I was going to write a post and focus on the many examples of leftist crazy which happens on social media constantly, and of course refer to our own crazy-ass fake Christian marxist, Dan Trabue.
Then Charlie Kirk was murdered.
There's crazy and then there's truly bat-shit crazy and what we've been seeing and hearing all day since this vicious example of what the "progressive left" truly is, the outpouring of hatred by the "peace loving progressives" is about as sick and twisted as Dan is just getting up in the morning. No....scratch that. As loathsome as Dan is, I don't want to get too glib about this murder. Dan's a card-carrying piece of shit, but this is about his "tribe".
Right from the start, lefty news media was on the job, being assholes, because what else are lefties but assholes? I saw a montage of leftist response on various news shows and it was disgusting and abhorrent. One asshole suggested it might have been the result of a MAGA person celebrating, apparently by firing a rifle into a crowd. There was several who hatefully referred to Kirk as "divisive" and "polarizing". But then, speaking truthfully tends to have that effect. The left hates the truth so division forms.
And then there's the run of the mill, everyday progressive assholes who celebrated the murder of a guy whose shit has more class than any of them have:
https://thefederalist.com/2025/09/10/hope-the-bullets-okay-here-are-the-demonic-reactions-from-leftists-to-charlie-kirk-assassination/?sfnsn=mo
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/09/charlie_kirk_and_the_madness_of_the_left.html
What kind of asshole derives joy out of the murder of a political opponent? The progressive assholes who make up Dan's "tribe". And who's most likely to perpetrate these types of heinous crimes against their political/ideological opponents? The progressive assholes who make up Dan's "tribe".
No doubt we'll hear from Dan distancing himself from these people, insisting the typical progressive is peace loving and this guy is yet another of the many outliers who aren't NOT typical. Yeah. Right.
The worst of the worst of us are lefties. May God protect us from them, I pray in Christ's Name. In the meantime, maybe I'll carry more often from now on.
187 comments:
The likelihood that Dan will address this on his won steam seems low. If he does, or if he's forced to, it'll be the same old regurgitated talking points. I find it hard to believe that he'll spend much time at all calling out those celebrating, just as he didn't after 10/7.
Knowing a little bit about Utah, I hesitate to jump to conclusions about the motivation of the shooter at this point. I can absolutely see some whack job Mormon who's pissed about Kirk spreading Christianity into Zion doing this.
Having said that, the roots of all of the left wing celebration of this go back to the "Is it ok to punch a NAZI." from a few years ago. Obviously the answer to that question from the left was, "It is absolutely ok to punch a NAZI." Once you cross the line of doing violence to those your disagree with politically, and go whole hog into demonizing your political opponents, this is just a harder punch. It's a question of degree, nothing more. Once political violence is on the table (Trump assassination attempts, Softball game shooting, SCOTUS threats, CEO murder, riots, arson, attacks on police...) then
contd.
then this is just the next logical step. To kill someone who advocated for respectful, civil, dialogue.
I have to say, and I will post on this soon, I was and am surprised by the number of people who've come out publicly and said some version of "I didn't agree with Charlie, but he had me on his show and was incredibly nice and respectful to me.". This gives me a little hope for some on the left.
https://x.com/_siakamassaquoi/status/1965878509710225823?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Sorry for the multiple comments, but it's almost 24 hours after the Kirk killing and you know who has remained silent on both his cesspool and FB. While the Troll seems to be making excuses to justify the killing.
Failure to respond to this unprovoked, unjustified, killing would seem to render any claims of "moral" superiority or "reasoned morality" completely meaningless. Failure to strongly condemn those who rejoice, shows a morality deficit that cannot be measured.
The ammunition for the rifle used has transgender and antifascist messages. Two bits says it's a radical transgender.
Ah! The true outliers of the left, perhaps? Most of the left seem to be pricks.
No worries. It's a serious thing and you fan feel free to express your thoughts.
The troll submitted a comment for publication here. I didn't read it before deleting it. Confidence was low that it would've been respectful and rational.
I don't want to speculate, but recent events make the odds worth the wager. Reports suggest they're hot on the asshole's trail and closing in. I hope it won't be long.
Craig...
Failure to respond to this unprovoked, unjustified, killing would seem to render any claims of "moral" superiority or "reasoned morality" completely meaningless. Failure to strongly condemn those who rejoice, shows a morality deficit that cannot be measured.
I'm currently working 2 jobs and recovering from a minor surgery. If I don't respond quickly enough for you, you're just going to have to practice some of that Grace of our Lord, Jesus.
Since you want to know:
This death/assassination is a horrible thing. You can know that's my position because I'm always against senseless violence, so you really didn't need to wonder what my position is.
This is a great tragedy and a great wrong, whether the shooter turns out to be liberal-leaning, conservative-leaning or just plain confused and apolitical. That this young man's family is now missing their husband/father is a tragedy.
ALL violence and attacks and deliberate efforts to harm innocent people is a great wrong and evil.
It was wrong when Representative Hortman and her husband were assassinated by a right leaning anti-abortion religious zealot. (by the way, how long did it take you to condemn those murders? Did you condemn your Felon for choosing to NOT fly the flags at half-staff? For his joking about these assassinations and not reaching out to Governor Walz because "it's a waste of time" and who went GOLFING on the day of Hortman's funeral? Did you say ANYTHING about all of that?)
It was wrong when the Felon consistently (for over ten years, now) called Liberals, Democrats, judges who disagreed with him, the free press, Republicans who disagreed with him, immigrants, etc, etc, etc "fascists," "Totalitarians," "enemies of the state" and otherwise demonized political enemies. It was wrong when Kirk did the same.
It was wrong for the Felon and Kirk to attack LGBTQ folks and advocate policies that will and have caused harm to them and endangered them and their basic human rights.
Violence is wrong and you can KNOW that I'm opposed to it because I'm consistently opposed to harming innocent people. EVEN IF they espouse evil, awful, damaging claims about others.
And that's the difference between you all and me, it appears.
But you tell me: WILL you condemn as grossly evil the religious conservative assassin of Hortman? WILL you condemn the inflammatory language used by the Felon and the late Mr Kirk? Will you condemn his overtly racist and sexist and anti-trans language they've used?
I hope so, but you tell me.
As for me, you already know my position.
And yes, anyone who is actually celebrating Mr Kirk's murder should be ashamed of themselves. AND, anyone who is using this murder to suggest that "the Democrats will pay for this!" are ALSO in the wrong, especially when we literally don't know the motive of the shooter.
I've not seen any liberals rejoicing in this death. I HAVE seen some (who have been harmed by his harmful attacking words against LGBTQ and black folk) say they won't be mourning him, but that's not the same as rejoicing in his death.
And given his vulgar verbal attacks on women, black people, immigrants and LGBTQ folks, you can't blame them (or their allies) for not really mourning his death - his words and policies he's advocated HAVE caused harm to innocent people, and that harm, too, is wrong.
But that's not the same as celebrating.
And I have seen WAY more conservatives using this to justify a war or attacks on liberals, even though they don't know the motive of the shooter(s). (See Marshal and Glenn's rumor-mongering about the shooter being trans).
Will you condemn THOSE harmful attacks, too?
Or are you thinking we should show empathy (something that Kirk condemned) for conservatives when they're harmed, but not for others who are harmed?
You tell me. You know my answer.
Conservatives advocating for war and punishment of liberals and immigrants - without ANY evidence of anything - in the aftermath of the Kirk assassination:
“If they won’t leave us in peace, then our choice is to fight or die,” wrote Elon Musk on X.
“They are at war with us, whether we want to accept it or not. What are we gonna do about it?” Fox News host Jesse Watters said on air Wednesday night. “Everybody’s accountable … the politicians, the media, and all these rats out there. This can never happen again. It ends now. This is a turning point and we know which direction we’re going.”
“We are up against demonic forces from the pit of Hell,” wrote commentator and podcaster Matt Walsh on X. “This is existential. A fight for our own existence and the existence of our country.”
The Felon: put out a video statement on Wednesday night saying that rhetoric from “the radical left” was “directly responsible for the terrorism we are seeing in our country today”.
Without ANY evidence of motive.
White supremacist Matt Forney, in a post that has been viewed over one million times, compared Kirk’s death to the Reichstag fire of 1933 (the arson attack on the German parliament building by a Dutch communist, which Hitler used to justify his aggressive crackdown against communists). “It is time for a complete crackdown on the left,” said Forney. “Every Democratic politician must be arrested and the party banned under RICO … they caused this.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-shooting-death-trump-reaction
“This is a war, this is a war, this is a war,” said [literal hatemonger idiot] Alex Jones
Rhodes then called on Trump to “do what’s right, what’s necessary” and “invoke the Insurrection Act” in the wake of the shooting. “You should declare the left in this country is in obvious open rebellion against the law of the United States. They’re committing insurrection, they're aiding and abetting an invasion, and they're blocking the execution of federal law,” Rhodes said....
“You could be next,” influencer and unofficial Trump adviser Laura Loomer posted on X. “The Left are terrorists.”
Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist who popularized the demonization of critical race theory, suggested in a post on X that the “radical left” was responsible for the shooting, and urged the US government “to infiltrate, disrupt, arrest, and incarcerate all of those who are responsible for this chaos.”
Republican representative Derrick Van Orden from Wisconsin also blamed the shooting on “leftwing political violence” and warned on X that “whoever does not condemn this is part of the problem. The gloves are off.”
https://www.wired.com/story/far-right-reactions-charlie-kirk-shooting-civil-war/
etc, etc. WILL YOU condemn these ignorant attacks on innocent liberals and Democrats and denounce any calls for retribution (sans evidence) by the rightwing nutjobs out there fomenting unrest and violence against fellow citizens?
Again, you can KNOW my response. I'm quite dubious of yours.
Maybe, I'm not sure. What is interesting is comparing the response of those on the right to the MN legislator shootings, to many of those on the left now.
Part of the point is that people who knew Kirk, liked and respected hi regardless of whether or not they agreed with him. At one point, I was convinced that I could sit down and have a beer with Dan (before he made a point of proudly announcing his abstinence) and actually have an enjoyable conversation. I'm not sure anymore, but some people who should have strongly disliked Kirk have been eloquent in their praise for him.
I occaisionally get a gist of his topic in the first line before I delete his comments.
The pictures and video of the shooter seem to contradict this, at least potentially.
I do suspect that if it's a leftist, that it'll be a radical "trans"/alphabet soup supporter.
As noted elsewhere, I wouldn't discount the possibility of an extremist Mormon who objected to Kirk's presentation of a Gospel that might not go over well in parts of UT.
I saw a piece yesterday which suggests that there is a nihilistic subculture which many of these younger shooters seem to have embraced. From what I saw, it seems to be left leaning (I'd argue that nihilism falls on the left side of the political spectrum). Obviously there have been an increasing number of "trans" shooters as well.
I watched some of Charlie Kirk's videos after the reports because before then I knew the name but not much else. His stock in trade seemed to be engaging in "debate" with students who were ill-prepared for his tactics. He constantly interrupted them while they were talking, which is performance, not honest debate. On other videos he engaged mostly in sloganeering and question-begging. Maybe I just had a bad selection, but I doubt it. Anyhow, he never should have been assassinated.
Me, too. This time I simply saw his name and hit "delete".
As we can see in Dan's latest offerings here (there should be three, but I deleted one due to his indulgence in his typical perverse Trump-hatred), he tries the moral equivalency route, pretending the Hortman killings were met with exactly the same type of celebratory response we're seeing from his people.
I do appreciate lefties expressing sympathy for Kirk and his family as well as opposition to these constant violent attacks. If only there were more of that than the attacks themselves.
You're clearly working off a small sample size. I've seen him interrupt, but typically I see him preventing filibustering and/or guiding his opponent (usually a college or high school student) back to the point. He's generally debating multiple people and as such he can't be mucking about with nonsense, as so many wish to have their turn with him. That lowers the probability of a perfect rendering of his positions, but doesn't make them bad positions.
You might not like his style, but he's been effective at confronting common lefty fallacies with truth and hard facts. As to "sloganeering and question-begging", I'd be keen on seeing a few examples with your explanation as to how they they're either.
Jesse,
I have watched many, many of Kirk's videos and the only time I ever saw him interrupt was when the person refused to give him a chance to respond or if the person was spewing lies and such. 90% of the time it was the other person who continually interrupted.
I'll tell you what, you must be watching a whole different person from the hundreds of videos I've seen. "sloganeering and question-begging"?!? Examples, please.
The only reason the students were ill prepared because that's how they come out of public schools and colleges/universities. All they get from this rancid educational system is propaganda indoctrination.
Charley was a genius
"If I don't respond quickly enough for you, you're just going to have to practice some of that Grace of our Lord, Jesus."
Way to misinterpret what I actually said to paint yourself as a victim.
"by the way, how long did it take you to condemn those murders?"
I literally condemned those murders within 12 hours of them being reported.
I'm not playing your bash Trump, false equivalence game.
"But you tell me: WILL you condemn as grossly evil the religious conservative assassin of Hortman?"
1. We don't have definitive proof that the shooter was "conservative".
2. Notwithstanding that bit of minutia, I condemned the shooter/shooting within hours of seeing the reporting on local news. I believe it was a Friday night/Saturday when it happened, and I was up pretty early that Saturday. I had a condemnation written by early afternoon on Saturday.
3. This is bullshit. You demand that I specifically condemn this in very specific ways, while you continue to offer your bland, vague, general, platitudes.
WILL you condemn the inflammatory language used by the Felon and the late Mr Kirk? Will you condemn his overtly racist and sexist and anti-trans language they've used?
I have repeatedly condemned the language used by Trump, and in the absence of proof of "inflammatory language" on the part of Kirk, so I won't condemn what doesn't exist. "inflammatory langue" is protected by the 1st amendment and isn't grounds for murder.
As you give little evidence of actually having listened to Kirk, and complete unawareness of the number of Alphabet soup, and POC, who call him a friend, I'll wait until you prove your bullshit false claims, or admit your slander.
Again, listen to what people say and read what people write. What IS being said is that the huge number of people responding with glee to this murder is going to drive more mainstream people away from the DFL. When y'all harbor insane people who are threatening Vance and other conservatives with harm or death, you need to accept that there might be consequences.
If such attacks are real, of course. But you making vague, general, claims isn't helpful.
If all you're going to base your claims on is second or third hand information, don't bother the expect your bullshit to be taken seriously. Kirk was referring to what some call "Toxic Empathy", and was very clear about what he actually said and meant.
I've showed sympathy for all sorts of people. I show sympathy for the thousands of children raped in Europe courtesy of the type of immigration policies you support. Unlike you.
If your response to the assassination of a significant figure on the conservative side of the aisle, the gleeful, hateful, celebration of this event along with the death threats to other conservatives, is to blame other conservatives then screw you. Your moral code is shit and you disgust me.
If a college student was unprepared for engaging in a debate with someone who's "tactics" are well known and publicly available, isn't it their own fault for stepping up to the microphone to debate? I guess asking questions and knowing facts is somehow some tricky debate tactic. FYI, when these kids step up, many of them bash him for not having a degree, then are unable to answer simple questions.
Nice try. There is no one on the left who does anything close to what Kirk does. He goes into hostile crowds regularly and responds to anyone. No curated crowds of supporters, no bullshit, just an open mic.
This second and third hand bullshit is getting old. Hell even Steven King had to apologize for believing lies spread by the left.
One of my favoriet clips is him sitting silently waiting for a young woman to make her point/ask her question while she simply complains that he "won't let her talk". He's literally set his mic down and is just looking at her make a complete fool of herself.
Sure, preparation matters—but I’m not here to grade students on how well they perform in someone else’s viral clip.
Nice try right back at ya. Most of these talking heads—left or right—are just echo chambers with a fanbase. I’ve got better things to do than watch political theater dressed up as "intellectual" debate. That said, I get why some people might find Kirk’s approach compelling—there’s value in showing up and engaging.
So one author changed his mind—cool story, not that I cared anyway. That doesn’t make every criticism “lies” or every disagreement “bullshit.” If we’re going to dismiss everything as second-hand, maybe we should start with the talking points people repeat without ever checking the source.
Thanks for playing.
This person is always so hateful. She really needs a ladder to get over herself:
https://x.com/JasmineForUS/status/1961555259324776528?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
How can one live in the real world if he cannot accept the fact that there are many others who see things differently and even many different ways than himself? Honestly, I laughed out loud as I read this text. I would have laughed in Crockett's face if she had been near me. She isn't worthy of the last name that she has.
"I'm currently working 2 jobs and recovering from a minor surgery."
So they removed your head from your ass easily I trust?
"If I don't respond quickly enough for you..."
I don't care how long it takes you to respond. I care that you stop responding with lies and insults about YOUR president. One of the worst lies you commonly tell these days is that he's a "felon" simply because a kangaroo court with a predetermined verdict found him guilty, surprise surprise. I deleted your third comment because it was the worst of the three, but any repeat of this bullshit won't result in such a gracious response.
"ALL violence and attacks and deliberate efforts to harm innocent people is a great wrong and evil."
Unless they're in the womb, then you defend the violent attacks which are deliberate efforts to harm these most innocent of people, you hypocritical shithead.
"It was wrong when the" [best president since Reagan] "consistently (for over ten years, now) called Liberals, Democrats, judges who disagreed with him, the free press, Republicans who disagreed with him, immigrants, etc, etc, etc "fascists," "Totalitarians," "enemies of the state" and otherwise demonized political enemies. It was wrong when Kirk did the same."
I don't recall Donald Trump...the president who is far superior to any for whom you've ever voted or hoped to see behind the Resolute Desk...ever used the words "fascists" or "Totalitarians" to describe the leftist enemies of the state, but I could be wrong. But as opposed to Trump, they're clearly more deserving due to their actions and policies.
In the meantime, Trump is called all manner of things by progressives which cannot be connected to anything he's done policy-wise. It's just how leftists treat better people. And let's be clear..."demonize" is a conscious attempt to portray an generally decent person as a horrible person. This is what YOU do constantly with regard to our president, and what you're now also doing regarding Kirk.
But when one is already a scumbag, like the left in general, but more specifically the leftist politicians, leftist media people, leftists activist judges, etc., it's not "demonizing" to point out the truly demonic. That would be YOUR people (as well as you in particular).
"It was wrong for the" [greatest president since Reagan] "and Kirk to attack LGBTQ folks and advocate policies that will and have caused harm to them and endangered them and their basic human rights."
There have been no such policies advocated by either the president who is a far better man than you'll ever be, or Charlie Kirk, who now dead will continue to be a far better Christian than you pretend to be, which have caused any queers any harm, you lying sack of shit. And thus you again demonize good people, while defending those plagued by the demonic.
"Violence is wrong and you can KNOW that I'm opposed to it because I'm consistently opposed to harming innocent people."
Unless they're in the womb and then all bets are off. Rip them to shreds if you want to do so. You're also not so keen on opposing policies Joe Biden enacted which gravely harmed thousands of Americans. So you're a liar.
"And that's the difference between you all and me"
Yeah. You lie. We don't. You hate. We don't. You defend and promote perversion and the murder of innocents. We don't.
More coming now....
"But you tell me: WILL you condemn as grossly evil the religious conservative assassin of Hortman?"
I condemn any murderer. I'm unaware of the Hortman's assassin being a "religious conservative". I've tried to find anything which suggests this. What I've found is that he worked for Tim Waltz or was appointed by Waltz to some position or other in the state's government. I've found that he had in his car a significant amount of leftist literature of some kind. I've found nothing thus far which suggests he's conservative at all, though I wouldn't go so far, at this point, as to say he wasn't. I will confidently state that it is absolutely routine for criminal shooters to be assumed by leftists to be conservative from the jump until all info comes out. I'm also quite confident you'll do no more than the most cursory search for such info if you do any at all. If you it, it's likely a lie. So you're mandated here to support all your claims with actual verifiable evidence.
"WILL you condemn the inflammatory language used by the" [the best president since Reagan] and the late Mr Kirk?"
There's been none. You count as "inflammatory" anything which conflicts with the lies you espouse. Speaking the truth is always "inflammatory" to those for whom the truth is inconvenient. Those would be liars like you.
"Will you condemn his overtly racist and sexist and anti-trans language they've used?"
Neither use "overtly racist and sexist and anti-trans language". You're just lying again. They don't even use language which any honest person might mistake for possibly being even slightly racist and sexist or "anti-trans" language.
"As for me, you already know my position."
Yeah...pro=-perv and pro-infanticide...and very anti-Christian.
"...anyone who is using this murder to suggest that "the Democrats will pay for this!" are ALSO in the wrong, especially when we literally don't know the motive of the shooter."
Well, we do now. We may not have when you first submitted this diatribe, but we do now. He's a lefty.
But as far as Dems paying, that means a variety of things, but it's not likely to manifest in violent response...as badly as you'd like to see that because it would validate your many claims that conservatives are violent. This heinous act, and the response to it by your kind has elevated the probability of winning more seats in Congress in '26 and other political defeats by your party. THAT is a form of manifested Dem payment for this murder. I've seen a bunch of videos of people insisting they're done with your kind and no longer wish to be in any way connected to your kind. THAT is a form of manifested payment for this murder. Pistol sales will probably spike because of this murder due to people afraid of being shot by lefties.
More coming....
"I've not seen any liberals rejoicing in this death."
Not anywhere near "hard to find". Try actually looking when you're told your kind is acting badly again.
"I HAVE seen some (who have been harmed by his harmful attacking words against LGBTQ and black folk) say they won't be mourning him..."
You're a perverted liar. No one has been "harmed" by anything Kirk's ever said. "Hurt feelings", when facing someone speaking the truth doesn't count. You couldn't....even if I helped you lie....present any evidence of any harm resulting from Kirk's honest and factual comments about either your perverts or black people.
"And given his vulgar verbal attacks on women, black people, immigrants and LGBTQ folks, you can't blame them (or their allies) for not really mourning his death..."
Kirk has NEVER indulged in "vulgar verbal attacks" on ANYONE, you lying little bitch. Those whose feelings are hurt from hearing the truth should mourn their own eternal destination.
"...his words and policies he's advocated HAVE caused harm to innocent people..."
Bullshit. Provide evidence or retract this comment and apologize for daring to write what you only wish was true. The only way his words could possibly have caused any harm to actually innocent people is if some queer hears him tell the truth about being queer and the queer goes out and shoots up a school full of kids. The innocent in this case being the kids.
"And I have seen WAY more conservatives using this to justify a war or attacks on liberals, even though they don't know the motive of the shooter(s). (See Marshal and Glenn's rumor-mongering about the shooter being trans)."
First of all, you lying, Christ-hating fuck...Glenn and I were speaking about what was reported about the the weapon and cartridges found after the murder. Try reading something other than pro-perv sites.
Secondly, it is not unusual for those under attack to wonder if return fire is appropriate. You're such a fucking turd of a pervert human being. When black people rant about cops targeting blacks, you're all on board and rationalize any who might then murder cops. But we're supposed to just sit back and pretend there's no growing violent animus against us by your kind. You're fucking turd of a pervert human being. There's not an honest corpuscle in your God-hating body. These people are talking about self-defense, not attacking people who can't be identified as the scummiest and most likely violent Dan-like person. We don't operate like your kind. We try to get along. Your kind murders. But keep pushing.
A little more coming...
"Or are you thinking we should show empathy (something that Kirk condemned) for conservatives when they're harmed, but not for others who are harmed?"
First of all, you pervert of a turd of low class Christ-hater, Kirk NEVER condemned empathy. Why do you even comment on things about which you know nothing. Oh...never mind... I know the answer: You're an asshole.
The concept of empathy has been perverted (what a surprise) by your kind. You use it to legitimize the illegitimate.
We do NOT celebrate anyone's murder.
Way back when John Wayne Gacy was on death row, and his appeals ran out unsuccessfully, there was a morning talk show host on WLS radio in Chicago named Don Wade (and his wife, Roma), who were originally just disk jockeys until the station turned to talk. This was a local guy and Gacy's sentence was about to be carried out. Wade spoke of going to the prison and demonstrating in celebration of Gacy's well deserved execution being carried out. I was appalled and tried repeatedly to get through to his radio show to express my strong disapproval of his attitude regarding this execution. This guy pretty much postured as a conservative and was indulging in what I still regard as reprehensible behavior. Gacy deserved his sentence. He murdered so many. But there's a big ass difference between seeing justice done, being relieved a threat is eliminated versus a celebration of his death.
I didn't celebrate when Osama bin Lade was taken out. I didn't celebrate when Qassem Soleimani was taken out. While I agree with such actions, I am saddened they made themselves worthy of those just punishments. THAT is how I see the deaths of my enemies. I'd prefer they cut the crap and be cool. The prefer otherwise, and when that preference results in their deaths, it's not a reason to celebrate. I sympathize with their victims, not with them. But while I don't sympathize, I'd much prefer they didn't choose the path they chose.
I didn't celebrate when Horton was killed, or Pelosi's husband was attacked or when Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies or when Ted Kennedy died. I doubt you could find too many conservatives who do, because we don't have as many assholes among us as the horde of them associated with your kind. Including you, you baby-killing asshole.
Well, she's certainly bat-shit crazy, that's for sure! She's kinda cute, though. I wonder what she looks like with all the enhancements (most of which constitute cultural appropriation, though, right?).
Craig had a link to a comment made by my current favorite movie reviewer, the great "Critical Drinker", in which is expressed his opposition to the murder of Charlie Kirk. Now, I present two videos from one of my favorite "historians", a man who goes by the name of "the Metatron" (look it up). The dude's always informative as well as entertaining in the process. Looking for a diversion from all things Charlie, I chose to see what he's been covering. Turns out, it's been Charlie Kirk and his stuff is as good as always:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et5NmxZqiBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YDzf5E6PRU&t=13s
Kirk literally showed up to places where people who were likely to disagree with him were concentrated, gave them a mic and an opportunity to debate him and he's the problem. If you're going to debate someone, who you know will be prepared, and choose not to prepare that's on you. If people look like idiots, it's because they weren't prepared to deal with someone outside of their bubble.
The fact that there is no one on the left "showing up and engaging" is telling.
The prevalence of these kinds of responses is a small, but good, sign. That there are some on the left who can respect, or be respectful, to those they disagree with. Unlike Dan and his butt buddy.
I believe one of the reason Charlie was at college campuses was to show the ignorance of the students and how public education and colleges leave our kids unprepared to defend the LEFTIST nonsense-- let alone the fact that they are unprepared to deal with truth and real life.
I'm pretty sure Kirk would say that exposing their ignorance was a byproduct of sharing the Truth with them, engaging in dialogue, and showing respect. The higher education system has become simply an indoctrination factory for leftist dogma, and Kirk (and others) demonstrate that having a (even partial) degree does not equal being intelligent or educated.
Think of it this way. How many of our Founders, and figures like Lincoln would be dismissed by today's educational elites because they didn't have a "degree"?
Let's start with the fact that Dan has not posted, either on FB or at his cesspool, anything about the Kirk assassination or the NC murder. He's come here and to my blog with false equivalencies, lies, slander, and excuses, but little else. I keep seeing people show more sympathy for the Hortman's dead dog, then for the Hoffman's, just to advance bullshit false narratives. The reality is that "conservatives" were quick to offer thoughts and prayers as well as to generously compliment Hortman as a legislator. No one was laughing, singing, or dancing over her death. Some of that was her being a virtual unknown outside of MN DFL circles.
I agree that seeing people standing up to talk about how Kirk was their friend despite their disagreements is encouraging. Although the fact that it's noteworthy at all says volumes about our society in general and the ASPL is particular.
Likewise. On rare occasions, I get the gist as I scan to determine that it's his comment.
https://x.com/realdailywire/status/1966630988198339049?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Have y'all noticed how the ASPL isn't using the Kirk assassination to call for "assault weapons" bans?
I did see one insipid comment on FB about "common sense gun control". A perennial favorite.
The greatest disparity is who is being "memorialized" in each example: The top references a decent Christian man doing good work, while the bottom references a thug.
Well, I guess that "radical trans supporter" was right on.
That is obviously True. One of the biggest problems with those the left beatifies, is that they almost always turn out to be thugs. Kirk was clearly not that in any way.
That "common sense gun control" is one of their vapid slogans (like "pay your fair share") which means nothing specific, and therefore can mean anything depending on the circumstances. Well, anything except common sense criminal control.
Hey, y'all, just dropping in: I hate that I'm doing so in such distressing circumstances.
I see that Dan doesn't even wait for a second comment to transition from denouncing Kirk's murder to denouncing the conservative reaction -- and I see there's more.
"I've not seen any liberals rejoicing in this death. "
I doubt that we could ever produce enough evidence to convince Dan that the despicable celebrations were actually quite widespread, both in the original social media post and in the "likes" that number far beyond the thousands: perhaps the response would be the No True Scotsman fallacy, that all those nurses and teachers and government employees weren't real liberals. Furthermore, I doubt Dan would be willing to conduct his own good-faith research to find what has the Right so justifiably outraged.
He also mentions, somewhat redundantly, that there are people who "have been harmed by his harmful attacking words against LGBTQ and black folk." I contend that Kirk never attacked either group (or women, or immigrants, or any other group that matters to the Left, OR anyone else) and that any evidence to the contrary evaporates in context, and I would welcome being proven wrong on this point: it hasn't happened yet despite people's recent best efforts to try to explain or justify the assassination. For all the man spoke, nothing truly outrageous has been found to condemn the man.
But notice that Dan says Kirk's mere words were harmful and attacking. Along with Kirk's preferred policies, "his words... HAVE caused harm."
Doesn't that suggest that those who were harmed by those words have the right to act in self-defense? How else could they respond except to act to silence these terrible words, and isn't a rifle shot nothing more than an extreme method of doing just that?
It seems Kirk isn't the only one guilty of harmful words.
"And I have seen WAY more conservatives using this to justify a war or attacks on liberals, even though they don't know the motive of the shooter(s). (See Marshal and Glenn's rumor-mongering about the shooter being trans).
"Will you condemn THOSE harmful attacks, too?"
I wonder if Dan is referring to the concerted effort to get people fired for cheering Charlie Kirk's death and calling for more bloodshed.
Myself, I'm a near absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment. The government shouldn't prohibit speech apart from a very few exceptions.
(Those exceptions include fraud, slander, perjury, publishing government secrets, illicit materials involving children, and the immediate incitement to violence and other criminal activity.)
(Note that there are and should be higher standards for public airwaves, and I would point out that the Democrats have gone pretty far to restrict speech outside of public airwaves, suppressing social media over Hunter Biden's laptop and dissent regarding the Covid vaccine. Expectations of truthful and balanced reporting are entirely fair for the privilege of OTA broadcasting, and those standards are long-standing and have been enforced in the past.)
However, I recognize that a legal regime is not enough. There MUST be a culture that cultivates a love for free speech and a corresponding tolerance for speech that supposedly causes harm merely by causing offense.
But we must draw the line at speech that celebrates or encourages murdering people for exercising that right to speak: even if such speech should remain legal, it must be HEAVILY stigmatized to preserve an environment where people feel free to speak their minds without fear of violent reprisal.
I genuinely wonder if Dan disagrees with my position and, if so, whether he can defend an alternative view.
Whether he replies or not, and whether I see that reply or not, I hope everyone is doing well, including Dan. I'm glad to see a clear condemnation of Charlie Kirk's assassination.
It's always great when you weigh in, Bubba. I wish it was more often.
Dan always speaks of words and their expression resulting in some form of harm to his cherished and favored groups. He gets to decide how one expresses their opinions on issues related to any of those groups, which gives him special authority to delete, cancel and/or warn to do so when one's position is too difficult for him to overcome. Thus, he does that shit always.
He's never mentioned what harm ever befell anyone due to anything Charlie Kirk or any other conservative has said. Calling Stormy Daniels a whore and/or a slut somehow leads to great harm to womankind, though Dan's at a complete loss to say how and certainly never provides examples. This "his words cause harm" is just one way his kind seeks to delete, cancel and otherwise stifle opposing opinions. It's a dishonest thing to say.
Thanks for asking about me, Bubba. I'm well (very well, actually, in spite of being quite busy). How are you?
You asked/said...
I doubt that we could ever produce enough evidence to convince Dan that the despicable celebrations were actually quite widespread
One thing at a time. Starting with this one.
There are, of course, outliers on the Left and Right who regularly say hateful things, even at sober times, such as the death of a leader in the liberal or conservative worlds. I assume you can agree with this, but you tell me.
I know as a fact that I've seen very hateful, ugly words celebrating Jimmy Carter's death, or the death of another black man at the hands of the police. I am certain that SOME on the left may well have said hateful, ugly things at the death of Mr Kirk.
It happens all around, right?
Now, having said that, I repeat my initial claim: I have seen NO liberals, progressives actually celebrating Mr Kirk's death. Not one. Did it happen out there? I'm sure, as always happens on the fringes.
But, did Barack Obama or any other significant progressive leader celebrate his death? NOT ONE SINGLE leader that I've heard or read has celebrated this assassination. Has it happened? Maybe. ALL I can tell you is that I haven't seen it.
Now, what I HAVE seen is people saying words to the effect of, "Kirk was a despicable man with awful opinions. He used racist, sexist and homophobic attacks against innocent people. I DO NOT MOURN this man's death. I will not mourn someone who's actions and words were so harmful to me or people I love and care about."
Saying, "I do not mourn this man's death" is NOT the same as celebrating his death. Can we agree upon that much? To a person, all the people I know of who might say "I don't mourn" have been abundantly clear: Even racists and misogynists should NOT be killed/murdered for their words..." They're just merely NOT mourning.
I find that exceeding reasonable IF you think (as I do) that someone like Kirk's words and actions were exceedingly harmful (More on that later) to the marginalized folks of our world and nation, that you would not MOURN that man's death. But that's not celebrating.
I'll give you some time to address that much, if you're so inclined.
But my words ARE a good faith response and dialog back to your questions, as you all, no doubt, believe Mr Kirk would have wanted. (*Note: I do not believe the data supports that claim, but more on that later.)
While I'm waiting for Marshal to post my comments, I'll address this from Bubba...
"I'm glad to see a clear condemnation of Charlie Kirk's assassination...."
1. Since I'm consistently opposed to violence and especially deadly violence, it's an easy starting point and one you can rely on from progressives like me.
2. It's a shame that the same can't be said about most conservatives, who tend to believe in some form of the myth of redemptive violence... the notion that SOME wide scale slaughters and oppressions of innocent people - the murderous attacks on Hiroshima, Gaza, Dresden... the oppression of women, immigrants, LGBTQ folks, etc...
If nothing else, y'all should be able to acknowledge the Just Peacemakers of the world, like Dan, are at least consistently always opposed to deadly violence that harms innocent bystanders. The rest of us (you all) have to live with the reality that we/ you sometimes DO justify widespread slaughter and oppression of innocent people.
Can we agree on that much?
Thanks, Marshall! Ideally I would be around more often, but I'm glad I'm always welcome here.
Never mind whether the quote is accurate and fair, I'd love to see Dan take some line attributed to Kirk and explain exactly how it's harmful.
His words "HAVE caused harm."
I'd love to know how.
So would we. But it's simply just shit he says as if actually true. Again, the purpose is stifle speech of the opposition. Lying is Dan's stock in trade. It's essential to all of the marxist progressive horde, of which Dan is a member and more than happy to lie with abandon.
Notice one missing, dickhead? You're not allowed to refer to your president, my president, OUR president as as pervert because first of all it isn't true and thus inaccurate for describing his sexual history, and secondly because you're an actual pervert, and I'd wager far more perverse than your lesbo grannies.
Furthermore, no honest lawyer regards his "felony convictions" as legit. Every attempt to find fault with this guy through a legal process (criminal/civil indictments, impeachment) have been shams and again, honest people are well aware of it. Only liars of the left (which is almost all of them with very few exceptions) pretend his many trials have been honest acts of justice rather than the political harassment each of them have been.
Now, if you want to try again with that submission which is gone the way of all of feo's feel free to amend your breach of my rules and I'll be more than happy to publish them for all to read and laugh.
"1. Since I'm consistently opposed to violence and especially deadly violence, it's an easy starting point and one you can rely on from progressives like me."
Says the pervert defender of abortion. Says the pervert defender of Biden's open borders policies and all who died as a result of it, some savagely. Says the pervert defender of Obama and Biden who promoted and reinstated the Iran Nuke deal, which enriched Iran and allowed them to better fund their proxies who murder Jews. What a freakin' liar of a hypocrite you are!
"2. It's a shame that the same can't be said about most conservatives, who tend to believe in some form of the myth of redemptive violence..."
Again proving you have no idea of what conservatism is all about. Worse, you're projecting a leftist notion onto conservatives, because that's what marxist liars do. The truth is born out in the many leftist riots over the last ten or more years in this country, such as those resulting from the self-inflicted death of the thug in police custody, Georg Floyd.
https://providencemag.com/2025/07/violence-is-not-vision-the-lefts-myth-of-redemptive-sacrifice-1/
Your bullshit premise that violence is a first choice of conservatives is just another perversion of yours. Because you're a true pervert.
"...the notion that SOME wide scale slaughters and oppressions of innocent people - the murderous attacks on Hiroshima, Gaza, Dresden..."
All justified defensive actions you lying son-of-a-bitch.
"...the oppression of women, immigrants, LGBTQ folks, etc..."
Fiction. Lies. Typical Jeff St "Christianity". Vile and vulgar in an attempt to demonize better people.
"There are, of course, outliers on the Left and Right who regularly say hateful things, even at sober times, such as the death of a leader in the liberal or conservative worlds. I assume you can agree with this, but you tell me."
The famous lefty "both sides do it" crap. Uh uh. That's not at all a fair description of reality. It's a perversion of it, which is typical of Dan and those like him.
Trump's never been worried about taking off on any individual. The walking corpse Dan actually believed was more suited for the president than was Trump, Joe Biden, attacked all Trump supporters. To him, we're an "existential threat', and the left relies on really bad data to back it up. Obama also spoke of "bitter clingers", which were typical Americans not corrupted by leftist perversions and anti-American policy.
"I know as a fact that I've seen very hateful, ugly words celebrating Jimmy Carter's death..."
Liar. Where's your evidence in support of this stupid claim? Get some or retract like a man would.
"...or the death of another black man at the hands of the police."
Which black man and who celebrated his death? You're lying again, because that's what you do. You pervert.
"It happens all around, right?"
No. It doesn't.
"But, did Barack Obama or any other significant progressive leader celebrate his death? NOT ONE SINGLE leader that I've heard or read has celebrated this assassination"
Yeah...and in your comment I didn't publish because of your perverted demonizing of a president far better than Obama ever was, you listed several notable Dems expressing condolences for Kirk and his family. Gosh. Do they really give a flying rat's ass, or are they doing their typical political posturing? The safe money's on the latter, but I hope some of them might be sincere. I recommend no breath holding.
Likewise, it seems clear that he is operating from second and third hand reports of what Kirk has allegedly said, instead of the reality. It's great to see that the only way the left can bash Kirk is to lie about what he said. I'd also note that some of the troubling quotes are from early in his career and that it is likely that either his positions or his ability to articulate them had changed as he matured.
Bubba, we miss having you around and your contributions. Hope you're well.
1. Unfortunately, the number of "progressives like me" is dwindling and the number of progressives like ANTIFA is growing. His rose colored, Pollyanna view of the left is crumbling under the assault of reality.
2. Again with making up bullshit and pretending like that bullshit represents an actual "conservative" position.
We can also note that "Just Peacemakers" like Dan are a dwindling minority on the left, and that they've failed miserably to actually solve (or offer realistic solutions) to actual real world problems. By all means, let's see the "Just Peacemakers" stop the slaughter of Christians in Africa (hell if they'd even mention and condemn it that would be a start), or release the hostages in Gaza, they'd have i tiny bit of credibility. But if Dan is a good example they're all fighting things that happened centuries ago, and not what's happening in 2025.
I know that the chances of Dan or his ilk going to Gaza or Africa to actually do anything is virtually zero because Gaza and Africa (where the bad stuff is happening) are yucky and dangerous. But they COUlD go to the UK (or most anywhere in Europe) and advocate for justice for the child rape victims, to stop the spread of legitimizing Sharia, and for free speech. They COULD go to the Detroit area and protest against the literal insurrection that's brewing, or to MPLS to protest against the massive fraud in the DFL controlled government or the light sentence given to the guy who kidnapped and raped a child. Those are easy to do, but they don't.
"It happens all around, right?"
What a huge pile of bullshit. The sheer amount of celebration of Kirk's assassination among prominent left wing figures, and the justification of that protest on the MSM, alone renders Dan's false equivalency to be bullshit. At least Steven King had the balls to admit that he was wrong, unlike Dan.
The fact that all the ASPL has (including Dan) right now is "Well the other guys do/did it.") shows how bankrupt they are. Dan makes claims about "right wing celebrations" but offers no proof.
" I repeat my initial claim: I have seen NO liberals, progressives actually celebrating Mr Kirk's death. Not one."
This could be the single most cowardly thing Dan does regularly. Of course he "doesn't see" things when he actively avoids looking for them, or justifies/excuses things when confronted. Given the widespread dissemination of examples of people "celebrating" Kirk's assassination. let alone the threats to other conservatives, and justifications of the assassination it would take a complete idiot to believe Dan's bullshit. It's much more likely that he's playing semantic games than that he's missed what exists.
"Now, what I HAVE seen..."
Let the justifications and dodging begin. I guess it's OK to simply lie about Kirk, according to Dan's celebrated "moral compass".
As I've addressed this, and Dan has clearly ignored it, I see no reason to jump through his hoops here. What I will do, is post another roundup of what Dan is choosing to pretend doesn't exist.
I'll simply note that he closest analogue to the Kirk assassination is the MN legislator shooting. The difference is that there was literally none of the hatred and vitriol from the right that we've seen about Kirk. No celebrations, no maniacal laughing, no lies about how evil they were, nothing but respect and condolence.
The only reason I can come up with for Dan's blindness to the reality of the ASPl is that he chooses it. He has constructed this unrealistic, idealized, view of the ASPL and he can't bear to look at the reality because it would crush his fantasy.
The fact that these celebrations not only exist, but that the got millions of likes and shares is lost on Dan. He thinks that the fact the Steven King shared a flat out lie about Kirk (even though he did acknowledge that he was wrong), and got hundreds of thousands of likes/shares is insignificant.
Excellent point about the standards granted to the holders of broadcast licenses. As we live in a world where the notion of the "public airwaves" seems quaint, the reality is that NBC/ABC/CBS/PBS and the like are broadcasters first and foremost which comes with regulations that cable isn't bound by. Those regulations are enforced by the FCC. Are those regulations archaic in the world of cable/satellite/internet/social media, probably. But absent a change, they still exist and are binding.
Of course Dan didn't "see" the actual censorship engaged in by the Biden administration, because he agreed with the goal and justified it as a good thing.
Finally, I agree with your view of free speech. While there must be some small number of things that must be restricted, the reality is that offensive speech is protected, and that offended is an incredibly low bar.
I'd argue that threatening a violent uprising in order to force a jury to reach a desired verdict is one of the few examples of speech that should be restricted/criminal. Specific death threats are another. That Dan chooses not to see the death threats, is his problem, not ours.
Hell, the fact that she culturally appropriates accents should be a much bigger deal than it is. Of course pretty much every DFL candidate would be in trouble.
I'd love to see those early quotes in their complete context. His youthful passion may have resulted in a less than accurate expression of his beliefs. I also don't know if his faith then was what it was by the time he was murdered, which could temper that enthusiasm which resulted in more careless rhetoric. I was never an ardent follower of his, though I've seen him many, many times since he first came on the scene. But in all that time I never saw anything which a blatant incitement of violence, a blatant hatred of ANY group of people regardless of a hatred for policies or positions which are worthy of hatred by people of character. More than anything, I've never heard anything from him which is worthy of the level of hatred and scorn heaped upon him. It's the truths he promoted and defended which brought that upon him, because the Dans of the world hate the truth and find it wholly inconvenient to their agenda.
In the now deleted Trabue comment, Dan restricted his "progressive leaders" to a small number of people from whom he could collect publicized responses to the murder, responses the sincerity of which I greatly doubt. Again, I regard them as no more than self-serving political rhetoric in order to posture as compassionate for the other side.
I get the "I won't mourn" angle. I wouldn't be disconsolate over the passing of most any leftist politician or pundit. I'd prefer they would either repent or just go away, and I'd regard their passing as the latter and leave it at that.
Dan is indulging in a lot of typical leftist moral equivalency, with a significant dose of his overstating of what he sees as negatives in his opponents, while minimizing the far more blatant negatives of his own. Honest people call this "lying".
I'm sure that they are available. The reality is that he started when he was young and it is likely that his passion outweighed his ability to express himself. I can't believe that he didn't get better at expressing his convictions the longer he did what he did. In general, it seems like we as a society tend to hold people to retroactive standards about youthful behavior and actions. In this case, maybe it would be helpful to compare his early statements on a topic with his later statements to see how growth and maturity affected him expressing himself.
I agree that there was never the "isms" that the left desperately want to believe exist, but there were some things that he could have phrased or expressed better.
The fact that we are seeing people who vehemently disagreed with him provide such fulsome praise of him, we're seeing people from all of these "oppressed groups" defending him, which should be ample evidence that he wasn't an "ist". The ASPL need something because they aren't totally stupid. They see the appeal of a Kirk, and they know that they can't win in a debate, so they resort to violence, lies, and slander. If I was TPUSA or his family, I'd give serious consideration to a few slander/defamation suits against some of the worst ghouls, simply to make the point.
In this case, Dan's just drinking the Kool Aid and parroting the talking points instead of thinking for himself. It's not out of character for him.
I gathered that, he'd somehow artificially limited his sample size to exclude much, if not all, of the nasty response. This isn't surprising, as it's how he deals with everything. It's all about what he "sees" with the implication that anything else has no validity. Further, he clearly limits what he "sees" to protect himself and his hunches. Really nothing else makes sense.
Some of this comes from his fundamental misunderstanding of the power and reach of social media and the internet when it comes to disseminating news. He automatically dismisses anything (weirdly enough, even the official Twitter accounts of the MSM) as automatically less valid than his revered MSM. Which is absurd. People/journalists like Andy Ngo are on the ground and reporting in ways that the MSM will not do. When you can unilaterally eliminate a significant number of sources from being valid, it allows you to completely control any discussion. Much like the Materialist/Naturalist/Darwinist dogma which eliminates certain potential answers to questions regardless of whether or not the evidence might lead toward one of those answers. Dan simply eliminates (for example) much of the OT as "myth" or "revenge fantasies" which allows him to ignore the direct line of scripture on atonement/sacrifice/ and declare reference to those as invalid or "hunches". It's a great tactic if you're dealing with idiots or sheep who won't call you out on your bullshit.
Absolutely! He maximizes/overstates convictions, beliefs, or actions of "conservatives", while minimizing/excusing/rationalizing worse actions by the left. Again, it's an easy way to "win" because you set the rules to favor your own side and rig the game to exclude that which doesn't fit your arbitrary framework. Of course it could be called lying, or simply bullshit.
"One thing at a time. Starting with this one."
This is an excellent example of how he operates. He immediately writes off everyone who's said anything as an "outlier" for no reason except inconvenience. I'd argue that Steven King and Emmanuel Acho are not outliers by virtue of their positions. I'd argue that any one who gets a guest spot on CNN or MSNBC is automatically not an outlier, and that anyone on CNN/MSNBC that defends or excuses the vile rhetoric is not an outlier either. Finally, anyone with more than 1000 social media followers, or shares of a particular post is not an outlier. Dan needs to pretend that these people with national reach are outliers, because of his absurd hunches about how he personifies progressivism. He'll pretend that ANTIFA is "fringe" or not left wing, just because he says so.
In short, it's easy to convince yourself that you've won an argument when you've unilaterally rigged the rules to favor yourself, and arbitrarily decide what is valid and what's not.
Just more arrogance and hubris.
Your 12:55 comment totally mirrors and underscores the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of your 12:48 comments. He's constantly "rigging the rules to favor" himself.
I apologize if there was too much repetition, but this is how Dan has rolled for a long time. He can do whatever he wants, obviously, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call it out for what it is. It's the arrogance and hubris thinking that he gets to define reality and artificially limit things in an argument. It's getting old, but until recently it was kind of an amusing thing Dan does. After Kirk, and Dan's bullshit, I see no reason to be idly amused. As people have been saying, we are all like Charlie and we all can and will have a target on us at dome point for being committed to The Truth. Dan isn't brave enough to pull the trigger. He's also not brave enough to stand up to those on his side who are willing to pull a trigger. He's a coward with delusions of grandeur, and I'm tired of his shit. People on his side of the political aisle just shot a man in cold blood for simply having a conversation with people who disagreed with him. For Dan to play these bullshit games and try to set arbitrary limits and all the rest is wrong. He made excuses for Mangione, and he'll do the same for this assassin as well.
I'll still let him comment, because I made the promise and I'll keep it. Whether or not I engage with his bullshit is another thing entirely.
Craig, going in on DEEP crazy in response to my answers to Bubba's questions. I will note that my answers were direct and respectful. Not so much from the childish bully crowd... Craig said:
Dan isn't brave enough to pull the trigger.
? Do you TRULY think it is "bravery" that allows killers to "pull triggers..."? Because I reject that out-of-hand. It is utter cowardice and deep depravity, generally speaking, that causes people - predominantly from the Right over the last few decades, but also from the Left - to engage in deadly violence against perceived political enemies. It's cowardice and being deeply disturbed or some combination of the two.
I don't kill people because I do not believe in violence as a solution. Period.
Why would you feel a need to commit figurative murder, attempting to assassinate an innocent person?
Do you see what you've done?
Craig, irrationally and falsely stated:
It's the arrogance and hubris thinking that he gets to define reality
Of course, the reality is that I DO NOT and HAVE NOT said that I get to define reality. When I speak of reality (like the reality that the data shows that deadly violence has come mostly from political conservatives over the last few decades... I'm just citing the actual data of known facts), I'm speaking of actual data-driven reality.
When I'm speaking of an opinion, I'm more than glad to acknowledge it's my opinion. Unlike you all, who hide behind a pretense that your human theories are just to be accepted as facts.
Again, with the cowardly, stupid character assassination and stupidly false claims.
Craig:
As people have been saying, we are all like Charlie and we all can and will have a target on us at dome point for being committed to The Truth.
Are you suggesting that YOUR CONSERVATIVES are the ones with a "target on" YOU CONSERVATIVES specifically, because YOU CONSERVATIVES are "committed to the Truth..."? AND are you saying that YOU ALL are the ones who get to decide what is and isn't Truth?
Are we assassins if we dare to disagree with your little human opinions?
Please. Grow up.
Finally, Craig offered up THIS bit of crazy bullshit:
People on his side of the political aisle just shot a man in cold blood for simply having a conversation with people who disagreed with him.
FALSE. STUPIDLY FALSE. ONE MAN shot another man and that ONE MAN is guilty of that. NOT ALL liberals. I GET that you REALLY want to condemn all liberals for the actions of one man, but bullshit. Get out of the way and stop advocating fascist ideologies.
AND that one man who killed Kirk was someone who literally grew up in conservative/Maga world and who, at least on one issue, grew to disagree with Kirk because of Kirk's harsh/harmful words towards trans people. THAT is what we know at this point. We don't know more, THAT is the data that is out there.
There is NO other data saying that this man was someone who identified as a liberal (or conservative, or something other). And, of course, the fact is that it was that ONE MAN, not liberals, not progressives, not Democrats who committed this atrocity.
But those sort of words that you and your deviant felon keep repeating ("they're murderers, they're killers, they hate Christians and the Truth") are the sorts of dangerous and inflammatory words that you all are pretending to want to presume for yourselves.
Grow up. Be better. Stop with the stupidly false claims and character assassinations and demonizations based on stupidly false claims.
Thanks, Craig, doing very well -- the fam is hectic but happy, as always! -- and I might hang around at least as long as this bipolar hypomania lasts, LOL!
"ASPL"? I'm not familiar with that acronym and Google is no help: what's that mean?
I find the contrast interesting, Dan's criticism of the Christian orator Charlie Kirk and his glowing praise of former President Jimmy Carter.
I do still wonder exactly how Dan knows Carter was a great Christian, considering he knew nothing about how he behaved when the cameras weren't rolling.
"Not so much from the childish bully crowd... "
No "childish bullying" going here, pervert. And no...referring to you appropriately is not "bullying" nor "childish", pervert.
"Do you TRULY think it is "bravery" that allows killers to "pull triggers..."?"
Depends on the shooter, but even when driven by mental issues, it takes more spine than is necessary to simply condemn your own for what they've been doing constantly which negatively influences the emotionally challenged, which you clearly don't have the spine to do unless called out for your silence. In the meantime, you constantly cry for us to condemn what is not even worthy of condemnation...like blowing up drug runners...arresting illegal aliens and deporting them...and calling out those of your ilk who have no problem calling for your president's death or incarceration by whatever means possible.
"It is utter cowardice and deep depravity, generally speaking, that causes people - predominantly from the Right over the last few decades..."
Case in point. You haven't the courage to refrain from pretending any murderer called a right-winger actually is because it serves your political narrative and agenda. Craig posted a great chart presenting riots going back to the 1970s. All lefties. What have you got? Jan 6? What a joke you are!
"I don't kill people because I do not believe in violence as a solution. Period."
Unless they're in the womb. Then they're fair game. Pervert.
"Why would you feel a need to commit figurative murder, attempting to assassinate an innocent person?"
"Figurative murder"??? What kind of bat-shit crazy is THIS? Who is this "innocent person" you're referencing here? YOU???
"Do you see what you've done?"
He's spoken truthfully. You should try it sometime.
"Of course, the reality is that I DO NOT and HAVE NOT said that I get to define reality."
Yet you do it as if you're paid for it.
"When I speak of reality (like the reality that the data shows that deadly violence has come mostly from political conservatives over the last few decades... I'm just citing the actual data of known facts), I'm speaking of actual data-driven reality."
The only "reality" is not that the data shows such a thing, but that the research has made that conclusion. That's not the same as the conclusion being reality. It's just what want the reality to be and the conclusion is never questioned by you in the slightest because it's what you want reality to be. This, too, is routine with you. Lying is what you do and if you're just citing studies based on their conclusions without doing a damned thing to ascertain how and by what method (or "rubric" if you prefer) those conclusions were reached, you're nowhere near the realm of "good faith". You're just pushing your narrative with whatever you think backs it up. It's the same as you referring to your president as a felon while ignoring how many legal scholars and analysts point out the many judicial errors which led to the conviction. All you care about is that he was "convicted". You're not honest enough to look at the details. You're intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt.
"When I'm speaking of an opinion, I'm more than glad to acknowledge it's my opinion. Unlike you all, who hide behind a pretense that your human theories are just to be accepted as facts."
Ah... your typical bullshit. You present opinion over the facts presented by us. You don't like the facts, care nothing for the solid hard data (evidence) we present in support of those facts, so you write it off as "opinion" without anything nearly as solid to suggest they aren't facts. It's how you roll, you lying pervert. Why you even bother trying to run this bullshit line is something only another liar could explain.
"Are you suggesting that YOUR CONSERVATIVES are the ones with a "target on" YOU CONSERVATIVES specifically, because YOU CONSERVATIVES are "committed to the Truth..."?"
"AND are you saying that YOU ALL are the ones who get to decide what is and isn't Truth?"
We're the ones unafraid to present the truth as it is. Any honest lefty wouldn't dispute the facts we present. Do you know any honest lefties? They're in VERY short supply.
"Are we assassins if we dare to disagree with your little human opinions?"
You mean as you're accusing Craig of assassinating some unnamed "innocent person"? You're assassins when you shoot at conservatives/Republicans. Pretend you're a Christian and preach to your kind against shooting at conservatives.
"Please. Grow up."
Please. Take your condescending head out of your ass and go fuck yourself.
"FALSE. STUPIDLY FALSE. ONE MAN shot another man and that ONE MAN is guilty of that. NOT ALL liberals."
OH, HEAVENS! WE ARE RUINED! Craig said "People" instead of "A person"! DAN HAS OFFICIALLY WON THIS DEBATE!
Who would have thought someone with Dan's stellar reasoning abilities would have to pretend he's scored points with this moronic response of his to Craig's quote? Answer: Everyone. And here's the ironic part: What does Dan do in addition to his end-zone dancing? He accuses Craig of advocating fascism. Somehow, an otherwise factual statement is fascism because of a grammatical error. What an assassin of another's character Dan is!
"AND that one man who killed Kirk was someone who literally grew up in conservative/Maga world and who, at least on one issue, grew to disagree with Kirk because of Kirk's harsh/harmful words towards trans people. THAT is what we know at this point. We don't know more, THAT is the data that is out there."
The political leanings of his family are irrelevant, except that it makes the punk's attitudes even more startling and inexplicable. It raises the question of how he could be raised by decent people who value truth yet still turn out like you. What you and your head lice know is irrelevant. What investigators know is.
""It's very clear to us and to the investigators that this was a person who was deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology," Cox told The Wall Street Journal in remarks cited by The Hill on Saturday."
"But those sort of words that you and your deviant felon keep repeating ("they're murderers, they're killers, they hate Christians and the Truth") are the sorts of dangerous and inflammatory words that you all are pretending to want to presume for yourselves."
We don't have any "deviant felon". But you're going to have yet another to add to your roster when this guy is convicted of the crime to which he allegedly confessed.
But you see, your kind ARE murderers, to the tune of 800K to one million conceived yet unborn murdered every year. Which of course makes you killers. Your kind does indeed hate Christians for speaking the truth about the unborn and the disorder of LGBTQ++++ ideologies, and for our support for law enforcement and border protection...your opposition of which has led to an even higher body count than the million abortions per year. Truth is only dangerous to those for whom truth is inconvenient, and thus any harm suffered from expressions of truth is simply self-inflicted for not heeding the truth.
So grow up, petulant little girl. Be an actual Christian and an actual man and stop pretending the truth we express are false claims. You're the only liar here. You're the pervert.
Wow. What pigs.
You CAN'T be serious, comparing the literally bigoted Kirk with the literally saintly Carter. And for those too damned ignorant to be worthy of speaking/writing out loud, MANY people, MANY of my friends, made visits to Plains, GA and to places where Carter was and his faith was obvious. They have sat in on his Sunday School class. And HIS faith didn't rely upon calling black women "stupid" and just exploiting the system through Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
And what an indictment on your collective faith systems that you demonize DIVERSITY, EQUITY and INCLUSION.
That is LITERALLY the faith, as Jesus taught it.
"Although by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to reteach you the basic principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food!
Although by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to reteach you the basic principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food!"
Bubba...
"ASPL"? I'm not familiar with that acronym and Google is no help: what's that mean?
Many of us have explained to Craig how he uses these long lists of acronymns that are meaningless to most of us and it worries me. Why not say "The Left" (which is something like what he means by ASPL, although I forget exactly if he's ever clarified...)? WHY use acronyms that no one (at least outside of his circles) uses?
Why not communicate for communication's sake and not vague obscurities?
It's deeply strange and it leaves me worried about his mental state.
Marshal:
OUR president as as pervert because first of all it isn't true and thus inaccurate for describing his sexual history, and secondly because you're an actual pervert
And this is what it's come to: A man who's been faithfully married to one woman for 40 years, helped raised two children into wonderful, amazing adults, and worked in helping industries for much of his life... THAT man, to Marshal, is a "pervert."
But the overtly deviant president he voted for... a man who BOASTED and laughed about abusing his power, wealth and privilege to ogle at teen-aged girls, a man who boasted and laughed about sexually assaulting women (and whatever you may THINK in your head, that is literally what he did) AND laughed about getting away with it because "he's a star..." again using his wealth and privilege to get away with literal sexual assault... a deviant who has been a serial cheater on his many wives, girlfriends and families... a man who hung out with and laughed with an actual pedophile and who, even now, is hiding evidence about all the other pedophiles who were part of that scene... a man SO perverse and morally deviant that he appears to think that he's genuinely a good man and NOT a deviant in many ways, including sexual deviance and predation, but not limited to that... THAT deviant is NOT "perverted" in your head. Somehow.
And the reasons you've given in the past include (my summary, not a literal quote, but it's correct),
"Well, he's only ogling (and abusing his power to do it, although you won't say that) teen-aged GIRLS who are almost women (ewww... ) because it's NOT perverse for a man to abuse his power to ogle teen-aged girls, because they're not boys..." AS IF THAT was the determining factor of what is and isn't perverse.
You've been such a sexual fetishist AND simultaneously, a sick, disturbed prude, while at the same time, being exceedingly vulgar and perverse in the way you talk about these matters and fellow humans beloved by God, that in your mind, you've appeared to establish (for yourself, alone) that the ONLY thing that is sexually perverse is, in your own little head, guys liking guys or women liking women. Or men dressing like women or the inverse.
Pervert: to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right
Dan being a faithful family man and church leader and working in giving fields is "perverted."
The overtly hedonistic Felon (who IS A LITERAL felon no matter how much you hate reality) (and speaking of perverted!) who has lived a life of gluttonous hedonism, living a life of selfish pleasure-seeking no matter who it harms, THAT man is not a pervert, in your little opinion, perverse as it is (ie, turning aside or away from what is good or true or morally right).
And Dan is, in your little opinion, "perverse" because he celebrates two darling grandmothers getting married to live a life of fidelity and love... two gay gentleman getting married to life a life of fidelity and love... THAT is, somehow in your head, something that makes you think in your perverted head that Dan is perverse.
Son, get help. You are living a life of perversion yourself, defending the perverted hedonists and filling your mind and mouth with vulgar words of corruption and false claims and graceless slander.
Be a better man, Marshal. You can do it.
Come on other gentleman, you all can be better men, too. Tell Marshal how he's just going down a perverted path of graceless vulgarities. Save yourselves.
Bubba...
Never mind whether the quote is accurate and fair, I'd love to see Dan take some line attributed to Kirk and explain exactly how it's harmful.
I'm more than happy to do so, as soon as you answer my first questions in response to your comments.
I'm trying to take your questions and comments in an orderly and respectful manner, rather than hopping around. Thanks.
While I'm waiting (and I'm literally in no hurry, just noting that I'm waiting for Bubba's responses, whenever they come. Lest you all falsely accuse me of "rushing..." Again.), here's a helpful dissertation that respectfully speaks of Kirk's "debate" approach...
https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/09/16/prove-me-wrong/
There are many more like that. I was just looking for the most concise.
An adult coming out practiced and prepared with some talking points to make people look foolish, then giving a person a chance to interact who has NOT prepared for this discussion and who are, most often (I believe) barely adults, then editing the "debate" to only give the answers that make his "debate partner" look bad and him look good, is not engaging in good faith debate. It's misleading and with the stated goal of "winning over" college students to the conservative side. Understand: The goal was NOT good faith debate, it was to win them over but by using unfair, less-than-honest tactics.
I'm not the only one to notice there or point it out.
Glad to hear you're doing well. We definitely miss your comments at our various blogs.
American Social and Political Left. I'm too lazy to type all of that out, and too picky to not be specific.
Dan has been pretty insistent that he can somehow divine how "good" people are based only on their actions that he can observe. I know that seems to contradict things we see in scripture, but Dan is pretty insistent that he can identify "good" people with something approaching 100% accuracy. Strangely enough, Carter himself would seemingly disagree with Dan's judgement as he (like Mother Theresa) seemed very aware of the sins that no one could see.
I'll simply add that Dan chose not to mention those on the left advocating the murder of Krik's family, Trump, Candace Owens, and conservatives.
For someone who lives by hiding behind the hyperbole excuse for so many things, his inability to show grace to others who use hyperbole is strange indeed. That he's chosen to ignore years of the most vile and hateful language (some used by himself) against conservatives and the role that probably played in the spate of left wing violence, says volumes about Dan's vaunted moral compass.
"And given his vulgar verbal attacks on women, black people, immigrants and LGBTQ folks, you can't blame them (or their allies) for not really mourning his death - his words and policies he's advocated HAVE caused harm to innocent people, and that harm, too, is wrong."
Dan keeps saying things like this, without even one tiny shred of data to back up his claims. Who here is surprised by that?
One thing I will note is that I'm finding it exceedingly difficult to find Kirk quotes in context. Here is a video of running awful commentary from Kirk, with each comment sounding worse and more bigoted than the last.
If you can provide any context for any of these awful statements, I'd be glad to read them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7ir0knH_es
Here's a quote that appears to be mostly in context. Kirk in 2021 attacking Simone Biles...
"We are raising a generation of weak people like Simone Biles," he told listeners to his podcast The Charlie Kirk Show. "If she's got all these mental health problems: don't show up."
He continued: "She's an incredible athlete, of course she's an incredible athlete, I'm not saying that—she's probably the greatest gymnast of all time. She's also very selfish, she's immature and she's a shame to the country."
"She's totally a sociopath," he said. "What kind of person skips the gold medal match? Who does that? It's a shame to the nation. You just gave a gift to the Russians."
He continued: "If you're not ready for the big time, we've got thousands of young gymnasts that would love to take your place. Thousands. Simone Biles just showed the rest of the nation that when things get tough, you shatter into a million pieces."
What do you think, Bubba? Harmful? Awful?
"Do you TRULY think it is "bravery" that allows killers to "pull triggers..."?"
In the context of what I said, yes. The point, however, is that you are content to stand on the sidelines and hurl verbal abuse at people, but highly unlikely to actually take show enough courage to risk yourself.
" He's also not brave enough to stand up to those on his side who are willing to pull a trigger."
The joys of Dan taking things out of context, and proving my point at the same time. He might throw out some equivocation or throw in a "on the left" as an aside to pushing his narrative, but he's always made excuses for left wing violence and I can't recall an unequivocal condemnation of any specific act.
"predominantly from the Right over the last few decades,"
Yeah, because going back to the '60s and including all political violence or threats of political violence doesn't push the narrative.
"I don't kill people because I do not believe in violence as a solution. Period."
That's your prerogative. That you benefit greatly from those who are willing to engage in the use of violence/force to protect you probably doesn't even occur to you.
"Why would you feel a need to commit figurative murder, attempting to assassinate an innocent person?
Do you see what you've done?"
This combination of nonsensical gibberish makes absolutely zero sense. What I've done is point out your cowardice.
"like the reality that the data shows that deadly violence has come mostly from political conservatives over the last few decades... "
Well, if the "DATA" excludes significant examples of left wing violence, includes violent acts with no political component, and doesn't go back to the '60's the "DATA" is flawed and doesn't represent reality. Oh, and you regularly claim that your hunches are "reality".
"Again, with the cowardly, stupid character assassination and stupidly false claims."
Coming from someone who's been assassinating Kirk's character by way of multiple false claims, this is pretty freaking hilarious.
"Are you suggesting"
I'm simply listening to what the ASPL are saying loudly and clearly. I've posted links to a significant amount of examples, including a couple from CNN commentators.
"that YOUR CONSERVATIVES are the ones with a "target on" YOU CONSERVATIVES specifically, because YOU CONSERVATIVES are "committed to the Truth..."?"
Among other things, sure. Conservatives who are committed to, and publicly speak Truth have absolutely been targeted in multiple ways. FYI, the target language isn't just about actual assassination, but about the hate filled verbal attacks that y'all have been engaging in for years.
"AND are you saying that YOU ALL are the ones who get to decide what is and isn't Truth?"
Nope. Truth is Truth.
'Are we assassins if we dare to disagree with your little human opinions?"
Nope.
As an aside in regards to having a target on us, last night TPUSA did an event at the U of M. The news stories were quite clear that the event was provided with extra security, because of concern about another attack. Who could the authorities have possibly been worried about attacking a TPUSA event? Conservatives, or the peace loving folx who burned and looted chunks of MPLS?
"FALSE. STUPIDLY FALSE. ONE MAN shot another man and that ONE MAN is guilty of that."
Heaven forbid you show a little grace about a typo, but that's not your MO. Of course, we've seen reports that the "ONE MAN" may not have acted alone. We've seen all sorts of ASPL cheering him on and threatening violence against others on the right. We've seen countless ASPL, including you, hurling invective at conservatives for years. But sure, you keep telling yourself whatever bullshit you need to.
"NOT ALL liberals."
The problem with this bullshit is that the vast majority of the ASPL refuses to condemn, and often encourages, these sorts of violent acts.
"I GET that you REALLY want to condemn all liberals for the actions of one man, but bullshit. Get out of the way and stop advocating fascist ideologies."
Given that killing someone for having peaceful, respectful, fact based conversations with anyone who disagrees with him is pretty much exactly what you'd expect from a fascist, and the "fascist/NAZI" rhetoric provides justification for violence, maybe you're part of the problem. Just like you bitched at the left for blaming all conservatives for the MN legislator shooting?
I knew it was coming. Dan is already jumping on the bullshit conspiracy theory train trying to paint the shooter as a conservative. Because no one ever is raised in one environment and rebels against that environment in college. Obviously the "trans" community is deeply conservative, as are the gay, ANTIFA, and furry communities.
Again, the claims about what Kirk said with absolutely zero proof of those claims.
Can't or won't provide proof?
"Look, at this point, it's a given that some large portion (majority) of so-called "conservatives" have abandoned ANY point of decency, morality, reason and intelligence and sold their souls the the idiot pervert who conned willing idiots into putting him in office. Twice. There is no indecency he/they can't commit, no vulgar depths they won't wallow in, no end to the number of women they'll openly rape and prey upon (laughing about how their white privilege keeps them safe), no end to attacks on actual states' rights, no end to fiscal irresponsibility, no end to the defense and fangirl crushing on actual dictators and murderers... there is nothing these deviants can do to stir up a rebellion from the vast majority of conservatives, including the religionists."
The depth of the lies and depravity in this paragraph is astounding. That it begins by announcing that what follows is "a given" as if that magically makes the claims True, is shameful. Apparently in the fantasy world Dan inhabits, labeling something "a given: is license to tell all sorts of egregious lies without actually having to prove his claims.
It's rhetoric like this that gives some on the left license to burn, loot, assassinate, kill, and destroy all while pretending that they are "the resistance".
Contrast your "Christian orator's" words on Biles with Jimmy Carter's actions...
"The country rallied around the idea that people with mental health illnesses also have human rights, but there was no consensus on how to help them. Enter Jimmy Carter. He introduced something called the Mental Health Systems Act. The idea was to fund community health centers all over the country that would support this population...
Carter had a rocky relationship with Congress. But still, he got the act passed. It was 1980. Months later, Reagan was elected. He dismantled the legislation. But Humphreys says Jimmy Carter introduced the country to a radical proposition with the Mental Health Systems Act - one that was ahead of its time."
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/02/nx-s1-5246043/how-jimmy-carter-made-a-lasting-impact-on-mental-health-policy-in-the-u-s
"You CAN'T be serious, comparing the literally bigoted Kirk with the literally saintly Carter."
1. We're not.
2. Either prove your claims or stop making them and apologize for your slander and lies.
By "most of us" you mean you. I've explained, and just did so again why I do. When I use an acronym, I am always sure to provide an explanation of what and why, before I do so.
American Social and Political Liberals (ASPL) is about as direct and specific a term as I can come up with. That you don't have the memory or the wit to figure it out is your problem. That you keep harping on this raises serious questions about your mental state.
Maybe worry more about proving your claims, and less about bitching about minor bullshit.
FYI, if Art asks me not to use acronyms here, I'll stop. When you do stupid shit like this, I just encourages me to use them and watch your childish tantrums.
More excuses, that's par for the course. Demand from others what Dan doesn't demand from himself.
No you're not. The problem is that the unprepared and foolish continue to believe that they are prepared and geniuses before they run into things like facts and Truth. No one was stopping them from bringing professors to debate Kirk, and no one was forcing them to do so. What a pathetic pile of bullshit. Dan's big gotcha is that these adults (old enough to vote) have no agency.
Knowing facts, information, and Truth isn't about "talking points" although it is "being prepared". What possible excuse could there be for a college student ( or adult) to debate someone that they know is prepared without being prepared themselves?
You know what is absolutely beyond comprehension? Why no one on the left has engaged in the same shtick as Kirk. Is there no one on the left prepared to engage in an open discussion? Did you not watch the "best and brightest" in the UK try to sandbag Kirk and still came away looking stupid?
Of course, still no proof of your claims.
Then you are an idiot. I've posted MULTIPLE posts with people going through his comments in context. I know for a fact that virtually every event Kirk ever did is on YouTube. But you're too lazy to do your own homework and demand that others do it for you (even after I've already spoon fed it to you before you demanded).
Still no proof, just excuses.
Neither harmful or awful. Most of it is simply acknowledging the reality that Biles bailed on her team in an important situation.
But if that's the worst you can find, give up now.
The question is whether not Kirk saying something you disagree with (one wonders how familiar you are with the events Kirk is talking about) is worthy of him being killed. What in this is not protected by the 1st Amendment?
Obviously what you just commented was out of context, because you didn't even post the question or the response of the questioner. There is at least one 6+ minute video of this. What you posted is clearly not 6 minutes.
One last thought, the key piece of Kirk's quote is the first line. "If she's got mental health problems, don't show up." That she put herself in front of her team knowing that she wasn't 100% ready to compete is selfish.
Is your hunch that it is Regan's fault that Simone Biles didn't have access to mental health care and that's why she bailed on her teammates?
In 2021 Simone Biles' net worth was between 6 and 16 million dollars, she had plenty of access to the best mental health care available.
But go ahead and pretend that Kirk was bashing her BECAUSE she had mental health issues. He was pointing out that she KNEW that she wasn't 100% ready to compete, and she went ahead and bailed on her team after individual success. People with mental health issues can still choose to do selfish things, and having mental health issues does not protect them from criticism. Had Biles been up front and stepped back BEFORE the middle of the Olympics, no one would have complained. Instead she competed in the individual events (and finished on the podium) , before withdrawing during the team event. Had she withdrawn earlier there would have been an opportunity for a replacement.
If this is the best you have, you should probably quit now.
Oh no, one of the best gymnasts in the history of the sport was "harmed" because someone criticized her decision. The horror.
As someone who's had experience with both government provided services, and mental health services, the thought of government run mental health services seems like a horrible idea.
Craig:
The depth of the lies and depravity in this paragraph is astounding.,/I>
By all means: POINT OUT any one "lie" or "depravity" in any of my words.
I bet you can't.
You can't because they are either factual opinions or, at worst, well-reasoned subjective opinions.
Dan claim: sold their souls the the idiot pervert
Traditional conservatives have long been about being sexually chaste, pure, decent, faithful to their wife (wives/girlfriends) and family, humble, decent, kind.
The Felon is literally none of those. This is an opinion but it's a well-reasoned and reasonable one: There is NOT a single president in US history who has been so OVERTLY hedonistic, sexually predatory, deviant, greedy, vulgar, depraved and indecent. Any ONE of those characteristics in the past would probably be enough to bring him down with traditional conservatives. But today's magaservatives have given this overtly hedonistic, depraved literal criminal a pass in order to help conservatives gain political power. Now, that is certainly what YOU ALL would have described Democrats as "selling your soul for power" in the past. This is certainly NOT a lie and it's quite rational and far from depraved. Decrying utter vulgar hedonistic depravity can NOT be called "depraved." It's the opposite.
Come on. Admit that much is rational/factual.
Dan claim: There is no indecency he/they can't commit, no vulgar depths they won't wallow in, no end to the number of women they'll openly rape and prey upon (laughing about how their white privilege keeps them safe), no end to attacks on actual states' rights, etc
WHERE is the lie? The Felon is literally behaving/living/being in a manner that, in the past, any ONE of the actions would have stopped conservative support. IF a Democrat had laughed and boasted ON PUBLIC RADIO that he could use his power, wealth and privilege to ogle near-naked teen-aged girls, you all would have lost your minds (and you STILL would, IF it were a Democrat).
Tell me I'm mistaken.
If a Democrat were caught boasting and laughing about sexually assaulting a woman, you all would lose your minds. You certainly would never have voted for him.
On and on it goes. WHERE is the "lie..."? Where is the "vulgarity" in standing OPPOSED to utter vulgarity and hedonism and harmful indecency?
And as to "There's nothing he can't do that won't cost him their support..." I'm stating that as there has been nothing that he's done so far that has cost him your support.
Now, IF it turns out that he HAS actually sexually preyed upon girls younger than, say, 16... THAT might be a step too far from you all. But it remains to be seen. Even though he has been found liable of sexual assault in a court of law and even though there are over 20 accusations of rape or sexual assault against him, even though he was a vulgar friend with the convicted sexual predator and his girl-catcher... even though there is SO much evidence of his perverse sexual depravity and none of THAT so far has cost your vote... It's POSSIBLE that him being found reasonably guilty of raping a 12 year old MIGHT be a step too far. What I'm noting quite reasonably, given the evidence, that it seems like there is NO vulgarity or depravity that he and his colleagues can engage in that has turned you off, given your track record of voting for him.
You can't support your stupidly false charges of lying and vulgarity. But I wonder if you'll have the decency to admit it?
Dan. It seems quite clear to me that you wish to engage (the poor quality of what passes for "engagement" for you notwithstanding). Yet you continue to do what I've asked you not to do. While you demanded a show of respect for a Hamas supporting anti-Semitic activist and did so yourself by referring to him as "Mr." Khalid, you arrogantly ignore my request that you not refer to your president as "pervert" or "felon". Your arguments for doing so are bullshit and while helpful in exposing you as among the bat-shit crazy, you, as said before, show a clear rejection of your own policy of "embrace grace" in continually and intentionally blowing off my request. As you've so much bat-shit crazy in your comments over the last couple of days, I'm going to allow what you've submitted since that which you sought but failed to have published earlier. But no more. I will be reading each of your future submissions from this point on. I will not allow a pervert like you to call your president a pervert at this blog. As I said, it's clear you wish to engage here, even if not with me specifically. Follow faithfully the rules I've laid out clearly for you, or don't bother submitting anything. It's no skin off my nose. You're sure to post your perversions at your own blog or at Craig's. I can respond to them at either place if I choose.
Craig gracelessly said, from a place of privilege and ignorance:
As someone who's had experience with both government provided services, and mental health services, the thought of government run mental health services seems like a horrible idea.
That YOU might not want or need that kind of support doesn't mean that others don't want or need it.
Also, IF AND WHEN the "conservative church" wants to step and and help the poor, the marginalized, those suffering from mental illness and physical disabilities and the societal harms that come with that, you all can step the hell up. Until then, you really need to shut the hell up.
And no. I said nothing about Reagan's (objectively harmful) policies were responsible for Simone Biles' mental health concerns. You can tell by the way I never said anything like that. It IS the attitude and policies of conservatives LIKE Reagan that have objectively, demonstrably caused harm to those with mental health concerns. IF you're interested in the data, it's out there, just look it up.
Jesus, save us from your "followers."
Go to hell, Marshal.
Your words:
ever used the words "fascists" or "Totalitarians" to describe the leftist enemies of the state, but I could be wrong. But as opposed to Trump, they're clearly more deserving due to their actions and policies.
Yes, of course, he did. And much worse and much more often. How stupid or ignorant ARE you?
And when WE are citing experts, historians, scholars and other rational people noting the fascist, totalitarian tendencies/practices of your deviant, we are doing just that: Citing what rational experts are saying.
When your openly stupid "president" says shit like this, it's because he has a diarrhetic brain and because he's overtly unintelligent and unlearned. He's NOT citing experts.
MUCH like his idiotic attack on medicine and science yesterday with his nonsensical and dangerously stupid "autism" claims. That's NOT how rational people work. That's NOT how science work. It's not as simple as finding a study or two that tickles your idiot brain and saying, "There's proof." You have to look at all of the expert testimony and make recommendations based on established science, not political brainfarts.
GOOD GOD, y'all can't possibly be this dumb. What's happened to so-called "conservatives" that you've embraced idiocy and corruption as a political plank?
"Listen! The Lord is calling to the city—
and to fear your name is wisdom...
Your rich people are violent;
your inhabitants are liars
and their tongues speak deceitfully.
Therefore, I have begun to destroy you,
to ruin you because of your sins.
You will eat but not be satisfied;
your stomach will still be empty.
You will store up but save nothing,
because what you save I will give to the sword...
You have observed the statutes of Omri*
and all the practices of Ahab’s house;
you have followed their traditions.
Therefore I will give you over to ruin
and your people to derision;
you will bear the scorn of the nations.
The Prophet, Micah
* For biblical historians interested in legal and economic history, Micah 6:9-16 is a powerful example of how corrupt religious practices often support corrupt political and economic practice. A friend of mine and fellow historian has researched in great depth the statutes of Omri...
Micah here gives a very serious condemnation of ancient Israel for its corrupt business practices. Isn’t God only concerned with personal morality? Isn’t He on the side of the wealthy business owners? Not so. God’s law is intimately concerned with business practices. Those who engage in corrupt business dealings and try to avoid responsibility by saying, “let the buyer beware” are not only sinning against their fellow man but sinning against God and violating God’s laws...
What if instead of laws requiring generosity to the poor, protection to the weak, and fair business practices by the rich, there were laws that sanctioned the efforts of businessmen to get ahead without burdensome restrictions on their business actions. Would not many who sit in pews as good Baptists, or Catholics, or Presbyterians, or Methodists, or Lutherans, or even Church of God members rebel against the enforcement of the biblical laws of business practice? So it would seem, by their political speech and behavior. After all, they promote the Statutes of Omri in this nation, over 2800 years after Omri’s death.
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011/08/11/micah-6-9-16-on-the-statutes-of-omri/
The more things change...
Craig:
One last thought, the key piece of Kirk's quote is the first line. "If she's got mental health problems, don't show up." That she put herself in front of her team knowing that she wasn't 100% ready to compete is selfish.
That you put your words in front of the world (hopefully) knowing how graceless and harmful they are is arrogant and graceless. And if you DON'T recognize how graceless they are, then add "ignorant" to the list.
"literally bigoted Kirk"
Was he bigoted because he based his beliefs on Scripture??? Tell me some of his bigotry, little Danny boy.
WOW, talk about out of context "quotes"!!!!
Everything Dan has posted out of context has been addressed, but I will respond the "black pilot" issue. Context were DEI hires over merit/qualifications. So he was pointing out that a black pilot might be in his position due to DEI instead of merit/qualifications. How could one know when DEI was the reason the black person was the pilot? Nothing bigoted about that, just concern over the DEI policies which lowered standards for hiring.
Another example of lying about what Kirk said. Claim: "Charlie Kirk said, 'black women don't have the brain processing power to be taken seriously'"
True statement: "They're coming out and they're saying, 'I'm only here because of affirmative action.' We know. YOU do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously."
In other words, Affirmative action lowered the standards for blacks and women to be hired. I've seen the personally in my 30 years of ATC. A "predevelopmenal" program was established in the 1980s which brought blacks and women into the tower to be trained for a year to be able to try to go to the FAA Academy. A year of training that normal people didn't get; normal people had to start from scratch but AA hires were given a year to learn how to pass the academy. Many still failed at the Academy anyway and those who passed there still rarely made it to certification.
A video for Danny boy to watch, totally exposing the false narrative of Charlie Kirk spewed by his haters. Danny's ilk keeps taking things out of context and saying Charlie is all sorts of evil. IF they claim, like Danny, to be Christian and make up such lies, then they are sinning BIG TIME!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASc5GoH2UB8
"And this is what it's come to: A man who's been faithfully married to one woman for 40 years, helped raised two children into wonderful, amazing adults, and worked in helping industries for much of his life... THAT man, to Marshal, is a "pervert.""
Yes, because all those self-serving selected descriptions don't negate the many ways your perversion manifests and has manifested here by your own comments in the blogosphere. It's easy to describe anyone as "good" by eliminating all which isn't. And you do the opposite in describing Trump, as if his many and wide-ranging good deeds mean nothing against his negatives. That is a perversion...a dishonest description of two people by a pervert.
"But the overtly deviant president he voted for..."
The guy for whom I voted wasn't accused by his daughter of taking showers with her. The guy for whom I voted wasn't accused by a homosexual of getting oral sex from that homosexual while smoking crack. For whom did you vote, pervert? I'm pretty sure it was both Biden and Obama, both of whom defended sexual deviancy, with Biden signing bills codifying deviancy into law. You pervert.
"a man who BOASTED and laughed about abusing his power, wealth and privilege to ogle at teen-aged girls,"
On Howard Stern's show, where all sorts of people say stupid shit about themselves for laughs without any of them being totally truthful. But Dan the pervert, picks and chooses when to describe Trump as a congenital liar (like Dan is) and when he's speaking totally truthfully as it serves Dan's grace embracing hate for Trump. This is actually part of the bat-shit craziness of the progressive, as they go out of their way to frame any utterances by better people in whatever manner best serves their perverse narratives. The question with Trump's ribald telling of his walking in on teen beauty pageant contestants is whether he knew he was walking in on a dressing room, or if it was a mistake and later pretended "I meant to do that"? VERY hard to believe ANYONE would boldly claim to do such a thing on purpose, as if it wouldn't negatively impact his business life. But Dan WANTS Trump to be a evil as he lustfully demands he is. Because perverts like Dan get off on such perceptions.
"a man who boasted and laughed about sexually assaulting women (and whatever you may THINK in your head, that is literally what he did)"
Here the pervert Dan again pretends Trump joking around is Trump speaking truthfully, while again ignoring the fact that immediately after saying this, having a perfect opportunity to behave as he says he does when confronting hot babes, instead treats her respectfully by shaking her hand. And even when his interviewer encourages the babe to "give him some love", the slightest of a hug and a peck on the cheek occurs. Pervert Dan, being a piece of shit, prefers the talk to the action to bolster his hateful demonizing of a better man.
"a deviant who has been a serial cheater on his many wives, girlfriends and families"
Dan perverts again. To him, adultery is "deviancy". Kings Saul, David and Solomon were thus "deviants" and "perverts" in the mind of Dan. Trump doesn't hold a candle to those guys, but he's no different (unfortunately) than millions of men (and women) who cheat on their spouses. And still, that immorality is not deviancy or perversion. Homosexuality, lesbianism, cross dressing...THOSE are examples of deviancy and perversion by definition. Oh...and by the way...just wait until we get to Dan's definition of pervert!
"a man who hung out with and laughed with an actual pedophile and who, even now, is hiding evidence about all the other pedophiles who were part of that scene... "
Who was this "actual pedophile"? You pervert the word "pedophile" to further lie about Trump, and at the same time you lie about Epstein. "Pedophile" has a specific definition neither man meets, even if we pretend Trump is suspected of having sex with underage girls...a charge against him only Trump-haters have made, and strangely, none of the Epstein victims who have come forward to tell their tales. NONE of them recall Trump ever being part of it. Pervert Dan NEEDS him to be a part of it, because he gets off on the thought of it, or he wouldn't keep making baseless claims about Trump he can't support nor tries to support.
"and who, even now, is hiding evidence about all the other pedophiles who were part of that scene..."
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5467277-donald-trump-doj-epstein-maxwell-files/
Yeah, pervert. Trump's holding back!
"a man SO perverse and morally deviant that he appears to think that he's genuinely a good man and NOT a deviant in many ways"
Believing one's self to be a good man is not a manifestation of perversion or deviancy, or else you're just as guilty. YOU support, celebrate, defend and enable both homosexuality/transsexuality and abortion and you dare condescend! What an arrogant pervert you are! And those are just two examples of the many which belie your claim of being a good man.
""Well, he's only ogling (and abusing his power to do it, although you won't say that) teen-aged GIRLS who are almost women (ewww... ) because it's NOT perverse for a man to abuse his power to ogle teen-aged girls, because they're not boys..." AS IF THAT was the determining factor of what is and isn't perverse."
Even after this intentionally perverted paraphrase of my position, the punchline is correct. You don't know with any certainty other than what you heard (likely way the hell out of context) on the Howard Stern show that he intentionally sought to catch a look at naked teenagers. You, being a pervert, WANT it to be true that he "abuses his power" for that purpose, as if he needs to. What a pervert you are to be so obsessed with the possibility it's true! You fantasize about doing the same, don't you? Or are you more into teenage boys? But yeah...checking out naked girls of child bearing age is not perverse. You checking out naked teen boys is. You're right there on the cusp of truth but refuse to go all in in defense of your beloved perverts and deviants.
"You've been such a sexual fetishist AND simultaneously, a sick, disturbed prude, while at the same time, being exceedingly vulgar and perverse in the way you talk about these matters and fellow humans beloved by God, that in your mind, you've appeared to establish (for yourself, alone) that the ONLY thing that is sexually perverse is, in your own little head, guys liking guys or women liking women. Or men dressing like women or the inverse"
Wow! How far up your ass did you have to shove your arm to pull out THIS load of crap??? I'm a "fetishist" for defending traditional marriage and sexual morality as taught in Scripture? "Pervert" doesn't go far enough to describe your level of evil. And rather than provide Scriptural evidence for your position, you're going to focus on the words I use to express myself, as you do in lieu of a good defense for the behaviors of whores, homosexuals, illegal aliens, thugs like George Floyd and the overall culture destroying policies of leftism. Here's some vulgarity for you: Go fuck yourself, pervert! You take "vulgar" and "vile" to a whole new level!
And what makes you think God loves your old dykes but not Trump? Show me the passage with Chapter and Verse which supports that self-serving slop!
I have not "established for myself" that homosexuality is perversion. Biological truth has.
I hear that is what you are saying.
But I see no proof. Just more empty words.
It's easy enough to cite something. You just copy and paste the link. Feel free. In the meantime, as a point of fact, I've had a hard time finding a source for Kirk's comments in context. You telling me "it exists" and nothing else is just a limpid fart.
"Pervert: to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right"
Exactly. It's as if it's your true calling to cause to turn aside or away from what is good, true and morally right. You couldn't have been a better help in validating and confirming as true my opinion of you. Just in your perverse defense of homosexuality, pretending "love" between deviants erases the grave sin of their homosexual behavior, you serve to "to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right", because nothing in Scripture suggests "love" or good works does so. You might as well be pushing your lesbo grannies into the pit by your enabling of their perversion.
"a man who hung out with and laughed with an actual pedophile and who, even now, is hiding evidence about all the other pedophiles who were part of that scene... "
Who was this "actual pedophile"? You pervert the word "pedophile" to further lie about Trump, and at the same time you lie about Epstein. "Pedophile" has a specific definition neither man meets, even if we pretend Trump is suspected of having sex with underage girls...a charge against him only Trump-haters have made, and strangely, none of the Epstein victims who have come forward to tell their tales. NONE of them recall Trump ever being part of it. Pervert Dan NEEDS him to be a part of it, because he gets off on the thought of it, or he wouldn't keep making baseless claims about Trump he can't support nor tries to support.
"and who, even now, is hiding evidence about all the other pedophiles who were part of that scene..."
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5467277-donald-trump-doj-epstein-maxwell-files/
Yeah, pervert. Trump's holding back!
"a man SO perverse and morally deviant that he appears to think that he's genuinely a good man and NOT a deviant in many ways"
Believing one's self to be a good man is not a manifestation of perversion or deviancy, or else you're just as guilty. YOU support, celebrate, defend and enable both homosexuality/transsexuality and abortion and you dare condescend! What an arrogant pervert you are! And those are just two examples of the many which belie your claim of being a good man.
""Well, he's only ogling (and abusing his power to do it, although you won't say that) teen-aged GIRLS who are almost women (ewww... ) because it's NOT perverse for a man to abuse his power to ogle teen-aged girls, because they're not boys..." AS IF THAT was the determining factor of what is and isn't perverse."
Even after this intentionally perverted paraphrase of my position, the punchline is correct. You don't know with any certainty other than what you heard (likely way the hell out of context) on the Howard Stern show that he intentionally sought to catch a look at naked teenagers. You, being a pervert, WANT it to be true that he "abuses his power" for that purpose, as if he needs to. What a pervert you are to be so obsessed with the possibility it's true! You fantasize about doing the same, don't you? Or are you more into teenage boys? But yeah...checking out naked girls of child bearing age is not perverse. You checking out naked teen boys is. You're right there on the cusp of truth but refuse to go all in in defense of your beloved perverts and deviants.
"You've been such a sexual fetishist AND simultaneously, a sick, disturbed prude, while at the same time, being exceedingly vulgar and perverse in the way you talk about these matters and fellow humans beloved by God, that in your mind, you've appeared to establish (for yourself, alone) that the ONLY thing that is sexually perverse is, in your own little head, guys liking guys or women liking women. Or men dressing like women or the inverse"
Wow! How far up your ass did you have to shove your arm to pull out THIS load of crap??? I'm a "fetishist" for defending traditional marriage and sexual morality as taught in Scripture? "Pervert" doesn't go far enough to describe your level of evil. And rather than provide Scriptural evidence for your position, you're going to focus on the words I use to express myself, as you do in lieu of a good defense for the behaviors of whores, homosexuals, illegal aliens, thugs like George Floyd and the overall culture destroying policies of leftism. Here's some vulgarity for you: Go fuck yourself, pervert! You take "vulgar" and "vile" to a whole new level!
And what makes you think God loves your old dykes but not Trump? Show me the passage with Chapter and Verse which supports that self-serving slop!
I have not "established for myself" that homosexuality is perversion. Biological truth has.
"Pervert: to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right"
Exactly. It's as if it's your true calling to cause to turn aside or away from what is good, true and morally right. You couldn't have been a better help in validating and confirming as true my opinion of you. Just in your perverse defense of homosexuality, pretending "love" between deviants erases the grave sin of their homosexual behavior, you serve to "to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right", because nothing in Scripture suggests "love" or good works does so. You might as well be pushing your lesbo grannies into the pit by your enabling of their perversion.
"Dan being a faithful family man and church leader and working in giving fields is "perverted.""
There you go again, eliminating all evidence of sinfulness from your self-praise.
May God have mercy on any congregation who would have Dan as a "church leader"! I fully doubt He's happy with you perverting His Word for the hapless lost congregants of Jeff St. And if they find you compelling, God have mercy on them as well!
And by the way, since you choose again to bring up your family, I no doubt expect that you would wet your panties to hear any response to your doing so. So I'll just lump them in with everyone of your orbit who you describe as being just like you, which isn't a good thing. Don't mention your family ever again. It demands readers to pretend you're a truth teller, and as you're not, no one has any reason to think well of anyone you mention as being like you in any way.
"The overtly hedonistic Felon"
As if you know how he lives.
https://dailybruin.com/2007/09/22/itrue_hedonism_requires_hard_work_and_balancei
https://www.lifehack.org/articles/work/4-famous-workaholics-and-the-secrets-of-their-success.html
"(who IS A LITERAL felon no matter how much you hate reality)"
He is technically a "felon". He is factually, wrongly convicted, you pervert. You know nothing about the judicial flaws in the trial which resulted in his wrongful conviction. You just embrace grace by exploiting the term to demonize him further, like a pervert. You pervert the reality of his conviction in order to rejoice in his conviction. Thus you pervert "embrace grace"
"who has lived a life of gluttonous hedonism, living a life of selfish pleasure-seeking no matter who it harms,"
Yeah, because there's no better way to grow one's wealth by living a life of your perverse, hateful imaginings. You don't know a fucking thing about this guy's private life, fake Christian pervert. Not a thing. You just hate. You hate with a pervert's hate.
"THAT man is not a pervert"
That's true. He's not. YOU'RE the pervert. You can't escape what you are but try to pretend you're not because your own words betray you. Trump has issues with his character (though not nearly as much as you need him to have to satiate your fake-Christian hate), but YOU'RE a pervert. Try talking your way out of it at your Blog of Lies and Perversions. That shit don't play here.
"And Dan is, in your little opinion, "perverse" because he celebrates two darling grandmothers getting married to live a life of fidelity and love... two gay gentleman getting married to life a life of fidelity and love... THAT is, somehow in your head, something that makes you think in your perverted head that Dan is perverse."
Not "in my head", pervert. In truth. They live lives of abomination and you think they're just sweet as sugar, which makes you perverse as well for daring to call yourself "Christian" while enabling what God has condemned so definitively without exception of any kind.
"Son, get help. You are living a life of perversion yourself, defending the perverted hedonists and filling your mind and mouth with vulgar words of corruption and false claims and graceless slander."
I'm not your son, pervert. I need no help for your imagined negative perceptions of my character. I don't defend immorality no matter who indulges in it or how. EVER. You pervert the truth to presume to say that support for our president, who has been far better for American than any president for whom you ever cast a vote, is support for his negative character issues. You pervert God's Word to presume to suggest that your "darling" lesbos are not in grave spiritual trouble by indulging in what God calls abomination. You pervert God's Word to presume a life of fidelity and what you perversely call love mitigates the vile nature of their lifestyles and then have the audacity to suggest that defending them as people is incomplete if you don't enable their perversion. God help the children who are raised in Jeff St families and are exposed to such perversions! I've made absolutely no false claims. All claims I've made about you are based on your own words spewed out since at least 2008. I've slandered no one simply because you shit on the truth. You think that criticizing my use of words to describe you, such as "pervert", "asshole", or even "dumb cunt" is anything but posturing on your end.
"Be a better man, Marshal. You can do it."
You first, bitch. Borrow a spine and a pair of testicles and preach God's Word against homosexuality to your beloved perverts. Prove you put God above all where it really matters in your perversion promoting life.
The fact is you're not a better man than is Craig or Bubba or Neil or Stan or even Mark, if you remember him. You're a scum bag who exploits the Name of Christ to legitimize your perversions. Fuck your pearl clutching about "graceless vulgarities". You ARE a vulgarity!
So again, if you aren't getting it, I don't care who you address when you submit a comment here. No more pervert comments about your president here. No more pervert comments about Trump being either a pervert or a felon. Oh yes...and of course...none of this bullshit condescension calling anyone "son" or such crap, as if you're the wise one educating an offspring to embrace your perversion.
There are a couple of Dan's comments which I have NOT deleted, though they're deserving because of his use of "vulgar" language. He clearly thinks he gets to dictate what constitutes vulgar language and when it's OK to use any at all. He's wrong. But the worst of them won't be published, and I reserve the right to determine which will and which won't. The main point here is his perverse double standard in everything he does, says and supports.
If, pervert Dan, you dare criticize the use of any language you regard as foul or vulgar, you necessarily must be held to that standard+1. That means, you must be better than you demand of others otherwise you've again exposed yourself as a liar for pretending you give a fuck about using words like "fuck". Don't ever do it and expect your comment to be posted. Don't use them with alterations, such as f**k and expect that will be OK. YOU are the asshole who wants to posture as holier than thou, a real rootin' tootin' grace embracing Christian. You'll never be mistaken for such, but you damned well better work harder to project that false image of yourself.
Danny can't accept facts about what Charlie said because Danny supports LIES.
Like all the rest of the LEFT, Danny HATES Charlie Kirk because Charlie spoke the truth, exposing the LEFT for what it is. Charlie was a solid Christian teaching and acting the true faith while Danny boy perverts the faith and teaches demonic behaviors as okay.
Dan does seem to have a need to exert control at other people's blogs. Good for you for setting boundaries.
Dan,
What a bizarre response that seems to show you being divorced from reality. Your confusion seems to stem from your conviction that you can say all sorts of vile things about Kirk, and then demand that others prove your wrong, instead of you proving yourself right. The notion that you demand others prove their claims, but you don't simply reinforces my conclusion abut you being divorced from reality.
It took me literally seconds to find vast numbers of Kirk videos, that you apparently can't do so doesn't bode well for your claims.
Maybe the problem is that you've made a bunch of claims that are false, because you were too lazy to verify the reality before you spouted off, and now you need an excuse.
There is absolutely nothing "graceless" about suggesting that someone with mental health issues should have stepped aside before the Olympics to avoid the stress that competing at the highest level of one's sport brings. There is nothing "graceless" about suggesting that putting selfish desire for personal gain, above the success of others is selfish.
For someone who thinks that calling me a "fascist" is somehow an embrace of grace, It seems clear that you have a problem with the actual meaning of grace.
FYI, there is a whole industry which brings in billions of dollars and is devoted to criticizing athletes for their failures and missteps. Biles got plenty of criticism from people with way more reach, at the time, than Kirk. But your obsessive hatred gets in the way of reality.
"Dan claim: sold their souls the the idiot pervert"
False. That conservatives chose to vote for the significantly more conservative candidate, despite his personal flaws, is not "selling their souls".
" Dan claim: There is no indecency he/they can't commit, no vulgar depths they won't wallow in, no end to the number of women they'll openly rape and prey upon (laughing about how their white privilege keeps them safe), no end to attacks on actual states' rights, etc"
False. First, who are "they"? Presuming you're talking about Trump with your "they", there are clearly plenty of "indecencies" he has not engaged in. He has not "openly raped" any one, nor has he "laughed about" "white privilege keeping him safe", and has not engaged in any "attacks on actual states rights".
For someone who has never been a strong supporter of "states rights" your concern seems made up and full of crap.
"IF it turns out"
"IF" is not reality, and I don't draw conclusions based on fantasy. Accusations are not charges and convictions. As we saw with Kavanaugh, y'all are perfectly happy to make false accusations for political gain. If Trump was implicated (as Clinton has been) in anything illegal with Epstein, the files proving that would have been leaked during the Biden administration. But, it's reassuring that all you have is made up fantasies.
So far you have been unable to support your false charges, lies, and your revel in you own vulgarity while bitching about others. I see no reason to admit that your made up, straw men are anything but what they are.
I'll note again. I've said this since the 2015 campaign. Even if one accepts that Trump is every bit as evil as you say (of course this kind of language couldn't possibly motivate an assassin) the DFL was twice unable to field a significantly better candidate. Somehow y'all managed to run two candidates worse than Trump.
Dan's love for, and defense (or silence on) the actions of thousands of Muslims engaged in far worse behavior that what he's made up about Trump, speaks volumes.
Well, once again Dan just makes shit up.
Given the fact that there is ample data going back decades that the "conservative church" is incredibly generous in supporting a myriad of social programs, I'd think you'd want to back up your veiled accusations with facts.
That you somehow think that the feds will magically provide top of the line mental health care services might indicate your need for such services.
Let's take the fine, upstanding, multiple felon in NC as an example. Why was he continually released from custody instead of being provided with mental health care? Why, when we know that mental health issues are one of the drivers of homelessness, did/does the left fight so hard to keep them on the street instead of in treatment?
You're the one that brought up Regan and his alleged gutting of mental health services in the context of the discussion of Biles. I was merely pointing out the reality that these government run panaceas you dream of would not have made one bit of difference to Biles.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh, Dan is quoting some random proof texts from a text that is either "myth" or a "revenge fantasy", and trying to draw an equivalence between ancient Israel, and the modern US.
If he could provide one single example, he would have. Whether it's from laziness, ignorance, stupidity, or lack of proof of his claims is immaterial. He hasn't because he can't.
It's language like Dan's that gives assassins license to kill or try to kill those Dan and his ilk slander.
I was almost completely ignorant of Kirk last week. I have NO animosity towards him or his family. I condemn this unwarranted violence towards him completely, Glenn. I, of course, don't "hate" Kirk and CERTAINLY not because he allegedly spoke the truth.
Does it not concern you, sir, that you're completely making up entirely false claims while at the same time, condemning allegedly false claims? Do you not see your own bigoted, empty-headed hypocrisy?
I will give you Kirk's quotes, his own words. Tell me how you defend this vulgar attacks against a woman he does not even know:
"We are raising a generation of weak people like Simone Biles," he told listeners to his podcast The Charlie Kirk Show. "If she's got all these mental health problems: don't show up."
He continued: "She's an incredible athlete, of course she's an incredible athlete, I'm not saying that—she's probably the greatest gymnast of all time. She's also very selfish, she's immature and she's a shame to the country."
"She's totally a sociopath," he said. "What kind of person skips the gold medal match? Who does that? It's a shame to the nation. You just gave a gift to the Russians."
He continued: "If you're not ready for the big time, we've got thousands of young gymnasts that would love to take your place. Thousands. Simone Biles just showed the rest of the nation that when things get tough, you shatter into a million pieces."
Simone Biles was in her early 20s when this deviant chose to attack her for having mental health concerns. HE literally called her a "psycho" and "immature" and a "shame to the country..."
!
Do you actually SUPPORT such public attacks and diabolical slander against a person you don't even know? A YOUNG person you don't even know?
If so, what in the name of all that is holy and good is wrong with your decrepit graceless soul? Can you NOT condemn these unwarranted public attacks against a young woman experiencing mental health issues as vulgar and completely anti-Christ?
If not, what's wrong with YOU?
For what it's worth, clearly Ms Biles is a strong, wise young woman and Kirk's words are graceless, literally harmful and entirely against the Gospel of Jesus, our Lord.
Get on the right side of grace, boys, or step the hell out of the way.
Seriously! What is WRONG with you all that you're not willing to reject these graceless, slanderous, godless attacks on a young woman? AND THIS, from a man who has repeatedly publicly attacked and slandered specifically black women, like Ms Simones. Not unlike the bigots in the KKK a century (or half century) ago.
Be better. Save your souls and condemn these vile attacks.
If there is anyone in this thread whose soul is most in jeopardy, it's yours, Dan, and you prove it with almost every comment you post. This last one doesn't mitigate that fact.
This issue regarding Biles has been addressed by Craig. And Kirk is correct in saying Biles is selfish in even taking part in the games at all if she was experiencing mental distress. This is particularly true if she never made known to the team beforehand that she was experiencing that distress, denying those in charge of the team of making a decision regarding having her on the team at all. (It's also possible they WERE informed by Biles and rolled the dice, which doesn't absolve her at all).
One hopes that despite what winning medals in the Olympics can do for an athlete personally, that those who compete are doing so for their country primarily. It's likely naive to believe anyone is even this selfless, but Biles actions suggest she is acting solely for her own sake alone.
So, given all that, and the appearance of it alone, there is no foul committed by anyone expressing their opinions on her decision with regard to this issue about which you mean to exploit to denigrate a very decent individual, because he doesn't bow down to the perversions you embrace.
As to whether Kirk's comments about Biles were "unwarranted", what prompted them in the first place? Did he just decide he was going to publicly express is displeasure with her decision, or was he asked about it. If the latter, how is that "unwarranted" to respond to a question?
He wasn't "vulgar and completely anti-Christ", just because you hate the guy without knowing anything about him. But you've proven yourself anti-Christ repeatedly on the blogs and that's a vulgar as vulgar gets. Therefore, I reject you constant attacks on decent people by falsely portraying what they do as "graceless, slanderous, godless attacks" which gracelessly, slanderously and godlessly attack better people. And to prove you're full of shit, you default to KKK comparisons. Why not throw Hitler in there, too, pervert?
The actions taken by anyone are open for criticism or rebuke as well as for praise and celebration. You don't get to decide which is which when others choose to express themselves without support. You whine that he doesn't know anything about Biles while he is commenting on a specific decision of hers. You do worse in your constant, hateful anti-Christ attacks on your president, exposing your hypocrisy once again.
But go ahead. Keep affirming and validating my low, but accurate opinion of you.
Danny Boy,
You might not like the way Charlie said that, but it was 100% TRUE, a FACT. If with mental health problems she took a slot someone else could have used, then she was selfish. Unlike YOU, Danny Boy, Charlie wasn't a deviant person. He spoke truth and was hated by LEFTISTs for doing so.
And, there was nothing "godless" about his condemnation of this woman who took a slot selfishly, and there was nothing about his charge which was vulgar, or anti-Christ (YOU are anti-Christ). It was certainly warranted to say she should have left the slot for someone else rather than give the win to Russia. What she did was in no way "wise" and Charlie SAID she was strong and an incredible athlete but if she was unable to got to the top then she shouldn't have taken the slot. There wasn't anything "slanderous" about what he said and, no he has not "attacked and slandered specifically black women" --proving YOU to be slanderous and a bald-faced liar. Show me one thing to prove your case. The man was NOT bigoted in any way and there are many, many blacks who have defended him about that libelous charge.
Warnings from the Bible...
"They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart...
Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’..
...because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed..."
Open your hearts to grace. Repent from your hard-hearted graceless ways.
You are the man being spoken of, here. You all are.
And yet, because of your cruel hard hearts, you don't even see it.
Lord, have mercy.
Given what was said about Biles abandoning her team at the time, Kirk's comments are certainly not an "attack" by any means. If, calling someone the "greatest gymnast of all time" is an "attack" I have to wonder if you know what "attack" means. I'm not going to repeat myself on this. I AM going to note that if THIS is your justification for the lies and slander, then you should probably admit that you were wrong. I'll also note that your quote is STILL OUT OF CONTEXT.
"Do you actually SUPPORT such public attacks and diabolical slander against a person you don't even know?"
Well, you've been publicly attacking and slandering Kirk for several days now so it seems safe to conclude that you support yourself doing so.
"A YOUNG person you don't even know?"
As Kirk was about half your age who you claim you'd never heard of before his death, I think that maybe you should sit this one out pot.
The commentators on the NBC Olympics coverage said similar things as did virtually every sports talk show at the time. Unfortunately when you put yourself in the public eye like she did/does you open yourself up to criticism for your choices. She chose to act selfishly in competing in the individual events before bailing on her team in the team events.
" Can you NOT condemn these unwarranted public attacks against a young woman experiencing mental health issues as vulgar and completely anti-Christ?"
You can't bring yourself to specifically condemn literally inciting violence against Trump with this level of fervor. Again, pot, maybe sit this out. Or at least stop demanding that we do what you won't.
If I'm correct, Dan isn't a big sports guy. Therefore he's probably unaware of the criticism regularly leveled at those who the best at what they do, when they act as Biles did. Strangely enough, the one exception is the W. They've been on a jihad against the Fever in general and Clark specifically all season, and barely get criticized at all.
"Get on the right side of grace, boys, or step the hell out of the way."
Arrogance and hubris. I guess the "right side of grace" is disemboweling/beheading/ or dragging Trump in effigy". As I've watched Dan hurl vitriol at me
along with regularly lying about me over the years, (not to mention his graceless, vitriolic attacks on others) I can't help but conclude that he's far from the "right side" of grace no matte what his prideful and arrogant Reason tells him.
"Seriously! What is WRONG with you all that you're not willing to reject these graceless, slanderous, godless attacks on a young woman?"
She's not particularly young, as she'd already had a long and successful career by that point. As you can't/won't objectively define what a "woman" is, and since there is no difference at all between a man/woman/"trans"/furry/non binary, why should she get special treatment?
"AND THIS, from a man who has repeatedly publicly attacked and slandered specifically black women, like Ms Simones. Not unlike the bigots in the KKK a century (or half century) ago."
Dan lying and slandering Kirk to bitch about Kirk is like someone demanding promiscuous sex to preserve virginity.
"Be better. Save your souls and condemn these vile attacks.'
You won't condemn specific vile attacks, how can you possibly demand that we do what you won't?
It is humorous to see Dan so vehemently engaging in the very behavior he calls vile. It's almost like he thinks that he's justified in the vile, graceless, slander.
Days of Dan promising to do something, without actually doing what he promised. Just one more claim that he can't back up.
One, out of context partial quote and he thinks that gives him license to lie, slander, and respond gracelessly to someone who was juts assassinated.
Once again, I don't hate Kirk. You can tell by the way I've never said anything like that. I'm just noting the reality that finding a young black woman who is having a health crisis and, instead of publicly offering her words of support and love, choosing to literally attack her, viciously publicly trying to humiliate her by calling her vicious, ugly names - psycho, selfish, an embarrassment... THOSE WORDS are not of love, they are not of grace, they are not of God.
Your hatred for anyone not a card carrying fascist is blinding you to basic human decency, Marshal and boys. Look, WHY did Kirk feel the need to say ANYTHING to this woman experiencing a health crisis? EVEN IF he thought, "you know, maybe she could have handled this better... maybe she could have alerted her team as to her concerns ahead of time (if she knew, I DON'T know what she did or didn't do because I, Kirk, am ignorant of this woman and her circumstances and the circumstances of her team... I'm just being a gossip and slanderer for the shits and giggles of it all!)... maybe she could have handled this very real health crisis in a better way..." THINKING that kind of thing in one's own head is what a decent person might do (if they even had the need to take such guesses about a stranger). But he did NOT do that. He decided to publicly attack and belittle and demonize this stranger... a stranger experiencing a health crisis!
What in the hell is wrong with you all? This is something that should be easy. KIRK MADE A GRACELESS and GODLESS mistake. Just admit it and move on. His words were atrocious and entirely un-christlike, just on the face of it. Admit it and move on.
WHY the need to defend the utterly awful and indefensible?
When you see a person in a wheelchair who's fallen over - a complete stranger who you don't know at all! - do you react by BLAMING them and attacking them? "Well, they should have known better than being out traveling around on uneven pavement. They are a disgrace to their nation and utterly useless as mobile people..."
WHAT SICKO says something like that?
This is sub-deviant behavior. It's atrocious and once again, it is ENTIRELY unlike the Jesus you all claim to follow.
This is easy. Just admit it, Kirk made a mistake and YOU ALL made a mistake in defending his vulgar, graceless attacks.
Admit his error and your error, apologize and move on.
You all are embarrassing yourselves.
Come on.
Bubba, at least you can see that much, can't you?
Inn essence Biles lied to USA Gymnastics and her teammates about her ability to perform in the Olympics. Decisions were made based on Biles lies/misrepresentations/omissions which resulted in her teammates losing the team medal they should have been a position to win.
As for younger generations being "weak" it's kind of a no brainer to draw that conclusion. In 1944 hundreds of thousands of 18 year old young men, stormed the beaches at Normandy to begin the process of ridding the world of Hitler. In 2025 businesses have cry rooms and safe spaces because young men and women in their 20s can't function for a few days if their candidate loses an election.
John Crist has at least one absolutely hilarious bit where he skewers himself as one of a generation that's gotten weak.
"Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And weak men create hard times."
Unfortunately we're at the end of the "Good times create weak men" part of the cycle. Somehow, I have faith that we'll cycle back and see strong men come out of hard times once again.
Dan: I never heard of Kirk until he was assassinated, and I can't find anything he's actually said. Despite that I feel confident in labeling him "Anti Christ" "vulgar" and all the rest.
That makes total sense and is clearly an indicator of a superior intellect and moral exemplar.
Look at you, projecting like a good little progressive!
"Look, WHY did Kirk feel the need to say ANYTHING to this woman experiencing a health crisis?"
A question for which Dan made no effort to find an answer. Instead, he assumes the worst because Kirk isn't a card-carrying fake Christian progressive who attends a tiny Jeff St fake Christian church, and goes right to demonizing, criticizing and slandering Kirk.
And that's what "embrace grace" looks like.
Craig...
I never heard of Kirk until he was assassinated, and I can't find anything he's actually said. Despite that I feel confident in labeling him "Anti Christ" "vulgar" and all the rest.
I HAVE found a good deal of what he's said. I'm having difficulty in finding any long writings or pieces from him or totally contextual pieces.
Nonetheless, I'm citing ONE of the pieces I've read from him that seems more in context and THAT text is vulgar and awful. What I THEN did was ask you all to MAKE sense of that text from him... find SOMETHING in the context that makes it NOT awful and graceless and cruel.
Now, maybe there IS something that can make that make sense. I doubt it seriously. In part, because none of you all have even TRIED to make sense of this. You're just telling us "Ignore how it looks, it's NOT awful. It's OKAY to attack a young woman experiencing a health crisis and publicly call her awful, demeaning names..."
We're believing Kirk meant what he appeared to say, which again, is entirely graceless and cruel.
By all means, actually defend him with something beyond, "It's not that bad..." We can SEE how awful it is.
The gaslighting and ignorance is strong in Kirk's disciples.
Craig:
"Days of Dan promising to do something..." WHAT did I promise? To answer more of Bubba's questions once he's answered mine, to keep things orderly? I'm quite patiently waiting for Bubba to have his turn. THAT is what I promised.
Is this another of your graceless false claims?
If you don't like it, leave. Or just grow some grace and shut your mouth.
And seriously, you all can't say awful things and make false claims and tell us to ignore your attacks and false claims, as if they weren't there.
Gaslighting is for abusers, not free humans.
Glenn:
there was nothing "godless" about his condemnation of this woman who took a slot selfishly, and there was nothing about his charge which was vulgar, or anti-Christ (YOU are anti-Christ). It was certainly warranted to say she should have left the slot for someone else rather than give the win to Russia.
Y'all just don't even see it, do you? TRULY, it appears your hearts have been hardened to decency and grace... your eyes have been blinded to cruel oppression and attacks. Your privilege, your partisanship, your human traditions have made you blind to all human decency and you don't even see how awful you sound.
You all are correct to note that I don't know anything much about sports. So tell me: What is your source that she kept her illness a secret? That she committed some secret wrong? Which of her teammates have spoken out against her for stepping down due to illness?
OR, is it possible that your cruel bigotry has led you to make some assumptions that you frankly don't know jack shit about?
Glenn, if a loved one of yours was in a sporting game event and at the last minute, was feeling ill and unable to play. And IF someone called your loved one a traitor, lazy, a sociopath and a shame to the nation, are you going to jump in and say, "Right! My loved one IS a disgrace! She's a coward and lazy, to boot!"
If so, you're sick in the soul and undeserving of family.
If not, your hypocrisy is showing.
Forget it, whatever your answer is, your hypocrisy is showing.
You all are just to heart-hardened to see the depths of your pharisaical, cruel, anti-christ gracelessness.
As an aside on the topic of sports: I DO love playing sports. I still enjoy disc golf and would enjoy some volleyball and pingpong, given the chance. And I liked softball and basketball and touch football back in the day. My kids played on sports teams.
But the problem with "big sports" IS exactly the kind of cruel gracelessness and unkind competition that can come along with it.
Sports are games, literally. They should be fun. They should teach teamwork and goodwill and respect for others. At its best, I think it does.
But then, there is shit like this, where people feel free to publicly talk about a person they don't know - often times a very young person - and to attack them, denounce them, cruelly and harshly judge them. The complete OPPOSITE of what sportsmanship should be.
When someone attacks you young person FOR BEING SICK at a game, that is a sick and depraved, deviant and graceless understanding of "sports."
I will always stand up for teamwork and sportsmanship, as it seems Simone Biles team did.
But the sort of shit you all are vomiting in "defense" of Kirk's vile vomit, to hell with that.
And again, I raise those quotes because they seem pretty clear. IF YOU HAVE context that doesn't make it sound as cruel and graceless and godless as it appears on the face of it, present it.
You don't, or you would have by now.
Again, I just don't think you see the anti-god, anti-love cruelty in your attacks.
Open your eyes, soften your hearts. Repent.
Further, I guess that's why you don't see Kirk's cruel bigotry... because you don't see it in yourselves.
Ask your daughters or young women you love if your and Kirk's words are anything but an abomination.
First of all, pervert...if you don't have the full context, then don't make a comment. It's that simple. Nobody here cares how it "sounds" to you, particularly when you go out of your way to inject bad intentions or attitudes onto those toward whom you express bad intention with a bad attitude. You come here, admitting you know next to nothing about Kirk, but then go on to assert he's some sort of bad guy simply because this wonderful conservative Christian and Trump supporter is a conservative Christian and Trump supporter. You NEVER call out your own when they denigrate conservative people or politicians. So if there's anybody who should shut up, it would be you until you can bring the goods. You opinion is worthless and rarely accurate or fact-based.
As to the Biles situation, I know nothing about it and don't like commenting at all given that fact. However, you clearly know less, but because it's conservative Charlie Kirk, you choose...INTENTIONALLY AND WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT...to heap all manner of evil upon him.
I fully doubt, that Kirk would say what he said if there was not some evidence or testimony from someone knowledgeable about the facts of the case. After all, he's not Dan Trabue. He's a man of character and true Christian grace. But that doesn't mean he won't speak in a manner which might give a weak sister like you the vapors. Boo-freakin'-hoo. Dan Trabue thinks he's vulgar...the abortion defender thinks Kirk if vulgar.
Vermin like you don't get to insult anyone. Especially those clearly better human beings that you'll ever be.
"Glenn, if a loved one of yours was in a sporting game event and at the last minute, was feeling ill and unable to play"
She KNEW she was mentally ill to begin with and THAT is the problem and THAT is why she was selfish to hold the slot that someone else could have taken. Selfishness is a sin and that's why it is not ungodly to criticize her. Oh, but you don't criticize sinners, you aid and abet them (LGBTQ and abortions, e.g.)
"I HAVE found a good deal of what he's said. I'm having difficulty in finding any long writings or pieces from him or totally contextual pieces."
That's your problem, I saw a clip the other day and found the entire event in about 30 seconds. Your inability to do the same seems either an example of laziness, stupidity, or choice.
"THAT text is vulgar and awful."
Dan conflates his opinion of an out of context clip with reality.
"In part, because none of you all have even TRIED to make sense of this. You're just telling us "Ignore how it looks, it's NOT awful. It's OKAY to attack a young woman experiencing a health crisis and publicly call her awful, demeaning names..."
Let's start from acknowledging the fact that this is simply nonsense and Dan making shit up. Dan imposing his hunches on us and reality.
"WHAT did I promise?"
Well you promised to answer Bubba's questions for starters. That you placed bizarre conditions on answering his questions, is just an excuse. You also promised to find and expose Kirk's horribleness and you haven't. You've taken ONE out of context clip and spun it into something that it's not, and certainly isn't any worse than what others were saying at the time Biles quit on her team.
You certainly are an expert at being graceless and making false claims, I'll give you that . Making demands at other people's blogs is such an on brand move for you as you demand that others act in ways that you won't.
Dan has moved from finding an exposing Kirk's evil, to the phase of the conversion where he falsely accuses people.
No one is gaslighting, except maybe Dan who can't demonstrate all of the evil he claims Kirk (who he hadn't heard of two weeks ago and "can't find" any long form/in context material from) allegedly made.
Art,
Excellent point. Dan choosing to get his panties in a wad based on incomplete evidence is a great example of his lack of self control and jumping to conclusions. In the case of conservatives, he tends to jump to the worst possible conclusion instead of exhibiting grace.
As for the Biles situation, I do remember it quite well. I remember the NBC announcers and other sports commentators saying similar things at the time. The problem with Dan's bizarre interpretation of what Kirk said is that Dan has convinced himself that Kirk was bashing her for having mental health issues, which is clearly not what he did. He was quite clear that she should have put her mental health first, and not competed at all to focus on her mental health. The fact that she chose to focus on her individual success, and not the success of the team, is where people have problems. Biles could have backed out early enough for an alternate to have competed, and no one would have said a word, but she didn't. It's also not like she injured herself in competition, she chose to compete individually, and bail on her team. Kirk is making the larger point that the Millennial generation and those that follow are much more selfish and softer than previous generations. For many, these are not controversial statements. But Dan needs some scrap of controversy to blow out of proportion, lie about, and justify his anger and gracelessness.
Dan is perfectly happy to hurl invective, vitriol, and anger at others without having the whole context. It's just how he rolls.
"Look, WHY did Kirk feel the need to say ANYTHING to this woman experiencing a health crisis?"
Well, had you actually used the entire context of the snippet you cherry picked, it's likely you'd have the answer to your question. Instead you bitch and moan because you chose to go off half cocked and without the context.
Had she been experiencing a "health crisis" she'd have passed on competing in the individual events and not screwed he team.
The questions might reasonably be asked. "Why does Dan feel the need to say anything about this? Why is Dan demonizing a man who was just assassinated? Why is Dan so intent on demonizing someone who is a "brother" in Christ? Why is Dan choosing lies, slander, and vitriol instead of grace and respectful disagreement? Why is Dan do hysterical about this?"
Hell, why is Dan so egotistical and narcissistic to believe that anyone cares what bullshit spews from him?
"Y'all just don't even see it, do you?"
No, we don't see whatever it is that you fantasize about and what lurks in your warped brain.
We do see, however your graceless attacks of Kirk and us. We do see your narcissism and pride in your assertions that you have some secret knowledge that we don't have.
If legitimate criticism inherently lacks decency, then you clearly lack decency.
Your lack of knowledge of sport is a problem here because you clearly don't understand how world class gymnastic competition works.
The "source" is the fact that I watched the fucking NBC coverage of the fucking Olympics. My "source" is the fact that neither Biles, her camp, nor USA Gymnastics ever mentioned her situation until she bailed on her team.
There was no "secret wrong", it was a very public situation where she bailed on her team after competing in her individual events.
For someone who doesn't know "jack shit" about sports in general, Olympic gymnastics in particular, or Charlie Kirk, maybe you should sit this one out pot.
Dan goes to town making all sorts of wild assumptions based in his ignorance and his prideful commitment to his own superiority.
His graceless assumption that ANY response shows hypocrisy, is exactly the kind of behavior he excoriates in others, yet revels in for himself. Because he's embracing and showing grace.
Enter the excuses for Dan's ignorance. Who the hell cares about your self justifying bullshit?
Biles CHOSE to pursue greatness in her sport, and she achieved that. As Kirk noted, she is one of the best of all time. Yet, she has one "blemish" on her greatness, and that "blemish" is an example of he placing herself before her team.
Seriously, this self justification and hubris is bad enough, but the flat out lying is too far.
You "raise" ONE QUOTE, not "these quotes", and the ONE QUOTE you "raise" is out of context.
You letting your hatred get the better of you, and your gracelessness overwhelm your commitment to the words of Jesus to "love your enemies" simply demonstrates your own selfishness and self centered arrogance.
Much like Biles, you place yourself at the center of things believing that your hunches and vitriol are somehow "reality" and must be uncritically accepted. You somehow think that you can turn ignorance into a virtue which justifies your vitriol, slander, and arrogance might be impressive if it weren't so disgusting.
FYI, My daughter is a huge Kirk supporter. I don't need to ask.
That Kirk made a valid point using language that offends you, doesn't mean that his point wasn't valid. Of course, if using "mean words" is such a crime, then you are more guilty than Kirk. We just don't get out panties in a wad when you spew hatred, slander, lies, and vitriol. We mostly just laugh at your hypocrisy.
I am not a vitamin, you evil asshole. I am at least better morally than people like Jesse Albrecht or Glenn Chatfield. I know the truth when I see it. I could not be vermin because I long ago completed my evolution. Do you guys not remember?!?!?
WHO CALLED YOU A "VITAMIN"??? I WANT HIS NAME! I WON'T STAND FOR SUCH LANGUAGE AT MY BLOG!
Uh, no. You're not at least morally better than anyone else whose comments appear here. You're a little lower than feo, who doesn't pretend to "embrace grace" in dealing with opponents in discourse.
I've no doubt you know truth when you see it. It puts you in a tizzy. Your efforts are to dismiss, reject and corrupt it. Thus, and particular within the context of being a Christ follower, you're very far from having completed your evolution.
IT WASN'T AT "THE LAST MINUTE" YOU MAROON!
What is this "vitamin" idiocy? The amount of pride and arrogance in that (unproven) claim is staggering.
I think that Dan might have gotten liquored up early this morning, taken a bit to much pain medicine, or popped an extra strong gummy.
Dan's comment does demonstrate my contention that his way of measuring morality is simply comparing people to other people and making subjective judgements based on incomplete information.
I've been doing a little research into this episode and I've found what I think is the full context of Kirk's remarks regarding Simone Biles. I would qualify that by saying that the earliest utterance seems to be him beginning a new topic on his podcast and just jumping into it. I don't know the span of time between Biles' bailing and Kirk commenting on it, but it feels like it's likely his first opportunity after the team event resulted in a Silver.
My opinion of his tone is that it was aggressive, to be sure. "Harsh" isn't an unreasonable descriptor. Many are especially troubled by his use of the word "sociopath", which the "AI Overview" from Google defines as "a mental health condition characterized by a persistent pattern of disregard for social norms, laws, and the feelings of others." This might be her actual mental health challenge or a manifestation of it. I don't know. What I've been able to find so far isn't very detailed with regard to her true "condition", and most simply goes over the entirety of her life and the stresses which have been endured by her as a result. To a very real extent, everybody has something. The degree to which one's stresses are oppressive is a combo of both the actual stressors and one's ability to cope. I read something of her spending time with a psychologist earlier in her career...I think she said she was around 16 at the time...and that she learned coping methods which helped her. I wondered why they didn't help before the team events.
Simone's comments do indeed indicate a self-centered, rather "self first" explanation for her stepping down. My question is when exactly did she experience "the twisties", which seems to be that which compelled her decision. Did she experience this prior to the individual exercises? Was she fine until after them? It's supposed to be very common for gymnasts in particular, though other types of athletes experience it, too. Sounds like what golfers refer to as "the yips". Both of these are mental states of low confidence in the ability to control what has been part of their developed muscle memory. Clearly in gymnastics the risk to one's physical health are much higher than would be missing a putt.
I also wonder about her comments afterwards referencing "doing this for me". At first, I thought she meant competing in the Games for her rather than for the nation, which would more justify Kirk's comments. But now I wonder if she meant stepping down was what she meant, as certainly if one feels attempting to compete is more of a threat to her physical health than it normally would be because of the twisties, that's not an irrational decision. If so, it still comes down to the question of how long she was experiencing this phenomenon. From the start or did it come upon her right before the team event?
Some explanations of the twisties say that a flaw in one's performance might bring on this fear of a second occurrence of the flaw which would enhance the danger of the flaw due the growing anxiety about it. But that's what is resolved by the various methods of overcoming the twisties. Was there not enough time between when they came on and the team event? Does she lack the mental toughness to deal effectively? This was part of Kirk's criticisms but she certainly would know the answer to that question, wouldn't she? It comes down, then, to the timing of it to truly know if Kirk's comments reflect truth about her and her decision. Timing about which I've yet been unable to ascertain.
What I do know, is that this conflict is a perfect one for vermin like Dan to exploit to demonize Kirk, who Dan criticized for not knowing Biles enough to comment at all, while Dan feels justified in commenting about Kirk, when he admitted he knew absolutely nothing about him whatsoever.
Much like Dan's stances on gun control, which show a high degree of ignorance on the topic, this hot take from him seems founded in ignorance. Ignorance of high level gymnastics, ignorance of Kirk, being the obvious ones. I agree that "sociopath" was probably a bit harsh, yet it's not an inaccurate descriptor either. It seems like his points were twofold. 1. That Biles was putting herself and her personal events/glory above her team and country. Which doesn't seem like an unreasonable conclusion. 2. That Biles' actions demonstrates a "softness" among younger generations. Which is not an uncommon or unreasonable position. From everything I've seen, Biles had been dealing with this condition for a while and could have bowed out early enough for a replacement to have been installed, that is where the selfishness part comes in. She potentially cost her team something that they had all been working for over a period of years.
I'm reminded of the Kerri Strug situation in 1996, where she chose to perform her second vault, which clinched the team gold for the US, as an example of an athlete sacrificing self for team. One aspect of sports that has been lost of late, is the notion of "It's not the name on the back, but the name on the front that's important". In this era of multiple transfers to get more money, and no waiting to play, we're losing the sense of the team being more important than the individual and catering to selfishness. Earlier generations intuitively understood the value of sacrificing the individual for the betterment of the "team", this is literally the story of Jesus. He chose to sacrifice Himself for the good of the "team", as did generations of martyrs. Hundreds of thousands of brave young men chose to sacrifice for the Union or to end the Axis and make things batter for everyone. We are clearly losing this intuitive understanding, and sports is simply one example of this trend.
"Vitamin" comment was not from me, fyi.
Wow! Absolutely! Sports has always been war on a small scale and often used to develop the mentality necessary to prevail in war. You don't get "time outs" in war and the stress of war has no equal in sports. So what of those in sports who won't deal with the stress they feel from being in the limelight, being in the "must win" situation. How many games has a team like the KC Chiefs won simply because the other side already gave up before they got on the field?
This is not to say that Biles' condition wasn't debilitating enough to justify her decision. It really comes down, for me, to when she feel this conflict in her head. If it was prior to the individual events, she should have stepped down then (though, could they scramble for a last minute replacement? I have no idea if they have alternates with them for such a situation). Did it come upon her due to something amiss during her individual events? It somewhat sounds like that was the case, but I have no idea as I've heard no definitive description of how it went down.
But again, regardless of the details, this sounds like a common occurrence and if there's no holding one's self accountable to the team, then the whole thing is meaningless. Team and country are a major part of the deal, and despite the personal benefits of success, team and country are THE most important reasons for an individual to consider.
If either of the two were at risk by competing, clearly it was Strug, who was already injured. If she overcame doubts immediately after being injured, that doesn't help Biles' cause at all. Given her ankle injury, would anyone fault Strug for refusing to vault a second time? I doubt it. But Biles stepped down because she was afraid she might get injured. Which of the two was more likely to do damage? Strug, who certainly aggravated the injury she just sustained.
The addition of the Strug example weighs greatly in favor of Kirk's comments and sadly, indicts Biles.
I think that Dan's reference to "vitamin" is a misspelling of "vermin." Regardless, he and his comrade are sufficiently retarded to confuse such concepts.
Your collective reasoning (with apologies to the notion of Reason) is morally debauched, debased, perverted and deviant. Your sense of human decency is sickly and vulgar, decadent and degenerate.
Your moral "reasoning" is clouded and swamp-like, unwholesome and loose, as in a diarrhetic attack. Your children and grandchildren will rise up and call you morally deficient.
You men are sick. Get help.
What Ms Strug has to say about Ms Biles...
"I was 14 y/o w/ a tibial stress fracture, left alone w/ no cervical spine exam after this fall," Moceanu wrote. "I competed in the Olympic floor final minutes later. Simone Biles's decision demonstrates that we have a say in our own health—“a say” I NEVER felt I had as an Olympian."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/sports/tokyo-summer-olympics/1996-olympic-gymnast-kerri-strug-praises-simone-biles-decision/2900065/%3famp=1
She is calling out the privilege and abuse of white men telling children and young adults to do.
She's calling you deviants out for your abuse.
Don't you DARE used abused children in your wicked defense of attacks on abused young adults.
It just serves to make y'all look like the sex predators you present as.
The battle component of team sports is definitely a thing, and there have always been teams that win or lose before they take the field due to what they are thinking.
That is the question, the timing. IMO, in a team event, it is her responsibility to make her decision in time for an alternate in order to give the team the best opportunity to win. In the Olympics, team and country are a significant factor and placing self above those doesn't look good.
Strug, showed her dedication to her team over herself, which is usually laudable. Had Biles made the decision not to compete in time for her team to have a better shot at success, this wouldn't be an issue. IMO it's all about the timing, and individual accomplishment over team.
A bit strong, but I get it.
"Sports as warfare..." Taking away anything that MIGHT be considered decent and life-affirming about sports (sportsmanship, team-building, comradery, fun and games...) and making it into something violent and ugly.
Get help.
Jesse, as I've already pointed out, the vitamin comment was not from me. And people who use the R word as an insult are just morally depraved and part of an oppressive, sick, deviant system of abuse and vulgarity. Be a better man. Repent. Apologize.
"She is calling out the privilege and abuse of white men telling children and young adults to do."
Uh...no she's not. That's your intentional perversion of her comments and those of the other girls. Here's the fact, vermin...all sports have this element of the coach pushing the athletes to higher performance, to overcome adversity in order to do it. This, in a nutshell, is what sport is and if wussies like you can't handle it, STFU.
Olympic level, international sports are as close to professional as can be while still being amateur. But if one isn't willing to do what's necessary to win, then one is in the wrong place, regardless of their personal desire to train and compete. There are other options of lesser importance than is international competition, which has implications beyond "the love of the game" or personal considerations.
Just on a national level, as a fan of Chicago professional sports teams (namely, the Bears, Bulls, Cubs, Sox and though I don't follow them as I do the other four, the Blackhawks). Has it merely been a lack of talent and good coaching which explains the long period of mediocrity these teams now experience (though the Cubs appear at this point to be a lock on a wild card slot...which means they ain't good enough)? Or could it be too many people not pushing themselves hard enough to win? I'm unhappy with either, but the latter is totally unacceptable.
In Strug's case, I read that they indeed would have taken gold without her second vault and the risk which went with it. But it's clear on her second attempt she wasn't thinking of failure, of being unable to perform (and she said so in another article at the time). In that moment the outcome was undetermined and the win was greatly desired. Her teammate expressed how the women's team had never taken gold, so the stakes are even higher.
I just read a piece on Hugh Glass. He had a Strug mindset, not a Biles mindset and it was a good thing for him he did. This is what the Bela Karolis seek to instill and him doing so is him doing what he's preaching, given the crap he's taken for making the women's team gold medal winners.
"She's calling you deviants out for your abuse."
Uh..no. She's not at all doing this either. If these girls don't want to be the best, they can quit the national team and compete on a less stressful level. I don't believe they're contractually obligated to remain on the team if the stress is too much and I don't think the team is obligated to molly coddle team members just so the athletes can have bragging rights about being a part of it. As soon as one accepts the invitation or wins a spot on the team, they're to put the team first, just as a recruit in the military. But pervert Dan likes to project his perverse nature onto others, so...
"Don't you DARE used abused children in your wicked defense of attacks on abused young adults."
Who the f**k used "abused children" at all in this discussion about Kirk and Biles? The demons in your head, obviously. But Kirk's comments do not at all constitute "attacks" and our response to them don't constitute a "wicked" defense of attack on abused young adults. That's just your grace embracing love they enemies fake Christianity talking. And what's the cutoff age for when criticizing the decision of a legal adult is OK in your vermin imaginings? That she may have been abused in her youth has absolutely no bearing on Kirk's criticisms or whether or not he's "allowed" to express them, you vile piece of shit.
Dan you asshole. Putting your fake Christian spin on the facts again, I see.
There's always been a "war-like" aspect to sports competition. And it's always been about far more than "sportsmanship, team-building, comradery, fun and games". It's about the character building of self-sacrifice without which no team building is truly possible. But you're confusing amateur sports at the lower levels (kid leagues, school leagues, club leagues) with international level amateur and professional leagues. All of what you speak of is that which prepares the child athlete for the big times, including life itself. There's a lot of pain involved in sports of all kind, even your sport of water ballet. To go from someone who can't to someone who can is not pain free. And the higher one achieves, the more war-like the confrontation. Winning is indeed the only thing when one gets to the upper levels, just as winning is the only thing in war. The sport/war analogy...the sport/war comparison is real and valid, and you're just a weak sister I would never want even on my team even for the block party egg toss.
It's not us who needs help. It's fools like you who regard yourself as morally superior when you continually prove yourself to be vermin.
I don't know who enjoys posting here under your name, and I don't know how that's possible because the idea of doing such a thing never occurred to me and wouldn't. But your clarification came about before he submitted his comment, so there's that.
People who call those like you "retard" do so because you're inane comments suggest you're mentally retarded. Sure. It's insulting to those who indeed mentally retarded, but not for the reason you want it to be. But because it denigrates them further having you regarded as one of them. To make matters worse, as is so common of you, you exploit the mentally retarded to denigrate and demonize those who rightly question your character and low intellect. No one is more sick and deviant as those who defend the murder of the innocent, which includes those who revealed to be Down Syndrome babies. What could be more vulgar than that...and by extension, you.
All here toward whom you condescend are already far better men than you, including even myself. No one has more for which they need to repent than you. No one here owes you a damned thing, especially any apologies. I am, however, terribly sorry you're a moron. It saddens me to no end.
By the way, in the middle of this comment, I stepped away for dinner. During that time it occurred to me to "ask Google" if sports was invented to train for war. While the AI response asserted that wasn't a primary reason, it then went on to do nothing but prove that it was, citing several cultures in which sports was seen as a way to prepare their boys and men to be better warriors.
I sometimes think Dan is demon-possessed. He misrepresents God and God's people, he sanctions and calls holy what God calls an abomination, takes scripture out of context and spends most of his time attacking Christians for following Christ!!!
He's certainly among the bat-shit crazy, that's for sure!
Marshal...
There's always been a "war-like" aspect to sports competition.
I'm not saying that, historically, there haven't been some war-like connections to some games in some cultures. You understand?
I'm saying that vulgar approach to sports removes most if not all the decent and wholesome aspects of sports. It's demon blood games, rather than sportsmanlike behavior and teamwork.
It's just demented. The gladiatoral "sports" in ancient societies may have ended in cutting off someone's head or eating someone's heart. That's NOT a moral good. Of course.
You're just acting like vulgar, depraved brutes, not beloved children of God or a follower of the Jesus of grace who so loved the world. Be better, sons.
Myself, I don't think the martial aspect of sports is depraved at all: just as playing "house" helps kids learn about domestic life, physical competition prepares them to be what remains a necessary occupation -- namely, soldiers. As the Duke of Wellington pointed out, "The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton."
Or, to be biblical about it, Greek-style sports weren't an obvious part of Jewish life, but they weren't strictly forbidden, either, and sports often serve the same role as David's training as a shepherd: he slew Goliath only after learning to slay the wild beasts that threatened his flock.
---
Dan,
I may be mistaken, but I don't think I actually asked you any questions, hence your taking a declarative sentence of mine and treating it like a question by saying I (quote) "asked/said."
One thing I wrote is, "I'd love to see Dan take some line attributed to Kirk and explain exactly how it's harmful." I still would love to see that, but I didn't actually bother to ask you to do so. I hardly see the point of it, not when your "orderly" approach to things involves putting up hurdles after the fact, and not when you use such derogatory language to criticize the use of derogatory language:
"And people who use the R word as an insult are just morally depraved and part of an oppressive, sick, deviant system of abuse and vulgarity."
It seems that you mean "retarded" and not "rape". You have no problem criticizing "some large portion (majority) of so-called 'conservatives'" by saying there is "no end to the number of women they'll openly rape and prey upon."
That's despicably low, even for you. (I'm tempted to say the only proper response is to tell you to go fuck yourself, and it's a good thing dueling is out of fashion.)
But never mind that, I don't see why exactly it's so out-of-bounds to impugn someone's intelligence by calling him "retarded" but it's quite alright to impugn his character by calling him "morally depraved and part of an oppressive, sick, deviant system of abuse and vulgarity."
It would seem your own words are harmful, by your own standards. I would say that they are as bad as anything Kirk said about Biles or anyone else.
But this hypocrisy -- breaking your own rules while calling us sons and brothers -- is a long-standing issue with me.
It nicely dovetails with the fact that you really don't know whether Jimmy Carter was putting on a performance in order to be seen by men. Only the people closest to the man have even a chance of knowing the real individual, and at least one of his former Secret Service officers claims that he carried empty suitcases just for show.
Whether it's Carter or yourself, you shouldn't confuse being saintly with being sanctimonious.
Much like I expect of Dan, to Google something about which he is ignorant and then to put his own words in the mouths of others.
Only in Dan's fantasy world are young women who devoted their entire lives to pursuing a goal (a goal that Dan despises BTW, as he notes in his rant against "big" sports) "abused".
This is not to dismiss that young women that were sexually abused by Larry Nasser, but that is an entirely different issue.
This, dear readers, is how Dan demonstrates his firm embrace of grace. His demonstration of his understanding of grace oozes from every letter he types. His choice to ignore Jesus' admonition to "love your enemies" shouts loudly from his comments.
That everyone of those hateful, vitriolic, terms he spews are based solely in his personal, subjective, fallible, fallen, individual, hunches about a non universal moral system, probably escapes his vaunted Reason entirely.
Leaving aside the reality that "team building, comradery, and "sportsmanship" have always been components of the military and war fighting, Dan's ignorance is clearly on full display here. (Historically wars were fought differently, and there was absolutely a sense of "sportsmanship" in the rules that were widely accepted) Strangely enough, many of the Olympic sports were adapted from skills needed for warfare.
The language of warfare in sports is pervasive. The fact that we only have to look back a few decades to see how sports became a substitute for warfare (Miracle on Ice), again shows Dan's ignorance of both sports and warfare.
Sports have always had a degree of "violent and ugly" to them. That Dan's ignorance and naivete shows through again, is no surprise.
This is off topic, but it builds on your comment about aborting children with Down's.
I can't help but wonder how many of those bashing Trump for his Tylenol/Autism comments, would absolutely support a woman from ending the life of her unborn child with Autism.
Post, don't post, I'm cool either way.
It must be nice to be able to create a fantasy world to live in where you simply make shit up and pretend like it's True and condescendingly demean anyone who doesn't share your delusion.
But I do not want to be a better son. I love my depravity and corruption, every single bit of it. It's the only thing that I wake up for each morning, being just like a wife at my bedside. I search for deeper and deeper layers of evil, burying myself in them as much as possible so that my soul only becomes darker.
"I'm not saying that, historically, there haven't been some war-like connections to some games in some cultures. You understand?"
I understand you're about to equivocate again (DISCLAIMER: I pre-read his comment before its publication. He WILL equivocate!)
"I'm saying that vulgar approach to sports removes most if not all the decent and wholesome aspects of sports."
There's nothing "vulgar" about any truth I present. You're attempt to criticize or debunk them is vulgar given there's clearly no way to do, nor any reason, yet you make the weak attempt anyway.
But acknowledging the parallel between war and sports is just the truth of it.
What's "demented" is taking the position that I refer to gladiator sports, which didn't end in death as much as the movies say they did (too expensive to replace gladiators for those running the operation). I was referring to the original Olympic games and other such games promote by cultures which focused on skills necessary for successful warriors, from wrestling, to running, to throwing lances or spears.
To ignore the parallel of sports to war or combat is dishonest, which is not appropriate for "beloved children of God or a follower of Jesus". What is is cheap posturing to belittle and condescend those who have a better grasp of reality and truth than do you...a reality and truths you clearly regard as inconvenient for your unGodly purposes.
Vulgar, depraved brutes enable the murder of innocents as you do.
Anything Dan dislikes or doesn't agree with is now "vulgar". It's just his most recent choice of a word to overuse/misuse.
Bubba,
Thank you for pointing out Dan's making up false "questions" as a way to dodge actually backing up his claims. I agree that it is mostly pointless to ask Dan questions, as he'll simply play these sorts of games to avoid them.
Excellent catch on the "R" word.
Dan's hypocrisy, as usual, is front and center as he demands other live up to a standard he refuses to hold himself to.
Given your inability to consistently sign in under your Google account, pardon us for not immediately picking up that the person saying stupid things while signed in as you was an imposter.
He's trying to find words which are best for demonizing as intently as possible. Once again, we see "embrace grace" at its finest.
Indeed. Bubba's last line is spot on. However, I'm not sure Dan's confusing the words so much as purposely abusing the use of "saint". He did is again with a recent post regarding another dude.
Coming from you, Dan, your regard for our reasoning is both worthless and hilarious.
A good question. I estimate it's 1:1.
That's nothing new, nor is his choice not to demonstrate the grace that he prates on about.
What Dan tends to do with situations like this is play the "saintly" semantic game because he is convinced that his powers of observation are so mythically incredible that he can identify the "saintly" by merely observing a tiny portion of their public behavior. Obviously Carter wouldn't have elevated himself to sainthood, as Dan is trying to do, because Carter understood that Sin is more than merely publicly observable actions.
Dan seems to think that "large numbers" of people coming to a Sunday School class taught by an ex president is driven by his "saintliness" as opposed to his fame. Much like his presence at a HFH event once a year was designed to capitalize on his celebrity, not his saintliness. it's simply Dan imposing his preconceptions on others.
Given the proud celebrations for various countries that have eliminated babies with Down's (as opposed to eliminating Down's), I suspect that there would be similar recognition for eliminating babies with Autism if possible.
Would an in utero diagnosis of Autism be an acceptable reason to terminate one's unborn child?
(I dislike the Blogger comment system: one view has nested comments, the other view has them apparently in chronological order. It makes things much more confusing than they need to be.)
(Also, Marshall: I thought I posted a comment in your newest post, but it hasn't shown up yet.)
---
There's a saying that no one is more blind than he who refuses to see. Check out the link in my name for more.
On that subject, if anyone is genuinely interested in discovering the real Charlie Kirk, I would recommend the following. It's an Anderson Cooper story from CNN, about Van Jones's perspective -- all sources that are greatly respected by all the right people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WquMr6mBCs
I like the way this Jesse guy thinks!
Indeed. The current Blogger has been ripped by both Craig and myself, mostly for the current inability to have the post at the ready while commenting. That is, they were on the same page and you could scroll up from your comment to the post and back again as the need dictates. Now you have to open a second window or have a photographic memory of the post while commenting.
Posting a reply to a specific comment as opposed to a posting a general comment makes things a bit confusing. At first, I thought I wasn't properly publishing a submitted comment, until an issue with Craig made me understand that a visitor's response might be to a comment from much earlier, which means there can be multiple threads going on at the same time.
I'm still not really used to the change which never needed to be made by Blogger.
As to your comment which hasn't shown up, I fear at this point it likely won't. Two possibilities:
1. You didn't submit it as you thought you did, or
2. I read it and unintentionally deleted it instead of publishing it. Usually, I do the opposite, because I'm quick to publish everything. But now and then I fear I do indeed delete without meaning to do so. I apologize in any case and hope you'll remember what you intended to post and try again.
Marshall, you're in luck -- I remember!
(And I do hope you check out the ever-changing link in my name!)
I'll repost the comment shortly, after I further gripe about Blogger: I hate that they removed the preview function from their comments, too. :-)
Oh Dan Trabue, my precious brother Dan. I am so sorry that I called you that forbidden word retarded. I meant something much different...I really did. I meant to say that you are a high-functioning moron. Have a really nice day, buddy.
I also dislike much about the new Blogger format. Removing the preview and the ability to see the original post being the two most frustrating.
Post a Comment