Tuesday, November 21, 2017

My how things change

Several months back, it was reported that Vice President Mike Pence had made a choice regarding the way he personally managed his life and work.  He had chosen to adopt the Billy Graham rule as his personal standard of conduct.  No where did he suggest that this was anything beyond his personal standard for how he chose to live.  In essence, he chose to adhere to a higher standard of personal conduct than was the norm in an attempt to be above reproach and to not have even the appearance of impropriety.

Many people like Dan, chose to respond to Pence's choice (yes, I not the irony of folks who are "pro choice" ridiculing someone for their personal choice), with scorn, ridicule, and misinformation. 

Now, some months later, one wonders how many of these recent stories about men in positions of power using their positions to inflict sexual harm on those (both male and female) who had less power could have been avoided had people made the same choice as Pence.

At best, it's incredibly ironic that the same folks who made (and still do) excuse after excuse for Clinton, joked about Kennedy's peccadilloes while voting for him, and are now in full hue and cry over the allegations against judge Moore, were the same ones who mocked and derided Pence.  

Matt Walsh offers the opinion that there are three things that would help to minimize this seeming tide of sexual abuse and harassment.

1.  Observe the Billy Graham rule.
2. Emphasize Modesty
3. Emphasize Chastity.

Now, he's not suggesting that these three will stop every depraved harasser for all times.  Nor is he suggesting that these three be legislated.  Just that a return to three things that used to be considered virtues would be a pretty good place to start.   The link to the entire piece is below.

 In a related story, there is a movie called Call Me By Your Name, is apparently getting some  Academy Awards buzz of late.  This movie is about a 25 year old man seducing a 17 year old boy.  Personally, in the wake of the increasing number of "revelations" about the depravity of the Hollywood culture (especially the number of adult men sexually abusing young boys), I find this movie an odd choice to be celebrated.  It seems especially tone deaf for this particular industry to be touting a movie with this subject matter for awards in this context.



http://www.dailywire.com/news/23716/walsh-3-politically-incorrect-and-totally-matt-walsh?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=mattwalsh

30 comments:

Marshal Art said...

Not tone deaf, Craig. Expected...typical...perfectly in line with what we've come to know about Hollywood and the left.

Dan Trabue said...

Re: Emphasize modesty/chastity... Why not just castrate the bastards that abuse than laying it on women to change their behavior? It's all part of the blame the victim mentality.

No more.

Craig said...

Really? Modesty and Chastity only apply to women? Perhaps you jumped too quickly. I know it’s rare, but maybe you should have read the link before you just spewed a bunch of uninformed crap. But what else can we expect.

As per the last post, you’ve got plenty of unanswered questions from earlier threads. If you want answers, catch up.

Marshal Art said...

Craig,

Dan doesn't want anything done that will deprive him of viewing as much female flesh as possible. He rationalizes this by acting as if encouraging modesty...quite the Christian concept...is no more than slut shaming. To him, encouraging living by actual Christian concepts is victimization.

I see those three tips as the means by which all can participate in reducing sexually predatory behavior. Dan prefers all women and girls be free to dress as provocatively as they want, arousing prurient interest, while men, the very people such dress is meant to influence, behave as if the women and girls are dressed as nuns.

Craig said...

Notice, the lack of acknowledgement that Pence and Graham, just might be on to something.

Dan Trabue said...

For all the pervert types, I fully support them keeping away from being with women alone. I encourage it. I certainly would never want to see a woman or a young girl alone with either Trump or Moore. Or Bill Clinton, so far as that goes.

Craig said...

And Dan is either willfully obtuse, or unaware of the reason for the Graham rule.

Also conveniently forgets the fact that he’s been all about making excuses for Bill.

Dan Trabue said...

What I have said is that I did not/would not vote for B Clinton because of suspicions about his behavior specifically around women.

What I have also said is that the case against Clinton, nonetheless, was not as strong or solid as the case against Moore. There are holes in the women's stories in his case that aren't present in Trump/Moore's cases, nor are there as many accusations. These are just the facts.

For instance, are you aware that one of the women who accused Clinton of sexual improprieties also accused him of killing her husband?!

Are you suggesting that noting the facts is the same as "making excuses..."? Because, for me, noting the facts is, well, just noting the facts.

So, just to remind you of the facts...

“Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch,” Flanagan wrote, recalling the charges Willey first made in 1998. It sounds both familiar and plausible. But Willey also accused the Clintons of having her husband and then her cat killed. Must we believe that, too?

Similarly, there are reasons to be at least unsure about Paula Jones’s claim that Clinton exposed himself to her and demanded oral sex. Jones was championed by people engaged in what Ann Coulter once proudly called “a small, intricately knit right-wing conspiracy” to bring down the president. She described “distinguishing characteristics” of Clinton’s penis that turned out to be inaccurate. Her sister insisted to Sidney Blumenthal, then a New Yorker writer, that she was lying. Should feminists have backed her anyway? I’m still not sure, but the evidence was less definitive than that against Harvey Weinstein, Trump or Moore.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/opinion/juanita-broaddrick-bill-clinton.html

Craig said...

And once again misses the point. Clinton paid out $850,000 for a not very compelling.

It’s obvious that you’re never going to find anything as compelling as the unproven accusations against Moore and Trump. It’s equally obvious that you’re going to ignore the point of the post as well as Franken and Conyers. All in favor of perpetuating unproven accusations. But no, it’s just coincidence that you always find the accusations against conservatives more compelling.

Dan Trabue said...

Again, are you saying that noting the facts and paying attention to the known facts is the same as "making excuses..."? Because I think paying attention to the known facts is a very important thing to do, and I think most rational adults would agree (Trump supporters notwithstanding, but then, they aren't rational adults, are they?).

Again, as I've been saying: Moore/Trump have proven themselves perverse for years now. In their constant stupid lies, their constant unproven (and false) claims, in their opposition to great American ideals, and in dozens of other ways, they've proven themselves to be perverse. Those are the facts.

Then, when 4, 5, 6... 8, 9... and in the case of Trump, at least, many other women come forward independently making these claims that they've made, well, it's just believable. Trump/Moore don't have the years of decency behind them that Conyers/Franken do.

And "perpetuating unproven accusations..." they are accusations that people like Mitch McConnell find believable, so you can't act surprised that I find them believable, too, right? Hell, YOU think they are credible enough to ask the pervert-judge to step aside. Given the weight of this vote, if a crude partisan hack like McConnell is asking the perv to step down, then you KNOW there's more to the story than what's been released.

Look, I'm not saying we should throw Moore in prison based on unproven allegations. I'm saying much the same as you and McConnnell are: There's enough concern there that he should step aside. The problem is that neither of you appear to recognize the many other ways Moore's shown himself to be perverse, sick, unfit, nor do you seem prepared to take on the pervert evangelicals who are putting an election over basic decency.

That's what's obvious, Craig.

Craig said...

What’s obvious is your monomania regarding Trump and Moore. Your double standard in placing more weight on decades old unproven accusations than on current verifiable actions. The fact that your willing to believe decades old allegations with more fervor, than the fact that Conyers used taxpayer dollars to pay off one of his victims.



And the fact that you’ve managed to divert the comments away from the point of the post.

Dan Trabue said...

What’s obvious is your monomania regarding Trump and Moore.

On this point, for one thing, by definition, monomania isn't about two things.

Secondly, the GOP has a nut wing of the party. It includes the Moores, Trumps and Palins of the party. These are people who are fundamentally unfit for office, they hold anti-American ideals and promote dangerous ideas, ideals and ideologies.

Just as it is fitting if the Democrats ran, for instance... well, I can't think of a left wing equivalent by name, but if the Democrats ran a conspiracy-believing, stupid lie espousing, anti-free press advocating candidate... one who wasn't speaking in coherent sentences with adult reasoning, one who seemed dangerously narcissistic... Just as it would be fitting for Democrats or others to begin focusing on the great unfitness of such a hypothetical candidate, so too, is it fitting for citizens to be outraged and hugely focused on opposing a Trump, Moore or Palin. These are people who are supported by people who are a threat to our great, if imperfect, Republic.

Would you say that, if a Nicaraguan in the 1950s, 60s and 70s were always focussing on the danger the Somoza regime posed, that they were being monomaniacal? Or just acting with appropriate alarm for dangerously unfit leaders?

To answer my own question with the obvious answer: It's not monomaniacal to be alarmed and focused on dangerously unfit leaders.

I think your problem is that you are mildly concerned that a Trump or a Moore are not the best candidates, but you fail to comprehend how seriously unfit they are.

Craig said...

And you move further and further from the topic of the post. It’s almost as if you just want to avoid your hypocrisy.

Craig said...

You seem to believe that because you express your personal opinion of someone’s “fitness” for office, that others need to accept your opinion as something other than your partisan hunch.

I posted months ago reasons why I felt a Trump wasn’t fit for office. Yet indisputably, he is the legal president of the country and will be until he’s voted out or impeached. When he’s up for election, I’ll do what I can. Until then, bitching, moaning, and spewing expletives doesn’t really accomplish anything positive, so I see no reason to waste my time.

What I do find enjoyable is watching y’all on the left trying to ignore the double standards in how y’all handle problems in your own house.

Marshal Art said...

Dan's criteria for unfitness are nonsensical and partisan. He tries to insist that Clinton's accusers were questionable, but ignores similar concerns about the worst of Moore's accusers. Worse is that Dan tries to pair Trump and Moore as two birds of a feather, which is asinine though totally inline with Dan's low character. Moore's mortal sin in Dan's morally corrupt mind is Moore's opposition to homosexuality and the LGBT agenda. Nothing else matters. If Moore was NOT so opposed, and if Moore did all else as a Democratic candidate, we'd not hear a peep out of him. I am still waiting for links to any of the scintillating admonishments from Dan's blog against the immoral behavior of ANY Democratic figure. Note how he rationalizes his profane and obscene comments about/toward me.

Marshal Art said...

Here's another question for Dan: Why is an allegation of sexual abuse by a person in power necessarily more believable than an allegation of murder by another person in power? One can easily find links to stories dealing with Clinton associates who met untimely deaths. Since the number of allegations against Moore gets you so aroused, Willey's fears that her husbands death might be one more should be considered believable as well, given how many deaths are suspected of being connected to the Clintons.

Craig said...

I do find it interesting that while Dan has managed to get his panties in quite a twist over these decades old unproven accusations, his virtually silent on the folks on his side attempting to re cast the whole age of consent arguments (using the same arguments the pro gay folks used. “Born that way”. Etc) both on the Hetero and Homo sides of the coin.

But, you know he’ll ignore that as long as possible, then try to minimize or marginalize, then pretend that those folks aren’t on his political side.

Dan Trabue said...

Dan's criteria for unfitness are nonsensical and partisan.

My criteria for fitness for office:

1. You shouldn't be an idiot, unaware of basic democratic notions and world affairs. Both Trump and Moore have exposed themselves as glad idiots.

2. You shouldn't be a stupid liar... lying about things that are stupidly false, obviously false. You shouldn't make claims of facts about things you don't know. These two do it regularly and by and large get a pass from their Ten Commandment-idolizing Christian evangelical base.

3. You shouldn't stand opposed to basic ideals of a free republic. These two have repeatedly and stupidly tried to undermine the free press. Damn them and their lies and shame on them for doing so. But even more so - and setting aside two imbeciles
as to be expected occasionally - damn and shame on their supporters who throw aside ideals and gladly attack a free press just because they don't always agree with the facts. Shame on them. Shame on you two.

4. You shouldn't stand opposed to basic ideals of a free republic. These two have done so repeatedly and stupidly with their attacks on Islam as a freely practiced religion and their idolization of a particular strand of American faux-christianity. You can't deny other religions their rights just because you're too ignorant to know the facts about them.

These are perhaps the main problems with these two perverts. They pervert basic truth and decency and our better human ideals and have done so gladly, stupidly, repeatedly, with a zeal for their perversion that marks them as serious threats to a free republic and thus, leaders to be strongly opposed by all decent and rational people.

Add TO these serious perversions and inadequacies their quite apparent predilections for oppressing/harassing young women/girls and the several other perversity of personalities (their attacks on science is another big one, their willingness to ignore our ideals is another one, their basic lack of human decency in how they attack and slander others is yet another) and there simply is no reason why these two (and Palin and others like them) AND their supporters shouldn't be strongly opposed as if a free republic is in the balance, as indeed, it is.

You two just don't get it. I don't know how else to help you. Open your eyes. Open your mind. Listen and learn. Set aside those blinders which cause your inability to see.

Craig said...

I’ll let this stand because it’s a stunningly direct response to a specific statement. Yet, the fact that you choose to pop in and respond to a statement that wanders further from the topic, rather than closer is telling.

However, if you want to continue to comment on this thread, you will need to provide specific, defined, sourced examples of BOTH Trump and Moore engaging in the behavior you claim in your #4. Had you chosen not to dodge my questions on this topic from an earlier thread, I might have given you a little more room, but your avoidance then makes this all the more pressing.

Specific
Defined
Sourced (preferably from a reasonably unbiased source)
Both


Dan Trabue said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Craig said...

Ok, I’m going to delete that. I asked for specific sourced, defined quotes that proved your claim in point #4. You chose not the provide what I asked.

Regarding Moore’s comment about Muslims being able to take the oath of office. I don’t know if you are aware that Islam is both a religious system as well as s system of government. Given that indisputable fact, I can see where a Muslim would have to prioritize his/her oath of office if elected. In much the same way that I would argue that a pacifist can’t in good conscience take the oath of office of POTUS, I’d say that a Muslim might have to choose their priority.

My sense is that it’s possible that Moore was making a reasonable point, poorly. But, even if your hunch about his comment is 100% correct, it still doesn’t do specifically what you claimed in your #4.

As to your 1-3, I understand that you have those opinions and you’re welcome to them. But since you can’t prove them, I didn’t see any point in asking you to.

So, try again. Provide the evidence that Trump and Moore are trying to attack or stop “Islam as a freely practiced religion”.

If it’s as prevalent as you claim, it should be easy.

One last thing. You keep making the fundamental error in trying to make it seem like I (and Art) are making a positive case that either of the two are anything but less objectionable than their opponents.

I posted my reasoning why a Trump wasn’t fit for office months ago, and I’ve repeatedly said that Moore should drop out.

Having said that, Moore’s opponents radical support for unfettered abortion would be enough for me to refus to support him.

Dan Trabue said...

I literally answered your question with literal quotes and literal sources, just as you asked. You're sick, Craig. Or very confused. Good luck.

And your defense of these dangerous "leaders" who are perverts, liars and scoundrels can be seen by normal people for what it is. I don't know if you truly don't see how you're giving aid and comfort to dangerous people or you're just deluded.

May your eyes be open and your heart be changed, either way.

Peace and good luck.

Craig said...

Yes, you responded with some quotes, but none of the quotes actually demonstrated the claim you made in your point number 4. I know it’s hard when you are actually expected to demonstrate the claims you make align with reality, but it’s reasonable to expect that you do so. The fact that you choose to run away rather than demonstrate the accuracy of your claims says so much about your character and your ability to judge the character of others.

You decry stupid lies, then you make stupid false claims, you demand things if others you won’t do yourself, finally your continued insisting that I’m defending Moore/Trump demonstrates your unwillingness to put aside your hatred.

If you think running from your claims will give you peace, then good luck.

Dan Trabue said...

I'll put this here, not that it will matter, but for my sake, to explain what you don't appear able to understand...

IF one, as a member of a religious group, can't practice their religion without it being said "They shouldn't be allowed to run for office... they will just want to replace US laws with their religious laws..." then that one religious group is being attacked, as a whole, their place in a free republic being diminished by such charges.

NOTE: There is a difference between saying "Mr X wants to replace US laws with his (Christian, Muslim, whatever) rules..." and saying "Christians (or Muslims) as a whole want to do this..." One is an attack (justified or not) on an individual and the data can support or disprove the claim, but the latter is an attack on a whole religious group, and a stupidly unjustified one, at that.

Look, that is the biggest problem with the Trump/Moore/Palins of the world, I think: Their offensively stupid claims they make without support, treating their made up opinions as if they were facts. That undermines basic human interaction at a societal level.

But whatever. You won't understand the point now any more than you have up to now. Some explanations you do just for yourself.

Craig said...

Of course the above doesn’t actually do anything but express your opinion based on one quote by one person. I asked you to provide proof of your claim, you can’t.

I’m going to leave this as evidence that when it comes down to it you can’t back up what you claim. All you have is you reading into one quote from one person and trying to broad brush as many people as possible.

Sad, weak, and pathetic.

Craig said...

The irony of you criticizing people for making claims without support aftter you making a claim without support is.,,,

Never mind, you wouldn’t understand.

Marshal Art said...

It should be noted that suggesting voting for muslims in unwise, it is a far cry from proposing or supporting legislation to deny them. I agree that voting for muslims is unwise for reasons plain to any honest person with even cursory understanding of the islam. I support encouraging others to deny them as well. This is not in conflict with an American principle, as electing those who will best lead the nation over those who will not is totally American and logical.

Craig said...

In an earlier post where Dan made wild hysterical claims about how Muslims were being treated, I asked him some specific questions that would have allowed him to support his claims. He wouldn’t do so there either. I’m sensing a trend.

Marshal Art said...

"1. You shouldn't be an idiot, unaware of basic democratic notions and world affairs. Both Trump and Moore have exposed themselves as glad idiots."

Obama saw the Constitution as "negative rights", apparently unaware that it was meant to regulate government behavior, not to bestow rights. Sounds like an idiot to me. Dan clearly doesn't understand either our government nor world affairs well enough to criticize either Trump or Moore.

"2. You shouldn't be a stupid liar... lying about things that are stupidly false, obviously false. You shouldn't make claims of facts about things you don't know. These two do it regularly and by and large get a pass from their Ten Commandment-idolizing Christian evangelical base."

So Obama was a smart liar? Christian evangelicals, conservatives and frankly, most people on the right, do not give anyone a pass for lying. The problem here is that we don't stress over every stupid remark that Trump says just because haters like Dan thinks we ought. But those like Dan said next to nothing (being generous here) about the many falsehoods spewed by Obama...many of far greater consequence than how many people showed up for an inauguration.

"3. You shouldn't stand opposed to basic ideals of a free republic. These two have repeatedly and stupidly tried to undermine the free press."

A free press does not give license to any news source to say anything they like hiding behind the 1st Amendment to do so. Their job is to report facts objectively. Criticisms leveled against the press by Trump and others are directed toward bad journalism...NOT that they're speaking truth that Trump finds inconvenient. A free republic is not served by a press that slants toward one side of the political divide...giving that side cover while ginning up every misstep of other.

"4. You shouldn't stand opposed to basic ideals of a free republic. These two have done so repeatedly and stupidly with their attacks on Islam as a freely practiced religion and their idolization of a particular strand of American faux-christianity. You can't deny other religions their rights just because you're too ignorant to know the facts about them."

They know the important stuff, such as how islam hopes to have all the world run under the dictates of their "religion". They know that islam calls upon their adherents to engage in any number of heinous practices. It is those like Dan who practices a fake Christianity. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

"These are perhaps the main problems with these two perverts."

Homosexuals are more perverted than any man who chases skirts. But then, Dan needs to gin up alleged behaviors do as to deflect attention from the perversion he champions.

Craig said...

You know, if Dan was consistent about how he regarded liars on his side of the aisle and acknowledged that the recent assaults on free speech are coming mostly from his side, he’d have a tiny bit more credibility. But, as we saw in his string of excuses for Hillary, it’s hardly a balanced standard.