not return as often, BUT they're also tax paying citizens, giving back to society...
THEN, it makes good commonsense, good fiscal sense and good moral sense to pay for these programs.
There's nothing in that reason but basic Do No Harm and common sense types of considerations.
Now, as it happens, this sort of grace-policy also appeals to the teachings of Jesus, as I think is abundantly clear, but I do not say nor have I ever said we should create these policies, "Because Jesus said..."
Glad to help you understand. I hope you do now understand. Any questions?
Bubba...
If Christ is who He says He is, and if therefore Scripture is WHAT He says it is, authored by God and affirmed to the smallest penstroke, it would be foolish to set aside what is often otherwise unattainable wisdom in deliberating any matter, including the very important subject of politics.
Well, there's a lot there, isn't.
IF Christ... IF.
A. WHO do you think "Christ is," and what do YOU personally think that Christ "says he is" and what do you, personally, think - in your personal human opinion - that Jesus "tells us" "scripture is..."?
B. And is ANY of that anything more than your opinion? (in your opinion?)
C. Do you think you and those who agree with you have a perfect understanding of Jesus is, with no error?
D. Presumably, you are not so arrogant that you would claim to have "perfect understanding of who Jesus is and what he taught about Scripture," so, IF you think you have potential error in what you think Jesus thinks, where is that error?
E. IF you can't define where that error might potentially lie, is there ANY part of your personal human opinions about Jesus that are not potentially wrong?
F. Presuming that you have the rational humility to say you can't speak authoritatively for Jesus on every point, then why would your personal human opinions outweigh my personal human opinions on Jesus' teachings?
Do you see that these are reasonable questions to ask and have answered?
Bubba...
It's not as if you're a Randian capital-L Libertarian who actually has a consistent view on human rights. In the example scenario you give, you deny the business owner his private-property rights to dispose of his wealth as he wants by hiring who he wants, and you deny freedom of association.
No. I'm no Randian or a libertarian.
Nonetheless, I think I have a fairly consistent view on human rights (and I would dispute that libertarians or randians DO have a consistent view on human rights).
Do no harm. Period.
Do you want to drink alcohol? Okay, but do no harm. Do not put yourself in a position of potentially causing harm by driving while you're drunk. If you do, then we can reasonably penalize you and hold you accountable because your likelihood of causing harm has increased.
Are you a guy who wants to marry a guy? Okay, but do no harm. Be kind, considerate, loving and respectful to your husband.
Are you a guy who doesn't want to marry a guy? Okay, but do no harm. Marry a woman if you can find one who wants to marry you... BUT, don't tell gay guys not to marry, because that's harmful, in a thousand ways.
Do no harm.
Do you not want your children to read a book about LGBTQ issues? Fine. Let the school librarian know. But DO NO HARM. Don't impose THAT rule upon others who may WANT their child (gay, lesbian, trans, straight or otherwise) to have access to that kind of information and worldview.
Do no harm.
As to this:
You don't seem to recognize the harm in exposing innocent schoolchildren to what is genuinely graphic sexual materials, but you think curating those materials out of the library
School libraries don't have age-inappropriate "graphic sexual materials," so I don't know what you're talking about without additional information. I suspect you're objecting to any sex-ed related material for middle school and high school students. You probably find "sex ed" to be "dirty" and "graphic sexual materials." If so, well, that's your hangup, isn't it? Not everyone shares your perhaps prurient attitudes towards sexuality and sex education.
AND, you are free to hold those prurient views and have rules for your kids. The point remains: You don't and should not get to decide for other kids.
Are you afraid a ten year old will see a "pee pee..."? Okay, you do you. Not all of us have that concern that you may personally hold.
Also, are you turned on or something by the cartoon images of "pee pees" and whatnot in children's literature? Again, okay. You do you. But not everyone shares that opinion that you may hold.
Do you think conservative Christians should get to decide what is and isn't appropriate for ALL the children in their school? If so, why?
Bubba...
There IS NO human-rights principle, much less a "basic" and "commonsense" principle, that says people must set aside their religious beliefs in settling political issues.
I'm not saying that ANYONE should set aside their religious views with the exception that they do not get to harm others.
The racists whose religious views is that "blacks and whites should not 'inter-marry'" are welcome to that view. BUT, they should not impose - nor TRY to impose - that view by weight of law on others.
Do you disagree?
The anti-LGBTQ folks (maybe some extremist Christians, maybe some extremist Muslims) who want to imprison you if it turns out you're gay (or execute!) should not impose that religious view on others, nor should they TRY to do so. They are free to REALLY oppose being gay for themselves (although there is all kinds of well-documented potential for self-harm in that path), but they should not impose that religious view on others.
Do you disagree?
So, we're NOT saying extremist religionists can not or should not hold those opinions for themselves, BUT, where human rights violations come is when they try to impose it upon others.
Do you disagree?
Do you think those extremist Christian and/or Muslim nations who imprison or kill gay people are wrong and that we should speak out against that?
Take a stand for actual human rights, dear brother. Of course, religionists have the opportunity to make those calls for themselves in a human rights-observant nation. They just don't get to impose it upon others.
Your right to swing our religious fist ends at other people's bodies/noses.
Do you disagree?
I find this all exceedingly common sense and rational and hard to argue against IF you believe in human rights and self-determination.
Bubba...
'm not sure what you mean by saying harm cannot be punished because of language's vagaries, maybe you mean "vagueness,"
No, I mean vagaries:
erratic, unpredictable, or extravagant manifestation, action, or notion
As in:
Not all active harm can be punished by law, because of the great vagaries -
erratic, unpredictable, or extravagant manifestation, action, or notion -
of that sort of abusive and destructive/dangerous language, but it can be punished by you all being rejected by polite, moral society.
But thanks for helping perhaps to increase the wordpower for those who didn't know what the word meant. I apologize if I used a "too-big" word.
Dan Trabue, this afternoon:
"I'm consistently in favor of you making your decisions for yourself, and you're inconsistent in that you want to make decisions for yourself AND you want to impose your wishes on others."
Dan Trabue, seventeen hours earlier:
"BUT, if it turns out that one particular employer refuses to hire a person of color, a woman, a LGBTQ person because they are a person of color, a woman, LGBTQ... THAT person can and should be penalized and we are able to do so because our laws have caught up with basic human rights morality."
LOL.
---
My guess is that Dan would focus on the harm of not being hired, but again his concept of harm is selective to the point of being INCONSISTENT. Killing a human life in the womb isn't worth considering, nor is exposing school children to flagrant pron.
The point still stands, Dan is happy to force his views on others, and I didn't have to look far at all to find evidence of that fact.
---
I still wish that Dan would at least try to be consistent. "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all," he said, but he's still denouncing us as fascists and religious extremists! But on top of that, I wish he were more clear on what he believes.
A person "can choose to have children," he says, but what he means is that she can choose to kill the child she already has, at least so long as the child is still in the womb.
And he says, "a person can choose who they want to marry," but either he recognizes some limitations or he doesn't. Polygamy, bigamy, adult incest, even underage arrangements -- if a minor can elect to have procedures that mutilate and sterilize, marriage seems like no big thing -- if Dan thinks some of these arrangements should remain illegal, then he's not framing our disagreement accurately, much less fairly. We ALL agree on restrictions, we just disagree on whether the number of restrictions should be N or N+1.
And if he doesn't oppose these arrangements, that would be something worth knowing.
It has long been my belief that Dan writes to obfuscate and not to clarify: my guess is that he knows just how appalling the wide range of his beliefs really are.
August 4, 2024 at 3:42 PM
"So much to respond to (and so few answers to my questions). A couple of quick points... Marshal:"
I answered all your dumbass questions, as I always do.
I said:
"Double-Standard Dan (A.K.A., "Pervert Dan") had no problem with the perv nation's "personal human opinion" being forced upon an non-consenting nation."
Double-Standard Dan (A.K.A., "Pervert Dan") responded thusly:
"In a progressive (and reasonably conservative) nation, a person can choose who they want to marry, they can choose to have children, they can choose the medical procedures that they and their medical team think best."
This is as it's always been, so there's no problem there.
"IF you don't want an abortion, Marshal, in a progressive and reasonable US, you do not have to have one."
This purposely skirts the only legitimate and relevant fact regarding this issue: the unnecessary and unjust murder of another human being.
"If someone DOES want an abortion, though, in a more-fascist, modern conservative state, they CAN'T because Marshal and other religious extremists don't want to have one for themselves NOR do they want others to have that liberty to make that decision."
Two lies here:
1. It's not a matter of religious "extremism" to deny a "right" to murder an innocent. Something about which Dan pretends to care when crapping on Israel for defending their own people from murderers. What's more, plenty of non-religious people acknowledge the humanity of the conceived yet to be born and their being possessed of the unalienable right to life endowed upon them by their Creator of which those like Dan aren't worthy.
2. It's neither fascism nor authoritarianism to defend innocent life from murderous procedures which are neither ever justified nor truthfully labeled as "medical procedures", as if there's some illness or injury due to the presence of the conceived within a womb.
"IF you don't want to marry a guy, Marshal, in a progressive and reasonable US, you do not have to marry a guy. No sweat, we truly don't care who you marry."
That too, since Lawrence v Texas, had been the case in this country. It worsened since as a result of your kind imposing your personal beliefs via judicial overreach and legislative malfeasance without the consent of the rest of the people.
"If a fella DOES want to marry a guy, though, in a more-fascist, modern conservative state, they CAN'T because Marshal and other religious extremists don't want to marry a guy themselves NOR do they want others to have that liberty to make that decision."
Bullshit. And it's not "fascism" to expect that the people have a say in how words are defined, particularly for the purpose of legislation, and not have them changed by judicial fiat. Again, this is another manifestation of your double-standard in that you have no problem with you perverse religion forced upon the rest of us without our consent.
"IF you don't want your child to read a book about LGBTQ issues, Marshal, in a progressive and reasonable US, you can choose to not allow them that privilege."
This is another lie, that any books were banned as opposed to judged to be unsuitable for placement in school libraries or put on student reading lists. It's another case of forcing your perverse religion of sexual deviancy upon the children of other people without their consent.
"If someone DOES want to read such a book, though, in a more-fascist, modern conservative state, they CAN'T because Marshal and other religious extremists don't want their children to read it NOR do they want others to have that liberty to make that decision for their children, at least at the school setting."
Double-Standard Dan strikes again and admits his two-faced perversity. Aside from schools being no place for what amounts to pornography and pushing your ideology of sexual perversion, there's been no laws preventing pervert parents like you from exposing your kids to that kind of filth. Your kind is selective as to when that is to be allowed, preferring your vile shit to other forms of pornography.
"What double standard?"
That which I've cited examples in my responses to your false representations above.
"I'm consistently in favor of you making your decisions for yourself, and you're inconsistent in that you want to make decisions for yourself AND you want to impose your wishes on others."
Not true, as you pervert (surprise, surprise) the positions of people who actually strive to be good Christians, parents, citizens and seekers and defenders of truth. Your kind are those doing all the imposing. As my responses demonstrate, my side is actually defending liberty more precisely and morally. You're only consistent in your defense of perversion and rebellion against God and the U.S. Constitution.
"That's an actual example of inconsistency and double standards... one standard for you and those who agree with you, but a different standard for those who dare to have an opinion different than yours."
Not at all. But you keep lying. Lying is what you do.
For myself, my focus continues to be Dan's stated opposition to biblical morality: merely holding and expressing the belief that God's will for human sexuality excludes certain behaviors is, in his view, harmful. He thinks doing so causes active and overt harm to groups who practice those behaviors, and those who hold and profess those beliefs should be ostracized.
Again, Dan is selective: idolaters and adulterers have been historically ostracized, but it's still okay to stand up against idolatry and adultery, at least for now -- and note, ALL because of arguments from harm NOT because of God's revealed will.
More than that, Dan is happy to wield EXACTLY the kind of power he denounces as harmful to "punish" (HIS WORD) people for holding and expressing a belief in biblical sexual morality.
He writes:
"IF you don't want to marry a guy, Marshal, in a progressive and reasonable US, you do not have to marry a guy. No sweat, we truly don't care who you marry."
...but if you don't want to affirm such arrangements as moral, suddenly Dan cares VERY MUCH indeed. You will be made to change your mind, or you should be cast out of polite society.
Homosexuality is not yet mandatory, but in Dan's view, celebrating it very much IS required. Coercing religious beliefs and professions seems quite fascist by Dan's own standard, inconsistently applied as it is.
Bubba,
It's not just some of his beliefs that are appalling, but his personality in general. He and his buddy Feodor are not nice people to interact with.
Being against the LGBTQXYZ agenda has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with biology. just one item--male to male anal sex is about as harmful to the body as it gets, let alone the diseases which are brought about. No man change into a woman nor a woman to a man, etc. BIOLOGY.
"IF you don't want an abortion, Marshal, in a progressive and reasonable US, you do not have to have one"
If you don't want to murder someone, then you don't have to murder them.
Abortion is not health care--it is the murder of an innocent child, which not a part of the woman's body. If you don't want to get pregnant then don't have sex or use contraceptives.
Jesse,
I can assure you Bubba is quite aware of the low character of both those dudes.
For myself, my focus continues to be Dan's stated opposition to biblical morality: merely holding and expressing the belief that God's will for human sexuality excludes certain behaviors is, in his view, harmful. He thinks doing so causes active and overt harm to groups who practice those behaviors, and those who hold and profess those beliefs should be ostracized.
Of course, the reality is that I don't have a "stated opposition to biblical morality." I have a stated disagreement with the personal human opinions you fellas hold on some topics.
Given the entirely different time and culture, I think biblical authors espouse a wide range of pretty progressive, reasonable moral positions that are rational and moral, to my way of thinking... as well as to enlightened minds.
Disagreeing with the personal human opinions you all hold about morality and what you personally think about what the "bible says" about various moral questions is not the same as being opposed to "biblical morality."
At the same time, I AM opposed to moral standards from a wildly different culture - I think enlightened minds can recognize that ALL slavery is wrong and immoral, but that's not something they recognized very well (or at all) back then. I think enlightened minds can recognize how misogynistic patriarchal societies can be and the notion of selling your daughters off into marriage.
But it was a different time.
But to be clear: Disagreeing with notions like slavery and sex slavery/misogyny/selling your daughters/women not having equal rights that we find happening in the bible - OR running swords through babies and children, as another example - disagreeing that those things could possibly be moral is not disagreeing with God, just some human's understanding of God.
Do you understand that distinction? Do you understand that people of good faith can and do disagree with your human opinions about morality and what you personally think "the Bible says" and not be hateful of God or inclined to embrace or promote sin?
Do you think you fellas and your human traditions get to be the arbiters of "biblical morality" (Which, biblically, ain't a thing)? If so, why? Who says?
These are reasonable, moral and respectful questions to ask, do you recognize that?
...but if you don't want to affirm such arrangements as moral, suddenly Dan cares VERY MUCH indeed.
Because, THEN, at that point, you've started denying human rights, you've started engaging in harm. Once again, your right to swing your religious fist ends at other people's bodies.
Do you disagree?
You're asking questions and I'm answering. At what point will you start answering my questions, or are you above that?
Bubba...
The point still stands, Dan is happy to force his views on others, and I didn't have to look far at all to find evidence of that fact.
The points still stand:
1. This is a stupidly false claim.
2. What I DO stand against is causing harm to people. I'm not FORCING YOU to marry a dude. YOU don't get to force others to not be able to marry their partner.
Individual liberty as long as you're not harming others.
Making calls for OTHER people, trying to force your personal religious opinions on them by weight of law, that IS denying people their rights. We aren't doing that to you, we just expect the same from religious extremists like you all and Muslim extremists who agree with you on many points.
That's literally NOT me "forcing my views on others," just insisting you keep your religious opinions off of me and others who don't care to let you make our moral decisions for us.
How are you all not getting this?
For two more examples, Bubba:
Killing a human life in the womb isn't worth considering
It's worth considering. It is ONE religious view that human fetus' should never be aborted, but it's not a view shared by everyone. WHY do you think you all get to make that decision for other people?
nor is exposing school children to flagrant pron.
That you don't like cartoons dealing with sexual issues that teenagers have questions about is FINE. That you may think in your own little head that, to you, it's icky and, to you, in your opinion and your mind, it's "pron." Never mind that GOD didn't tell you that. Never mind that "the Bible" hasn't told you that. It's literally YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN OPINION, and because I believe in religious liberty, I would never force you to read such a book if it causes you personal offense.
I'm just saying that YOUR OPINION does not get to be the deciding factor. No one died and made Bubba, God.
There's another question to go unanswered:
WHY should you and others like you get to make that decision for OTHER people? Based on what authority?
Where does the Bible "tell" you that it's okay for you to force your opinions on graphic novels dealing with sexuality on other people?
Can you at least admit that the Bible has not counseled you to take this stand because the Bible literally doesn't deal with graphic novels or drawings of "pee pees" and "woo woos..."?
August 4, 2024 at 3:55 PM
"We had a delightful sermon today from a trans youth at our church. They focused on the Scripture from Acts 10, where God taught Peter to see beyond his religious traditions and opinions... to recognize that his personal religious opinions do not always align with God's."
How precious. Dan delights in a "sermon" from a pervert given to rationalize perversions give to a congregation which welcomes, celebrates and enables perversion! How strange to find Dan regards it as "delightful"!
"Peter was slow and obstinate and downright rude to God, in favor of his personal human opinions.
BUT EVENTUALLY, Peter got it."
This is nonsense. You choose to regard Pete's response as "obstinate" and "downright rude to God". It is far more likely, given the history of Israel to that point and Peter's own devotion to Jewish law (GOD'S Law), that these animals being unclean by law, he likely saw this as a test, and felt God would find approval for his insistence on abiding His Law. There's good precedence for this in Jewish history. Daniel refused to eat the unclean food of the king and God blesses him for it. Less than 200 years before Peter existed, Antiochus Epiphanes tried to compel the Jews to eat pig's flesh in an attempt to eradicate Judaism. This, among other abominations, resulted in the Jewish revolt led by the priest Judah Maccabees who, along with his followers, would rather have died than eat pork, among other defilements, because they believed that it was what God asked them to do. This led to a century of Jewish independence.
You pervert this story so as to draw a parallel between his refusal to eat unclean food to your invention of the "human tradition" argument when faced with your own corruption of God's Will.
"Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
Aside from the argument that this passage has more to do with accepting Gentiles into the body of Christ than it does eating animals, it also affirms Christ's own teaching about what makes one impure (Mark 7:15, Matt 15:11), which is far more relevant to your kind than is this passage and your perversion of it to enable and defend perversions and the people who engage in it, like your "trans" youth guests speaker.
"Words to live by and understand and implement in your life."
You clearly don't understand it at all.
"Some may want to reply:
But, but, but... the OT has rules that are very clear that we should NOT eat unclean animals! If it said that in a place in the OT, then it must be a universal rule that I'm understanding perfectly!"
Perhaps this mythical "some people" might, but no one here does, understanding the passage properly as we do.
"But those who reply thusly are missing the point... they're following human opinions and interpretations of an ancient text and in the process, insulting God."
If you have to scrape the barrel to present such an argument, I'd say you're arguing against a strawman.
"But God is clear:
Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
Are you suggesting that God has made sexually immoral and depraved behaviors "clean" somehow? What a grand perversion of God's position!
"The mere presence of a verse or two in the OT does not make transgender folks, LGBTQ folks - created by and beloved by God almighty - "unclean," no matter how much you may want to tell God otherwise."
They make themselves unclean by willfully rejecting God's Will regarding human sexual behavior. Again, as Christ said (you know...Christ?...God the Son?) "It's what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.'" Mark 7:15 He also said a bit earlier (I'd posit in speaking to the Dan Trabues of His time), "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!" (v9) Now, you take this passage from Acts and pervert it in order to observe your own tradition of celebrating and enabling perversion.
By the way, Dan...do you have any plans for commenting on the point of the post? I think you've painted yourself in a corner well enough with your sad tangential arguments which further expose your moral turpitude.
August 4, 2024 at 4:34 PM
"F. Presuming that you have the rational humility to say you can't speak authoritatively for Jesus on every point, then why would your personal human opinions outweigh my personal human opinions on Jesus' teachings?"
Because your opinions are demonstrably lacking in Scriptural support, while ours are supported by verbatim presentations of Jesus and/or His Apostles/disciples and/or similar teachings in the OT. It's one thing to disagree with an understanding of what's clearly written. It's quite another to do so with no effort to demonstrate your disagreement is Scripturally justified. We do not inject into Scripture meaning that isn't implied or more overtly repeated in other verses, passages or books of the Bible. For example, there's no justification in saying that when the word "marriage" appears anywhere between the covers of Scripture the meaning of the word includes same-sex unions. It's absurd. It's a lie.
"Do you see that these are reasonable questions to ask and have answered?"
No. Neither this nor any question which preceded it are "reasonable" in the least EXCEPT for your attempt to mitigate the truth of things we've been saying about the issue you had no call to place on the table...given the topic of the post.
We are not obliged to be perfectly correct on each and every teaching of Christ to be perfectly correct about our position on the subject at hand. BUT!...we are consistently correct on every issue which has come up between you and the rest of us. This, too, is supported by your inability to provide Scriptural support for your position or against ours.
August 4, 2024 at 4:48 PM
"Nonetheless, I think I have a fairly consistent view on human rights."
Consistently stupid, fluid, ambiguous and not altogether followed by you and your kind.
"Do no harm. Period."
Your support of both homosexuality and abortion most factually does great harm in numerous ways on numerous levels...as has been exhaustively explained many times, though you dismiss those explanations and never address the facts presented therein.
What follows the above corrupted concept is mostly irrelevant to the already tangential topic on the table.
"BUT, don't tell gay guys not to marry, because that's harmful, in a thousand ways."
Name one way which matters at all.
"Do no harm."
Unless the harmed is conceived people not yet born.
"Do you not want your children to read a book about LGBTQ issues? Fine. Let the school librarian know. But DO NO HARM."
There's absolutely no harm whatsoever in restricting such filth in our schools. None, and you couldn't provide an example of harm inflicted by that very wise policy if I helped you lie to do it.
"Don't impose THAT rule upon others who may WANT their child (gay, lesbian, trans, straight or otherwise) to have access to that kind of information and worldview."
Perverts who want to corrupt their children, are free to expose them to pro-perv filth you're defending as suitable for kids. Pervs love to abuse kids.
"Do no harm."
Exposing kids to pornographic books is harmful.
"School libraries don't have age-inappropriate "graphic sexual materials," so I don't know what you're talking about without additional information."
There's plenty of videos of parents and even young kids (one I saw was twelve) attempting to read from books they were made to read in class at school board meetings to protest against that which you want to pretend you're totally unaware.
"I suspect you're objecting to any sex-ed related material for middle school and high school students."
We're talking about books with graphic depictions of all kinds of sexual behavior in which you would not want your daughter to have indulged...though maybe you'd have no problem with her "exploring her sexuality" while in middle school.
"You probably find "sex ed" to be "dirty" and "graphic sexual materials.""
Not surprised you'd say something so stupid. Sex ed is legitimate as it is a clinical description of human biology as it pertains to procreation. Understanding this ensures kids are aware of what the consequences of sexual intercourse are. Is this your idea of "good faith" discussion, you pervert?
"Not everyone shares your perhaps prurient attitudes towards sexuality and sex education."
Good and honest and intelligent people share our attitudes about protecting kids from pro-homo filth and other perversions. They're exceedingly harmful to their well being.
"AND, you are free to hold those prurient views and have rules for your kids. The point remains: You don't and should not get to decide for other kids."
Yet, you want to pretend the Biblical descriptions of "selling one's daughter into marriage" is immoral? You're a fucking freakshow!
"Also, are you turned on or something by the cartoon images of "pee pees" and whatnot in children's literature?"
No, but you clearly are or you wouldn't be defending it. And how do you know their "cartoon images". Is that your preferred medium? Are you more turned on than you are at the thought of Trump "grabbing pussies" or "ogling teen bodies"?
"Do you think conservative Christians should get to decide what is and isn't appropriate for ALL the children in their school? If so, why?"
Kids would be far better off given how perverse Jeff St "progressive" "Christians" are. What you favor harms kids. What we favor protects them from harm. Your "do no harm" mantra is dishonest crap. But of course, you're a liar, and lying is what liars like you do.
August 4, 2024 at 4:56 PM
Racists who use religion to block interracial marriages are abusing Scripture as badly as you do, Dan.
Your continued grouping of devoted Christians to muslims is purposeful lying. There's no parallel.
Who the fuck is advocating for the imprisonment or execution of homos in this country? Name them. Right now. Name them. If you can't name anyone with any hope to promoting those notions to the enactment of any law which you lead to that, then stuff that crap back up the orifice from which you dug deep to pull it. It is in no way an example of "good faith" discourse to continually pull this crap out and lay in on the table. I know your love of sexual perversion runs deep in you, but at least pretend you're an adult better than you've been demonstrating over the years.
Personally, I have no problem with other countries who see fit to enact laws against immoral sexual behaviors. In this country, I believe we'd be just fine had Lawrence v Texas not ruled in favor of the deviant. I've no intention of looking to see that overturned, because despite the harm such people inflict on each other by their behavior, consenting adults are free to harm each other if they're so intent. The problem with that ruling is how it led to other rulings, most notably the unConstitutional Obergefell decision which redefined "marriage" by judicial fiat and without the consent of the people. That decision caused much harm and still does, even beyond the question of whether or not a moral society should pretend SSM is normal, moral (or morally benign), just like any other marriage and most importantly, somehow a benefit to the nation, which it's never been shown to be. I continue to oppose it and I continue to oppose all previous "marriage by another name" legal arrangements. The pervs are in no way harmed by the nation not pretending their unions are actually marriages, despite their ability to live as if they are. That's just bullshit leftist propaganda.
August 4, 2024 at 10:07 PM
"Of course, the reality is that I don't have a "stated opposition to biblical morality.""
The reality is that you clearly do. Stated directly or by implication, you oppose Biblical morality.
"I have a stated disagreement with the personal human opinions you fellas hold on some topics."
Yeah, we get that. What's lacking is any coherent, intelligent, Scripture based counter argument to justify your disagreement. Because you have a stated opposition to Biblical morality and don't feel the need to justify it. It's enough for you that you don't like it.
"Given the entirely different time and culture, I think biblical authors espouse a wide range of pretty progressive, reasonable moral positions that are rational and moral, to my way of thinking... as well as to enlightened minds."
Your way of thinking is not a basis for judging anything in Scripture, and your "enlightened minds" are just other progressive assholes as willing to subvert, pervert and corrupt Scripture to promote, celebrate, defend and enable perversion as you are and have been.
"Disagreeing with the personal human opinions you all hold about morality and what you personally think about what the "bible says" about various moral questions is not the same as being opposed to "biblical morality.""
Uh...given the topics with which we are in disagreement, and the fact that our positions are drawn directly from unambiguous Scriptural teaching, you disagreement is opposition to Biblical morality. And again, to portray our positions are mere "opinion", when our "opinion" is a clear and direct reflection of what Scripture says, suggests that you have an opinion that is just as supported by Scripture as is ours...yet no such evidence is given which doesn't have liberal use of definitional corruption and outright perversions of whatever verse or passage is on the table.
"At the same time, I AM opposed to moral standards from a wildly different culture - I think enlightened minds can recognize that ALL slavery is wrong and immoral, but that's not something they recognized very well (or at all) back then. I think enlightened minds can recognize how misogynistic patriarchal societies can be and the notion of selling your daughters off into marriage."
Those who minds are actually "enlightened" do not pervert these various topics as you do. Each has been clarified, very often with the help of citations from well known and highly respected theologians.
"But it was a different time."
Yes, but that doesn't justify your corruption of the text which describes it.
"But to be clear: Disagreeing with notions like slavery and sex slavery/misogyny/selling your daughters/women not having equal rights that we find happening in the bible - OR running swords through babies and children, as another example - disagreeing that those things could possibly be moral is not disagreeing with God, just some human's understanding of God."
Someday you'll have to actually provide your way of resolving those issues which presents something more compelling than, "I don't think you guys are understanding those passages right." If we aren't, when will you favor us with how we're to understand them? I don't want to hear you presumption of ancient people rationalizing their behaviors as God-ordained. That's not an explanation. That's just your wishful thinking put forth to carve out room to suppose God's prohibition on homosexuality (as well as other things) are not true or not still true. The fact is you oppose God's morality.
"Do you understand that distinction?"
Yes. We care about what Scripture says. You don't. THAT is the distinction.
"Do you understand that people of good faith can and do disagree with your human opinions about morality and what you personally think "the Bible says" and not be hateful of God or inclined to embrace or promote sin?"
No. There are no such people who are acting in good faith while totally rejecting what is clear and unambiguous as those issues where we are in disagreement. You've proven that well on your own behalf, and now wish to project the possibility that anyone who thinks like your are people of good faith, so as to align yourself with ANYBODY of "good faith".
"Do you think you fellas and your human traditions get to be the arbiters of "biblical morality" (Which, biblically, ain't a thing)? If so, why? Who says?"
You clearly believe your kind with YOUR totally human (not Biblically inspired) traditions get to be arbiters of morality. And yes, "Biblical morality" is most definitely "a thing". You just don't want it to be because it's inconvenient for your embrace of perversion.
And aside from the fact our more solid understanding of Biblical morality and it's unimpeachable value to the human race makes us better legislators, we are just as worthy of being in that position as anyone simply on the basis of our being citizens of this country. Our positions don't cause harm despite your unsubstantiated claims that they do.
"These are reasonable, moral and respectful questions to ask, do you recognize that?"
No. They're dishonest and moronic It's the same old same old with you. You throw crap out there and expect that we treat it as filet mignon.
You're not a serious person. You're not an intelligent person. You're not a moral person. And you ain't a Christian person.
"You clearly believe your kind with YOUR totally human (not Biblically inspired) traditions get to be arbiters of morality. And yes, "Biblical morality" is most definitely "a thing". You just don't want it to be because it's inconvenient for your embrace of perversion.
And aside from the fact our more solid understanding of Biblical morality and it's unimpeachable value to the human race makes us better legislators, we are just as worthy of being in that position as anyone simply on the basis of our being citizens of this country."
You're still not answering the still reasonable questions:
Why? On what basis and on whose authority?
I GET that, to you, your opinions are most reasonable, most biblical, most moral... but on what basis should you decide for someone else?
Because you REALLLLLLY think you all should get to make these calls? Who cares what you think?
On whose authority and what rational basis should you decide for someone else?
That's the question you need to actually answer.
Dan
Indeed, Jesse, and thanks: I wish it were otherwise, but that's why there's a VERY limited utility in engaging with Dan over any extended period of time. At this point we're already covering the same ground over and over again.
---
Dan writes, "Disagreeing with notions like slavery and sex slavery/misogyny/selling your daughters/women not having equal rights that we find happening in the bible - OR running swords through babies and children, as another example - disagreeing that those things could possibly be moral is not disagreeing with God, just some human's understanding of God."
He denounces things "that we find happening in the bible [sic]," and he seems to disagree with "just some human's understanding of God" even when that human happens to be one of the Bible's human authors.
A more honest individual wouldn't balk at people drawing the conclusion that he's opposed to a comprehensively Biblical worldview, that is to say, ALL of what the Bible attributes to God in terms of His character, His acts in history, His promises, AND His commands. If you pick and choose what parts of the Bible you accept, it's quite straightforward to conclude that you do not hold a biblical worldview.
---
On politics, we now have an appeal to unanimity...
"It is ONE religious view that human fetus' should never be aborted, but it's not a view shared by everyone. WHY do you think you all get to make that decision for other people?"
...but the immorality of theft isn't a view shared by everyone (hence, data piracy, chop shops, and fences), and laws would be mere ceremony if everyone agreed to them!
More than that, not everyone agrees that harm is caused when people exercise their right to hire whomever they want, but that doesn't stop Dan form supporting laws that infringe on that right.
There's no consistency here, there's not even the effort.
---
And, returning again to my main point, Dan says he champions, "Individual liberty as long as you're not harming others," BUT LOOK WHERE HE DRAWS THE LINE OF HARM.
"[ME:]...but if you don't want to affirm such arrangements as moral, suddenly Dan cares VERY MUCH indeed."
"[DAN:] Because, THEN, at that point, you've started denying human rights, you've started engaging in harm. Once again, your right to swing your religious fist ends at other people's bodies."
Merely refusing to affirm such arrangements as moral: THERE is where "you've started denying human rights, you've started engaging in harm."
He's made clear that he wants people like me "punished" and ostracized from polite society for withholding our affirmation.
Dan has a very limited view of religious liberty.
Dan,
I appreciate your clarifying that you don't derive any political positions from the teachings of Jesus -- I think you should be more clear about that going forward -- but human rights do not compel a person to set aside his religious beliefs in considering political issues.
On the contrary, a faithful Christian is a Christian in all walks of life: what we render to Caesar is subordinate to what we render to God.
About faith, you ask a series of questions, A through F, that are tantamount to asking, "Did God really say?"
It's been a while, but I've answered these sorts of questions before. It amazes me that someone would claim to believe that Jesus is a great teacher but that the contents of His teachings are evidently ALWAYS up for debate.
No, there really are limits to the "vagaries" (sic) of communication.
For instance, morality isn't limited to love for one's neighbors, much less a negative formulation of "do no harm." No, the greatest commandment is to love GOD wholeheartedly.
That involves conforming one's life to His revealed will even when revelation can be neither derived from nor confirmed by human reasoning: Jesus made a key distinction between merely human traditions and divine commands, and in Mark 7 He EQUATES what God said with what Moses said, affirming the divine authorship of Scripture.
And Jesus wasn't silent on the subject of marriage: we're not left with OT commands for Israel to wonder what applies to His NT followers.
No, Jesus affirmed that God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife.
That principle precludes an androgynous conception of marriage.
August 5, 2024 at 7:33 AM
"You're still not answering the still reasonable questions:
Why? On what basis and on whose authority?"
I absolutely answered the question of "basis". First, on the basis that "our more solid understanding of Biblical morality and it's unimpeachable value to the human race makes us better legislators", and also "on the basis of our being citizens of this country."
As to "on whose authority?", on the same authority which put anti-American assholes in positions of governmental power, the majority of American voters who favor one party or candidate over another. What other authority is required in your feeble imaginings?
I could also say by God's authority, as it is by His Will that anyone is in a position of power.
But the question is a bullshit question because you're only concerned about an answer to it when opposing better people you personally regard as a problem on the basis of your moral corruption, ignorance, stupidity and hatred of truth and reason.
"I GET that, to you, your opinions are most reasonable, most biblical, most moral... but on what basis should you decide for someone else?"
Asked and answered. On what basis should leftist assholes you support decide for the rest of us? It's certainly not because they support policies beneficial to all Americans, nor time-tested Constitutional principles.
"Because you REALLLLLLY think you all should get to make these calls? Who cares what you think?"
Who cares what fake Christian progressive asshats care about? Those who otherwise do care are those who no longer wish to tolerate all the harm your kind has inflicted upon the nation...you who espouse the "do no harm" mantra so subjectively and in a clearly self-serving manner
"On whose authority and what rational basis should you decide for someone else?"
Again, asked and answered. But I'll say again the obvious rational basis is that your kind have caused the nation so much harm.
"That's the question you need to actually answer."
My answers are those you need to actually embrace because they're true and factual.
Look, it's a given thar you REALLLLLLY believe the opinions you hold in your head. You truly think, in your head, that the arguments for your position are the strongest.
But so do we.
Given the case then, of two groups of people holding different opinions in good faith, what then?
On what authority should your opinion be implemented?
The advantage to our position is that we don't force our opinions on you. You are free to not get an abortion if you don't want.
Our side makes room for you to still hold your views.
But that's not the case for you all.
So, whether you understand it or not, we're not beholden to live according to YOUR opinions, because you have no authority to make that call.
As you demonstrate each time you don't answer the question.
Dan
Let's consider it at another angle, and with some specific examples.
Abortion:
Democrats and good numbers of all people support this kind of medical decision to be up to a pregnant woman and her supporters.
We would never dream of telling someone opposed to abortion that they must have an abortion. Of course.
That is our position at the primary level of the topic.
The GOP, on the other hand, largely would like to see them all prohibited. They believe in their opinion that aborting a fetus is tantamount to murdering babies and so, they tend to be universally opposed to them and largely would be glad to dictate that to women, whether or not they agree with your personal opinions.
That is correct, is it not?
The Democrats, recognizing the issue as complex with difficult and unproven moral theories at play, want to leave it to the individual to make that call.
The GOP would like to entirely/nearly entirely remove any choice and just declare abortions forbidden for all.
Fair assessment?
If so, you can see that we are truly okay with you following your own moral agency on the topic, but not the GOP.
Dan
Likewise, with LGBTQ issues like a right to marry or a right to self-determination as to gender...
The Democrats support free choice. We're not telling you who you can marry or preventing which gender you identify as.
The GOP, on the other hand, WOULD like to dictate who you can marry and whether or not you can seek the treatment you want to identify as the gender of your own choice.
We are, Make your own decisions and you all are, We're going to make that decision for you.
Amiright?
There may well be other layers to this question, but at the primary level, we are freedom of choice and conscience and you all want to dictate to others what they can and cannot do.
Where am I mistaken?
I, of course, am not.
Dan
August 5, 2024 at 3:42 PM
"Look, it's a given thar you REALLLLLLY believe the opinions you hold in your head. You truly think, in your head, that the arguments for your position are the strongest.
But so do we."
Not a matter of belief, but of what is true and factual, what can best be argued as true and factual and which side can provide evidence to support what is claimed to be true and factual. While you constantly demand at your Blog of Lies that such support be provided, and then demand more when you've dismissed what already has been, you do little to reciprocate. You default to crap such as "self-evident" to satisfy your end of the bargain. But that's just cowardly dodging.
So I don't care if you "think" your position is strongest, especially when you've never provided any intelligent reason why one should agree that it is.
And by the way, there's no "we" here. There's only you. Pretending you have anyone who agrees with you is meaningless, as it's only you presenting your dumbass arguments.
"Given the case then, of two groups of people holding different opinions in good faith, what then?"
You keep using this term "good faith", while consistently demonstrating just the opposite. "Good faith" doesn't include deleting opponents for the flimsiest of reasons...reasons given only to avoid having to actually argue in good faith.
"On what authority should your opinion be implemented?"
Ask yourself that, as your kind has gotten so many harmful and deadly policies implemented. On what authority was it justified?
The only authority any of us needs, and has a right to claim, is the consent of the people. Should I convince enough of them to eat pudding with their hands or face jail time is a legitimate and beneficial policy to implement, then that authority will be given by their majority consent.
Conversely, your kind rejects that when the majority of the people rejects your policy proposals. You then seek out like-minded courts to impose your will by judicial fiat, as had been the case with both Roe v Wade and the Obergefell ruling...to name to of the most egregious examples. That's side-stepping proper authority, but your kind doesn't care.
"The advantage to our position is that we don't force our opinions on you. You are free to not get an abortion if you don't want."
This is not a good example for your twisted position. It ignore the abject and absolute fact that what is "aborted" is a living person endowed by its Creator with the same unalienable right to life you happily appropriate for yourself while being so gravely less deserving of it. Honest people truly devoted to the Will of God, as well as honest atheists devoted to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution...both devoted to truth...oppose abortion because it's murder...because there's no legitimate reason which justifies every killing the unborn person. EVER!
Thus, to be "gracious" and say your position allows that I don't have to murder an infant if I don't want to clearly indicts you as one wholly undeserving of respect. Your position is heinous and clearly an act of flipping off the Lord and basic decency and humanity. You're a slug for pretending you're being a nice guy here. Do no harm, Dan. Remember? You fucking fraud!
"Our side makes room for you to still hold your views."
Actually, it doesn't. Having such abominable policies codified in law does indeed mean our views are no consequence. Legalizing infanticide makes one a criminal for attempt to prevent the practice from taking place. It makes it criminal to attempt to save the most innocent and defenseless of our kind. Indeed, the feds came armed to arrest a preacher in front of his wife and kids for daring to express his views in hopes of persuading women not to murder their own kids. Your side is evil.
"But that's not the case for you all."
If your views are murderous, as they clearly are, then I have no problem denying your ability to act on your murderous positions. That's not denying your ability to be assholes in holding those positions. You constantly pretend to care about targeting children, yet what the fuck is abortion but assholes targeting children? You're
"So, whether you understand it or not, we're not beholden to live according to YOUR opinions, because you have no authority to make that call."
By what authority do you dare suggest such a thing? We have the same authority you have to implement your perversions and murderous policies. By your Satanic logic, you don't have to enslave another human being if you don't want to, but you deny that "right" to others. By my God-loving logic, no one has a "right" to murder their own children and allowing that no one is obligated to do so doesn't legitimize that contemptible bullshit. There's no way to defend infanticide that comes anywhere near a "good faith" argument.
"As you demonstrate each time you don't answer the question."
So what you're saying is that I don't demonstrate whatever the fuck you're suggesting since I always answer your questions.
However, since you're so lacking in good faith, I will tell YOU when your questions are deserving of a good faith response. At THIS blog, you'll do things MY way, which is a more gracious, honest, truly good faith way. Your questions will require an explanation of why they're relevant. So many of them are diversions and obfuscations. No more.
I'm going to respond to the following since it was submitted while I was responding to Dan's previous slop.
August 5, 2024 at 8:53 PM
"Let's consider it at another angle, and with some specific examples.
Abortion:
Democrats and good numbers of all people support this kind of medical decision to be up to a pregnant woman and her supporters."
Democrats support pretending abortion is a necessary "medical" procedure which serves to correct an actual problem. It's a lie akin to suggesting that cutting off one's leg for abdominal pain is justifiable so long as the patient and doctor say is. Democrats lie. It's what they do.
"We would never dream of telling someone opposed to abortion that they must have an abortion. Of course."
Of course. A deceitful, empty concession, unless you're living in Communist China and changed your laws about one child per family. Those who oppose infanticide don't engage in it. Those who support it act to keep it an option in case they want to avail themselves of it, pretending all the while what a tough decision it is.
"That is our position at the primary level of the topic."
A more heinous, demonic position would be hard to imagine. But your kind will certainly find one in time.
"The GOP, on the other hand, largely would like to see them all prohibited. They believe in their opinion that aborting a fetus is tantamount to murdering babies and so, they tend to be universally opposed to them and largely would be glad to dictate that to women, whether or not they agree with your personal opinions.
That is correct, is it not?"
No. In typical Trabue style, you pervert it. I won't talk of political parties, because I know not all Dems are into infanticide and I won't insist no Repubs wouldn't or haven't availed themselves of it.
I'll just talk about me, because it's just you and me here, not Dems and the GOP.
I want to see abortion totally outlawed. I can allow a caveat if it is enforced absolutely. That caveat would be a true risk to the life of the mother. As that's technically never the case, I allow for the wild possibility that it might be in some rare situation. That's what needs to be monitored. I'm not going to spend time trying to imagine how that would work, especially since I don't think such a caveat is justified. I just put it out there because, like you trying to suggest it matters that you won't force opponents to get an abortion, I can allow this caveat because I know it's totally unnecessary. There's no need to abort for any reason.
It's not "an opinion" that abortion is "tantamount" to murdering babies. That's exactly what it is. You liars will then bore us with semantics about what is or isn't a baby. That's a cheap dodge given whatever one calls this human person, it's a human person about to be unnecessarily and unjustifiably put to death for the convenience of the mother and the profit of the abortionist. ALL science affirms a new person exists from the moment of conception, so whatever word you liars want to use, the conceptus is a person, just like the fuckers trying to murder it...just not possessed of the same absence of moral character at that stage of development.
This notion that those like me are trying to "dictate" to women something not of universal concern is abhorrent. I favor dictating to all fellow citizens to abstain from murdering their children, parents, siblings, neighbors and total strangers. It's kind of a Christian thing. You wouldn't understand. I don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of those who favor murdering innocent people. By what authority do women have to make that decision regarding the life of a distinctly different person? They have no authority not granted to them by those who want to keep that option open to themselves should they decide to use it for their own selfish reasons.
"The Democrats, recognizing the issue as complex with difficult and unproven moral theories at play, want to leave it to the individual to make that call."
You're a liar. There's nothing complex about it. Even if we assume the mother's life is in some sort of jeopardy during a pregnancy, it's not the child which caused it. The child is as much a victim and as much threatened by the dysfunction of the mother's body as she is. The child didn't cause it. If the child isn't the cause, ripping the child limb from limb or scalding it with chemicals or whatever means of unjust execution is chosen, isn't what resolves the issue. It never is what resolves the issue.
(To this last point, I want to make clear that in looking for testimonies from pro-life obstetricians who specialize in difficult pregnancies, I did see a link to some guy who allegedly is among them but defends the notions that it is indeed sometimes necessary. I didn't click on the link to read it, and never got back to it once I found what I was seeking. I mention this because if the guy isn't just a lazy ass...there are those who are in that field...it would constitute the first instance of someone providing an example of how it could be possible that a woman could only be saved by murdering the child who wasn't to blame for her situation. I intend to seek out this dude and read what his likely lame reasoning is.)
"The GOP would like to entirely/nearly entirely remove any choice and just declare abortions forbidden for all."
Because it's murder by definition. I would much rather it be allowed that your life is taken without your consent for whatever cheap rationalization one conjures than to see that happen to the absolutely "least of these", you hypocritical bastard.
"Fair assessment?"
No, as explained quite clearly above.
"If so, you can see that we are truly okay with you following your own moral agency on the topic, but not the GOP."
Again, an empty concession meant to convince stupid people there's any "good faith" behind it. Only a lefty would be fine with "moral agency" which allows for murder.
You're such a good little useful idiot! Satan's certainly proud of you.
August 5, 2024 at 8:59 PM
"Likewise, with LGBTQ issues like a right to marry or a right to self-determination as to gender...
The Democrats support free choice. We're not telling you who you can marry or preventing which gender you identify as."
No you don't. You don't allow choice to the unborn. You don't allow a person to choose whether or not to wear a useless mask or take unproven drugs inappropriately referred to as "vaccines". You're trying to deny one's choice of motor vehicles and stoves. Your kind wants to deny one the choice to possess the weapon of their preference for defending themselves in the situations in which they exist. Indeed, you assholes want to deny the choice of having a weapon at all. You bastards tried to deny Americans their choice of presidential candidates...both Trump and Kennedy.
And as far as this issue of perv rights, you don't allow choice to the merchant who doesn't want to bake a cake with two pervs on top. You've impeded one's choice to hire who one wants to hire, to do business with whom one chooses to do business, to decide who is a suitable tenant for their rental properties. Your remove the choice one might wish to indulge insofar as speaking truthfully about the dangers of engaging in perverse sexual behavior. You deny the choice of parents to determine what should be taught to their kids in public schools. You denied American citizens the right to choose whether or not to redefine the word "marriage" to appease the perversions of your beloved deviants.
You sons-of-bitches are total despotic fascists as regards pushing your deviant agenda on America,
"The GOP, on the other hand, WOULD like to dictate who you can marry and whether or not you can seek the treatment you want to identify as the gender of your own choice."
More perversion of reality. The GOP...as well as many others...conceded the pervert's "right" to consensual deviant sexual behavior with other perverts. From that moment (Lawrence v Texas) perverts had the freedom to live with other perverts in committed relationships. Until activist justices perverted the law to appease perverts, "marriage" had a definition which went back to ancient times. In this country, it was always one man/one woman and that is what "precedent" looks like, which is only of concern to your kind when it works in your favor. You reprobates totally ignored precedent in imposing the false pervert-friendly definition on the American public without their consent. There was no legitimate, constitutional justification for it. And we Americans who abide truth and fact and science had no say in it.
As far as sex change operations, we know that kids go through all sorts of phases and allowing them to be mutilated is just more leftist disregard for children. You murder them in the womb and butcher them when they're out of it. The harm you bastards do to children is beyond the pale to say the least. Good people of all political or religious persuasions abhor the abuse and harm you satanists do to kids.
What legal "adults" choose to do to themselves is up to them in our minds. What's NOT up to them is how rational, intelligent and honest people respond to them. Again, we have our "self-determination" to defend. The "right" of homosexuals and other perverts to live as perverts does not supersede our Constitutional right of free association.
And give there's no science which supports the notion of a biological man being a woman (or vice versa), we don't like the idea that our tax dollars should be spent to aid in their "transition" and maintenance of same forever. These are elective surgeries, not medical or psychological necessities. Again, Dems are not for "choice" at all.
"We are, Make your own decisions and you all are, We're going to make that decision for you.
Amiright?"
No. You can't get anywhere near that without perverting the issues. When making your decisions negatively impacts others, then you're subordinating our decisions in favor of your perversions and evil intentions.
There may well be other layers to this question, but at the primary level, we are freedom of choice and conscience and you all want to dictate to others what they can and cannot do."
As explained, you're...at the primary level...people with your heads up your asses, and we're people who actually think and reason like honest, moral adults with the best interests of others in mind. You're selfish assholes.
"Where am I mistaken?"
You opened your virtual mouth and spewed bullshit.
Dan, I don't know why you continue to write what has been demonstrated here to be untrue.
You write, "The advantage to our position is that we don't force our opinions on you."
That's simply false: I will again point out your own statement, that you believe business owners should be coerced by law into hiring practices that they don't necessarily agree with.
"Our side makes room for you to still hold your views."
No, you have made clear that you want to "punish" (YOUR WORD) people like me for merely holding and expressing views that you don't like, that we should be ostracized and driven out of polite society ONLY for holding and expressing beliefs regarding morality long before any legal or political conclusions are drawn, much less actually implemented.
As I said before (and the comment is worth another look), you have a very limited view of religious liberty.
---
Your ranting about authority so completely misses the point that I strongly suspect it's deliberate. Nobody is this stupid in real life, certainly no one who has the basic skills to navigate adulthood and have a family.
(Consider this a partial compliment: I believe you're too smart for this nonsense, even though I believe you have a real problem with being ethical.)
You write, "we're not beholden to live according to YOUR opinions, because you have no authority to make that call."
Surely you're familiar with Hans Christian Andersen's tale about The Emperor's New Clothes. Conmen told the ruler that he was wearing material that can only be seen by the worthy, almost everybody played along, but some little kid shouted out that he was naked.
Was this child given some special authority to point out the obvious? No.
But does that really matter? No, BECAUSE THE CHILD WAS RIGHT.
You ask, what are we to do with our "two groups of people holding different opinions in good faith"?
Never mind how the presumption of good faith, what is the content of our differing opinions? What is the subject matter?
It's not just morality generally, it's Christian morality specifically: it's not all possible revelation, it's Biblical revelation.
So, here's a strange and radical thought: let us walk hand-in-hand to Christ's teachings -- and more broadly to the OT prophets He affirmed and the NT apostles He commissioned -- to see whether some opinions are more plausible than others; let us look at the Biblical text to see if some positions take a fuller account of ALL that it teaches.
Let us follow the Bereans' example in Acts 17:10. Let us examine the Scriptures to discover the truth.
THAT is how we can resolve this conundrum of yours. In the worst case, we might find (as I believe to be the case in the question of how exactly to baptize, at least regarding the requirement of a natural body of water) insufficient evidence to support one position firmly over another. We might then realize that we should "agree to disagree," and we can potentially find fellowship where we can unite in the principles of unity in the essentials, liberty in the non-essentials, and charity in all things.
The only thing I would add as a warning is that this process would move us from the PRESUMPTION of good faith to the REQUIREMENT of good faith.
It would become very obvious, very quickly, if any of us were playing games, trying to be clever but dishonest in hocking a transparently imaginary new bit of wardrobe.
I suspect there's a reason you want to focus on questions of authority and not bother with the text itself. I would dearly love to be proven wrong -- TRULY I would -- but at this point the odds seem infinitesimal; it's not our first conversation by a long shot.
Dan, we can start a genuinely fruitful conversation on biblical morality anywhere you like; we could start with that youth's sermon that you mention.
It's worth noting at the outset that I didn't see where you asked the kid how he had the authority to preach from the pulpit to your congregation, nor do you even attempt to tell US about his authority. No, he just went to the text, and you went to the text, PRECISELY the sort of process that I just described that we could use to resolve our disagreements.
It's almost as if no special authority is needed to point out the content of Scripture, amazing!
---
About the text you write...
"Some may want to reply:
"'But, but, but... the OT has rules that are very clear that we should NOT eat unclean animals! If it said that in a place in the OT, then it must be a universal rule that I'm understanding perfectly!'
...but I certainly wouldn't reply in that way, nor would Neil or Marshal, and I doubt any New Testament disciple of Jesus holds that view, for very good BIBLICAL reasons, so I don't know why you bring up this hypothetical reply except to knock down a strawman of your own making.
---
You continue:
"But those who reply thusly are missing the point... they're following human opinions and interpretations of an ancient text and in the process, insulting God. But God is clear:
"Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.
"The mere presence of a verse or two in the OT does not make transgender folks, LGBTQ folks - created by and beloved by God almighty - 'unclean,' no matter how much you may want to tell God otherwise."
There's a bit to unpack here.
- I don't know why you exhibit the chronological snobbery in referencing Scripture as "ancient." If it's God's word, it has no expiration date, and Jesus (who you claim to follow) routinely quoted from the oldest books of Jewish Scripture as if their teachings had contemporary and indeed lasting application.
- I don't know why you presume that we very much "want to" disagree with you, as opposed to the possibility that we sincerely believe the text requires the conclusions that we draw. Your dilemma is how we solve our good-faith disagreements, but you don't seem to think we're acting in good faith.
- And, about the teachings we should draw, you don't actually clinch your argument by getting to a final, conclusive step showing how God approves of the groups you endorse and their behaviors -- possibly because you can't show that from the text, you and the speaker having read your beliefs INTO the text rather than read FROM the text to attempt to determine what message the original author intended to convey.
Acts is about the inclusion of the Gentiles in Christ's new community. I would need more from you to begin to consider the possibility of other applications.
In the meantime...
1. I would have you consider Peter's warnings in his own writings:
"For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry. With respect to this they are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you; but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead." - I Pet 4:3-5
He didn't seem to think that, because of God's revelation regarding animals and food, the gates had been thrown open to all sorts of behavior.
Instead, he warned against false teachers: "And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed." (II Pet 2:2)
2. I would remind you of what I recently quoted from Paul, I Cor 6:9-10.
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers... nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Idolators are also, as you point out correctly, "created by and beloved by God almighty," but they will not inherit the kingdom of God -- ditto, thieves and adulterers, all simultaneously created in the light of God's love but excluded by His righteous judgment.
(You seem awfully close to arguing antinomian universalism, that because God created and loves us, none will be excluded from His kingdom. That flies in the face of Christ's own warnings in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, about the wide gate and the narrow gate, and about the sheep and the goats.)
3. I would point out that Christ Himself does NOT draw any kind of parallel between the OT's dietary regulations and the OT's commands regarding sexual ethics.
ON THE CONTRARY, the same Jesus who taught that food does not make us unclean ALSO brought out the full implications of the commands regarding sex, that mere lust is as bad as outright adultery.
And His clearest teaching on sexuality is drawn, NOT from the Mosaic law at the time of the exodus, but from humanity's creation before the fall.
GOD MADE US MALE AND FEMALE SO THAT A MAN WOULD BECOME ONE FLESH WITH HIS WIFE.
That's what Jesus taught quite plainly in Matthew 19, even attributing the passage of Genesis 2:24, NOT to Moses or any other human author, but to God Himself.
I see no way to affirm that teaching in all its implications and simultaneously endorse behaviors that make a mockery of it.
If you want me to believe that you hold in good faith a contrary view that resulted (as you've put it before) from "careful and prayerful" Bible study, you're going to have to walk me through the text.
I won't hold my breath.
Marshal, I think it might be useful, at least for a little while, to encourage Dan to tackle my responses with the thoroughness they require. If you agree, maybe it would make sense for him and me to "have the floor" for a while and discuss matters uninterrupted.
We could see how far Dan's claims of having good faith results in actually arguing IN good faith.
Either way, there's something I've been meaning to point out, and now is as good a time as any.
DAN TRABUE is an anagram for BAD NATURE.
Meaningful? Maybe not. Hilarious? Absolutely.
And with that bit of pin point accurate jocularity, I indeed yield the floor.
I now ask all others to withhold their input so that Bubba can attempt to draw out from Dan resolution for Dan's many inconsistencies. Grab some popcorn, pull up a chair and enjoy.
(I wish the execrable feo didn't force me to enable comment moderation so the fun can proceed without the unnecessary delays the prevention of feo's childishness provoked.)
Thanks, Marshal! I'll try to be as prompt and succinct as possible, even though work and family commitments remain a priority and I (obviously!) prefer being complete rather than concise and am even convinced that a conversation like this requires spelling out what would otherwise be left unsaid.
And I'll DEFINITELY let everyone know when I'm done so we can return to our regular programming!
I suppose I've made the most of a little insomnia tonight, but I should head back to bed and will have a long day tomorrow -- I'll keep an eye out on this thread, with the hope but no great expectation for it being worthwhile.
---
Dan, I see that I didn't ask you any particular questions in my multi-comment response apart from a few rhetorical questions about the Emperor's New Clothes: if you're looking for a question to answer, that's not a bad place to start, but I have a better place.
Q: DO YOU BELIEVE IN SIN APART FROM HARM?
In other words, do you believe that there are behaviors that qualify as sinful offenses against God even though they may not be remotely harmful to anyone else?
(Could you give some examples? Or maybe examples of what others think are sin where you disagree outright?)
Ctrl-F indicates that Marshal has written the word "sin" twice in this conversation (and "sins" three times, and sinful/sinfulness 7 times), and I've mentioned the subject once already, but you haven't used the term. Instead, "harm" and its many variants have come up in this conversation NEARLY 250 TIMES.
I think it would be a VERY useful way to distinguish between religion and politics: religion uses the language of sin in relation to God's commandments, and politics can focus on harm as it relates to human rights. I'm interested to know where the two diverge for you, if anywhere.
If you want to ask me a question for a question, go for it.
Just know that I would appreciate your abstaining from leading questions -- "can we not agree that Dan's views are just common sense?" -- and focusing on trying to understand what it is I actually believe.
I look forward to reading your next response.
One last thing that could otherwise go without saying is that this conversation obviously has nothing to do with the original post from July 21st: apart from a brief comment on Biden, my interest began on July 29th focusing on Dan's comment, subsequently confirmed, that active harm results MERELY from holding and expressing the belief that certain behaviors are -- to use the term of art that I now introduce -- sinful.
I appreciate everyone's indulgence for the extraordinary digression. I don't think it's necessary to have a separate Bubba-and-Dan conversation as we've previously had at Craig's -- a conversation from FIFTEEN YEARS AGO but still not anywhere near the beginning of my exchanges with Dan.
The space should suffice.
Dan Trabue, Bad Nature.
Thanks, I like that. Truly. Fun, funny.
Bubba...
Dan, we can start a genuinely fruitful conversation on biblical morality anywhere you like; we could start with that youth's sermon that you mention.
We can have a genuinely fruitful conversation on REASONED morality anywhere you like, so long as you actually engage in respectful conversation. That means answering questions when they're asked of you.
Will you agree to do that?
"Biblical morality," is not really a thing so we can't have any conversation on something that doesn't exist. But I can explain to you why it's not a thing.
By "biblical morality," I'm speaking about the way you all handle the Bible to attempt to decipher some moral notions. The way I used to handle it as a young conservative, myself.
1. What I'm saying is that you all believe that God has rules that God wants us to follow.
2. You all believe something like, "The Bible is 'God's Word,' and by that, we mean that it's like God's rulebook for us. If we want to know the answers to moral questions, then
a. ALL we need to do is look and find the right phrases and ideas in the Bible and, if they make sense to us, we can decide,
b. THIS is a rule that God wants us to follow.
c. AND, this is a universal rule not only what we think God wanted back when some human wrote it down, but also, for today.
Is that fairly close to how you would describe it? If not, please clarify?
2. If so, then, there are many problems with this human theory:
A. The Bible never tells us "the Bible" is a rule or rulings book. What I've taken to calling a Magic Rulebook for reasons that I will make clear. It literally doesn't.
i. I fully recognize that there are some verses that YOU all read and YOU all reach a conclusion that, "This DOES mean that the Bible is a rulings book.
ii. But your personal opinions on that interpretation remain your personal opinions, conclusions that I find utterly unbiblical and uncompelling.
iii. Thus, we are left with the problem of "Says who?" That you all REALLY think you're right and you have other people historically who thought it was right is not objective proof. It remains a human opinion, ill-considered and unbiblical, as I understand it.
B. EVEN IF it were a rulings book (it's not and it's antibiblical to try to force it to be read that way, says I and many other rational people of good faith), the problem remains, who has the authority to suss out the "real" rules that God demands we understand correctly? You and people who agree with you.
See A. iii.
Are you beginning to see the problem? I'll continue, but I'll give you a chance to start answering questions so I don't get too far ahead of you.
The short summation of my last comment is that YOU are beginning with some presumptions that not everyone shares. Not everyone looks to what YOU think of as "biblical morality," as reasonable or biblical, not everyone agrees with your specific personal opinions on the topic.
So any discussion on the idea of the topic requires some preliminary groundwork to clarify some points.
Because I love the Bible, respect the Bible, love the teachings found in the bible and the (ultimate) grace of the stories in the Bible, I am not willing to call the Bible something it isn't and doesn't claim to be.
It's not because I hate God. I don't.
It's not because I hate the Bible. I don't.
It's not even because I hate the traditional varied church traditions humans have espoused over the years. I don't. I am what I am today BECAUSE of the traditionalist Baptists who raised me, thanks be to God for them emphasizing my biblical teachings.
I love those conservative Baptists who raised me and even what they taught me. I just disagree with them, and do so in good faith.
Do you recognize that reality that people can come from conservative religious background, end up disagreeing with their opinions on many topics and yet still disagree in good faith?
It's a reality, whether you recognize it or not.
While waiting...
If you want me to believe that you hold in good faith a contrary view that resulted (as you've put it before) from "careful and prayerful" Bible study, you're going to have to walk me through the text.
I won't hold my breath.
Even though I've done it before... multiple times? Even though I had a whole series of me explaining my change of view about the Biblical text and messages that many humans (again, myself, once upon a time) interpreted to mean some things I no longer believe to be moral, rational, or biblical?
Why wouldn't I do it, yet again, even though I've done it before many times?
I'm trying it from a slightly different angle this time in an effort to further clarify, so we'll see if you understand it this time any more than you did before.
And note: I'm saying to "see if you'll understand my view..." NOT that you'll agree with my view. Just understand how a rational person of good faith who actually does love and honor biblical teachings can indeed manage not to agree with your personal human opinions and traditions.
While waiting, here's another aside I can deal with. This is Bubba speaking in regards to the youth who preached (it was youth Sunday, for what it's worth)...
It's worth noting at the outset that I didn't see where you asked the kid how he had the authority to preach from the pulpit to your congregation, nor do you even attempt to tell US about his authority. No, he just went to the text, and you went to the text, PRECISELY the sort of process that I just described that we could use to resolve our disagreements.
I'm not entirely clear on your point you're hoping to make here, but I'll address why and how we let people share/preach in our services.
We are a beloved community of God. We treat one another as God's beloved community. The church of God.
Our church is not a church of rules, it is a church of grace and love.
Our sermons are generally from our pastor, but we regularly share the pulpit to hear other voices. Most often, those voices are from those within our congregation, but sometimes, from those outside. In all these instances, these are people of grace, not of rules. We know because we know them, they are our family, our beloved community. In cases where it's someone new to us, it's because they were referred to us by someone who is a part of the beloved community who we know and trust.
So, when we ask someone to preach/share with us, it's not because we presume they have "the authority." It's because we want to hear from them. Period.
And in listening to the opinions and thoughts shared by this beloved community member (one who has literally been kicked out of his home, for what it's worth), they happened to share a passage from the Bible. And given that many of us in our congregation are well-informed about biblical teachings, we found ourselves saying "Amen" to this young adult's understanding of decency and recognizing that which is from God is not impure and should not be dismissed or abused or maligned.
But he wasn't "right" because he found a scripture that told him and us he was right. He was right because he was speaking from a place of grace and welcome, of cherishing the good and decent and standing against those who'd cause harm.
So, again, not sure of your intent in those words above, but there's a response. Feel free to clarify. Or just stick to the main topics (which is echoed, I say, in this young preacher's sermon and life, which serves as an example of grace, but may be an aside).
Also, let me deal with these "Good Faith" concerns you all have. Good faith simply means that the person who is making the arguments, genuinely believes in the arguments... that they're not merely saying words they don't even believe for some less-than-noble reasons, but that they genuinely believe what they say.
OR, if they don't actually believe the argument, that they are making what they consider reasonable/plausible points to support the arguments.
"When a person argues in good faith, they intend to argue that a claim is true by using good logic and true (or at least plausible) evidence and reasons. Arguing in good faith does not require that a person believes the claim they are arguing for, but they do need to be honest about this."
As such, I am, of course, making these comments in good faith, as I'm sure you all are, as well. I honestly believe what I'm saying and that what my reasoning and conclusions are plausible, given the real explanations I'm actually giving.
NOW, you personally may not find the arguments conclusive or compelling, but that I DO have actual reasons for holding my positions and do so in good faith. As I'm sure you do, as well... that is, even though I don't find your arguments conclusive or compelling... biblical or moral, I feel no reason to suggest you're arguing in bad faith, right?
Bubba:
If you want me to believe that you hold in good faith a contrary view that resulted (as you've put it before) from "careful and prayerful" Bible study, you're going to have to walk me through the text.
I will clarify at least one more thing:
Part of my careful and prayerful Bible study (something I've done my whole life, as a point of fact) is that I realized eventually that thinking of the Bible as a magic rule book - as a rulings book - where we go to resolve moral questions by finding phrases in the Bible that make clear to us a given moral ruling... that this is wrong-headed thinking. It is a fundamental failure (on my part at the time, and yours now, I genuinely believe) to have a healthy, biblical, consistent and rational understanding of biblical texts on the one hand, and on reasoned, rational morality on the other.
That came largely in part from my careful, prayerful Bible study and, in part, by listening more and more critically/reasonably at the arguments that traditionalists were making. I didn't reach this conclusion by reading or listening to liberals. I reached it from Bible study and listening to my old conservative teachers (back then) and confirmed it increasingly the more I listened to you all.
You all (and me, once upon a time) are just not reacting to biblical text in a way that I consider biblically reasonable. You all are making fact claims that are, in fact, clearly opinion claims AND which opinion claims are not very rationally or biblically sound, in my personal opinion.
Now, GIVEN that I want to take the Bible seriously and given that I want to follow God/Jesus and the teachings we have of Jesus (which includes using our own heads and insight given to us by the God who created us in God's own image), IF I reach a conclusion that your biblical opinions are not sound or consistently, morally biblical, then in good faith, what else can I do but disagree with you all?
Even if you disagree with my conclusions, as I do yours, you can't really suggest I'm "lying" because I genuinely disagree with you or that I'm arguing in "bad faith," when it's merely disagreeing with you all and your presumptions. Right?
Art and Bubba,
I agree and will step back. However, if I might make a suggestion, it might be helpful to cut/paste Bubba's last few comments into a separate post. It would probably be easier to follow that way.
For now, one last answer to two of Bubba's questions...
Never mind how the presumption of good faith, what is the content of our differing opinions?
I shall demonstrate that the content of my opinion is reasonable, based on good and decent behavior and individual and communal health, wholesomeness and reason which is consistent with the various biblical teachings on moral questions, for what it's worth.
The content of your opinions is this (correct me with some specific answers if I'm getting anything wrong):
X. You believe that you rightly understand and divine some moral positions based on some biblical texts that, to you, are the "right" understanding of what you think God thinks about matters like abortion and LGBTQ concerns. It's based upon the traditions that you believe in your opinion are best understanding what you all think God thinks about these questions, or at least in the context of biblical societies at those times, which YOU all think, in your opinion, establish some universal "rules" that you think apply to everyone.
XX. You can point to no one place where God affirms all these opinions and theories. You just presume you've got it right.
XXX. You can point to no one place where "the Bible" affirms all these opinions and theories. You just presume you've got it right.
XXXX. You recognize that all humans - yourselves included - do not have perfect knowledge or infallible understanding of all teachings in the Bible.
XXXXX. You recognize that the Bible itself offers no provable manner of what is determined (in your opinions) to a be a universal moral rule for all time and people... it's more of what you all perceive to be obvious. So that, while the Bible does defend and command slavery and the slaughter of whole cities including the children and babies - keeping in mind that this meant physically running a sword or spear through each baby, one after the other, deliberately, on purpose - you all would shudder to agree that slavery or killing children is moral... but you're not willing to say that THOSE instances were immoral... and you have no determined, objective guideline for setting out authoritatively WHICH biblical practices represent universal rules and which were specific to a situation.
In other words, you have no objective rubric for saying which passages and UNDERSTANDINGS of passages are objectively factually provably RIGHT... but nonetheless, you think you all recognize "right" correctly when you see it... even while affirming that you do not have perfect moral knowledge or perfect biblical understanding?
Right? Or something like that??
What is the subject matter?
Moral, good, reasonable wholesome behaviors vs harmful and immoral behaviors.
Or at least, that's the question at hand. I suspect that you want to conflate the "question at hand" with "Well, that's what 'the Bible' is going to 'tell us...'" but indeed, that's only your personal take on it, not the subject matter itself.
Not a bad suggestion, Craig -- not IMHO, at least!
(Another Bubba & Dan conversation hosted by a politically conservative third party? The more things change, LOL!)
Marshal, if you would like, I could post an "opening statement" here, focusing on what it is I really want to discuss -- sin vs harm, and whether calling an act sinful qualifies as harmful!
You could copy and paste it as part of the original post for the subsequent thread.
(OR, you could just post something very generic and let us both offer opening statements in the comments themselves.)
OTOH, much depends on how intellectual honest everyone is willing to be: it could be a short conversation after all.
Just let me know, I'm flexible as I patiently await Dan's response.
To all:
I'm conflicted as to whether it's best to leave the Bubba/Dan exchange remain here or to move it to it's own post. I think I'll leave it here...at least for now...as it's now pretty much taken over this thread, the topic of the post being abandoned due mostly to Dan's typical tangent hopping.
I will point out that Dan has already demonstrated nothing will change. He can't even keep it in his pants until Bubba has the time to respond to what's been said, piling on with mostly superfluous nonsense about his upbringing and what "people like him" believe. No one cares. This is specifically and exclusively what Dan believes versus what Bubba believes and how each come to their positions. Just stick to the point. One's autobiography cannot be confirmed, so don't bother producing it as if doing so is in any way compelling with regard to one's credibility.
As to "good faith", merely an allegedly sincere belief does not constitute a good faith argument if no solid, testable evidence for why one holds a belief can be provided. "Good faith", for example, does not demand that one's opponent provide credentials entitling that opponent to seek legislative change which more closely conforms to that opponents religious faith, philosophical worldview. Dan has no problem with laws...either civil or social...which conform to his personal beliefs, damn those who might dissent as if they have no or no better arguments commending that dissent. He has no more authority than he expects his opponents to prove they have. He has no better basis simply because he asserts such. This is not "good faith".
Each side must clearly express their opinions or positions and be willing to fully provide evidence and reasoning.
Now...I'm already champing at the bit to run roughshod over what Dan's recently posted. It's the usual bullshit. But I've already given this thread over to the he and Bubba and will henceforth respect that. But I say again...DAN!...speak only for and of yourselves. Stick to the point.
If you'd like, Bubba, I could take this to my blog where there would be none of this slow back and forth, nor would it tie up your blog, Marshal.
On the other hand, on my own blog, I will expect you to answer questions respectfully, directly and clearly. If you're willing to do that, I'm willing to take it there.
I agree that this is off topic here and deserves a fresh start somewhere.
I would further suggest a good starting point is the questions:
Is the Bible "THE SOURCE" for understanding morality?
Does "the Bible" have anything itself to "say" - on its own, apart from human interpretation and understanding - about morality?
And IF "the Bible" DOES have anything to "say" about universal moral conclusions, is that anything of significance... what of those who don't agree that the Bible "says" anything about morality, or at least universally understood moral understandings?
Can we objectively prove our moral conclusions and, if not how do we best reach moral conclusions?
After all these years, and after all your insistence to the contrary, I'm still hoping to hear an actual defense for your positions.
The thing is, Marshal, I HAVE done that. Endlessly, patiently, in a range of attempts to clarify and reclarify. The honest, good-faith question to me, then, is WHY is it so hard for you to understand what I think I've clearly said AND conversely, WHY is what I'm writing that I find clear, not clear to you?
In very brief summation:
1. I believe that God would have us be allies with the poor and marginalized.
EVEN IF you don't agree with me, you can see how that is a good faith and reasonable thing to do, IF one thinks that God is concerned for the poor and marginalized.
And this is something I've presented over and over, that IS a starting point for my defense of my position. It's not like it doesn't exist. It's there. It's reality. It's why I live where I live, do the work and volunteer work I do. It's why I go to church where I go to church. You can't say that explanation does not exist.
2. IF I'm going to ally with the poor and marginalized, THEN that would include women, people of color, immigrants, the poor, the homeless, LGBTQ folks, the environment, etc.
And again, I've made this clear to you of why I ally with who I ally with. You can't say that explanation doesn't exist.
3. I disagree with the way you all read the bible to find rules that say, for instance, that gay people should not marry. I recognize the simple observable reality that "the Bible" doesn't teach against it, nor do the authors in the bible. I disagree with the way that you read a handful of verses dealing with some aspect of homosexuality AND I disagree with you that EVEN IF it were dealing with LGBTQ issues, that any lines in the Bible represent a ruling against gay folk marrying.
And again, I've made it clear to you and have gone into some depth explaining why I don't accept the Bible as a "rulings book." You can't say I have not given a defense for my position. That you ultimately may disagree with my opinion (as I disagree with yours) is not saying that I have not made my defense.
I don't know if you can understand WHY this is all so deeply weird to folks like me.
You may disagree with my conclusions and reasoning, but you just can't say I have not made my case, repeatedly.
Here, neither party can assume authority over how the other answers, what words can be used to make a case, etc.
You are correct, Marshal, that I do have guidelines I strive to follow on my blog. One can't use the B word to refer to women or the F word to refer to LGBTQ folks or other inflammatory, harmful, abusive types of language as you engage in here.
I could be wrong, but I don't think Bubba will do that.
Otherwise, I just have the expectation that questions WILL be answered because that's how conversation works.
I think Bubba is potentially able to do this (although as I recall, he's sometimes been reluctant to answer questions directly.)
Dan graciously would allow Bubba to have this debate at Dan's blog where Dan would control every facet of the conversation, delete Bubba's comments at will, and define the terms of the discussion. It sounds like Dan is worried about actually having to debate this in a forum where he doesn't have control.
Art,
This is why I think you should put this in a different post. That way you could at least try to keep these sorts of comment from Dan separate from the actual discussion. I suspect we all know how this is going to go down, but it'll probably be enjoyable to watch.
...I see a lot of comments, but it's quite a busy day today. I probably won't be able to respond in any great detail until tomorrow evening at the earliest, but I'll keep everyone posted.
VERY briefly:
Marshal and Dan, I'm happy to continue the discussion here. It would be my preference to comment here rather than at any other blog, and continuing the discussion in this particular comment thread means less copypasta.
And, Dan, I'd be happy to address any questions that you have, if only to explain (when necessary) that I think a question is leading or otherwise malformed. I'll *ANSWER* the question when I can, but I will CERTAINLY try to explain my beliefs on the underlying topics regardless.
BUT, I prefer questions that seek to discover what it is I believe over any that seek to confirm your prior understanding of what I believe. I consider myself an open book, but I don't like strawmen or leading, self-serving questions where you want me to confirm that your view is just plain commonsense.
And, I think it would be useful to tackle things one question at a time. I don't see the point in your asking "if so" follow-up questions 2, 3, and 4, if question 1 was off-base to begin with.
I have much, MUCH more to say, but it will just have to wait.
I unexpectedly have two minutes, so I do want to go ahead and address one quick thing.
---
Dan, about biblical morality -- "not really a thing," you say -- you write, astonishingly:
"What I'm saying is that you all believe that God has rules that God wants us to follow."
Yes, of course, obviously so, and obedience to God's will is an indispensable component to a right relationship with God, albeit one that results from saving faith and isn't a cause for salvation.
You say, "You all" believe this... and implicitly YOU DON'T?!
Is "love your neighbor" not a moral law from the supreme and almighty Law-giver? Is it just a suggestion from God? Is it not from God at all?
Your statement here suggests that we share VERY little common ground indeed.
OK. I've decided to leave the Bubba/Dan exchange here, since it's already begun and as Bubba says, it "means less copypasta".
I'm not going to respond to Dan's recent comments to me, as my comments to which he responded was not intended for such. What's more, his response was just more of what I hope will not manifest in the exchange between him and Bubba. He can ask me those questions at another time. I'm going to save them to a file for later use here if I choose to do so later.
And yes, I believe the lack of control Dan would have at his own blog is a concern for him. But at least he doesn't have to fear being deleted over some bullshit reason.
From this point on, I will allow no comments other than those of Bubba and Dan, and I'll try to restrain myself as well. It's unfortunate that I can't disable comment moderation because of Dan's troll, but I'll make a greater effort to monitor the queue and post ASAP.
Dan:
"What I'm saying is that you all believe that God has rules that God wants us to follow."
Bubba:
Yes, of course, obviously so, and obedience to God's will is an indispensable component to a right relationship with God, albeit one that results from saving faith and isn't a cause for salvation.
Well, you see, I don't agree with your human opinion.
So, my FIRST question I'd ask you is:
DO you agree that your opinion that "obedience to God's will is an indispensable component to a right relationship with God...." IS your personal human opinion, not a demonstrable, objective fact?
To be clear, I do NOT agree (in my opinion) that "obedience to God's will" is an "indispensable component to a right relationship with God..." is a biblically or reasonable responsible or provable position to hold as your opinion.
I believe God is a God of grace. Period.
I believe the evidence is clear that we are imperfect in our knowledge and our actions. But thankfully, a perfect loving, just God does not hold an imperfect humanity to perfect understanding with God's will. It is a given that imperfect humans will "miss the mark" of perfect obedience to God's will. Thus, any kind of perfect obedience to God's will is a ridiculous and irrational and unbiblical pipe dream.
Do you agree?
I happen to believe that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God is NOT a "god of rules," but a God of Grace. It's not about embracing a perfect understanding of rules (a la the Pharisees) but an imperfect, missing the mark but still, embracing of Grace.
Do you agree?
Post a Comment