There are two memes I've seen frequently over the past few days. I'd like to address the flaws in them.
"If a child is hitting people with a stick, I would blame the child and not the stick. However, I would still take the stick away."
The flaw in this reasonable sounding meme is obvious. What is being proposed is not to take the proverbial stick away from the child who is hitting others, but to take away most sticks from most children regardless of how they use their sticks. This sounds good, and it does acknowledge the problem with those who focus on the stick, but it still punishes or restricts children who have done nothing wrong.
"Thoughts and Prayers (crossed out), Policy and Change"
There are a couple of flaws here. First is the false conclusion that it's an either/or choice. The second would only apply to those who's belief system includes an all powerful, personal, God who can and does intervene. If you believe in an all powerful, all knowing, deity, then why would anyone place their faith in politicians, the political process, and humans in general instead of God? Obviously an all powerful, all knowing God can and does work through people, even politicians, and governments. But even if not, there is still potentially room for both thoughts and prayers, and policy and change around any issue.
I think that for many Christians praying for God to intercede and work in a situation is the absolute highest and best they can offer. Even if someone doesn't agree, why would you mock millions of people who are genuinely concerned.
Saw a third that's relevant.
"If you outlaw abortions, abortions will just happen illegally. But if you outlaw guns, we will all be safe from crime.
Obviously some hyperbole in the second premise, but I can't help but think that there's a little dissonance between the two positions.
57 comments:
Just to clarify, it's not a bad idea to take the stick from the unruly child nonetheless. But I agree, that's not truly what the intention is.
As to the second meme, it's a suggestion that the other side is actually doing some good policy making to effect change which will matter. We've enough evidence that side of the divide is rarely if ever possessed of the wisdom which will result in beneficial change.
Re: Thoughts and prayers... as someone who believes in "thoughts and prayers," I also recognize how petty and small that seems in times of tragedy. For anyone who offers "thoughts and prayers," but doesn't also offer policy and personal assistance, it's too often seen as vapid.
So, yes, it's not an either or choice. It's a both choice. But if we're part of a group that is not willing to take policy and real world actions/changes/efforts, then perhaps you can see how unhelpful merely saying, "thoughts and prayers" can be. As if you're spitting in the face of the God who came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized.
And if we believe in an all-powerful God who generally speaking decides not to intervene personally (ie, to stop bullets and shooters or to command policy change from God's own Self), but who relies on God's people to take action, then perhaps you can see how people in the midst of tragedies expect action, not mere well-wishes.
If we believe in a god who can and DOES choose to personally intervene to stop tragedies and harm BUT only every once in a while - extremely rarely, in fact - and who generally chooses to let it happen, perhaps you can see how many people find such a god not very justice-oriented or loving or helpful.
Why would we place "faith in" our systems of justice and community? Because we need to work for positive policies and, at least for some of us, we serve a God who expects policy efforts that look out for the least of these. As in ancient Israel not just sending thoughts and prayers to starving immigrants and others, but setting aside portions of people's lands as a policy action to ensure help for those in need. Policies can indeed be holy and good. Why would we NOT place, if not faith, then effort in making sure we have good policies in place?
To more directly answer your question:
"If you believe in an all powerful, all knowing, deity, then why would anyone place their faith in politicians, the political process, and humans in general instead of God?"
We believe in a God who is all knowing and all powerful and who does not daily actively intervene in policy matters of a nation state or in direct tragedies, like stopping an active shooter.
We believe in a God who wants US to act on behalf of the poor and marginalized and those who might be harmed.
We believe in a God who wants US to create policies that systematically deals with the common failings of humanity. In the OT, we see a God
* who advocated the nation of Israel to create policies to set aside portions of farm fields so that the starving could freely harvest it in an effort to deal with problems of hunger and poverty.
* who advocated Jubilee years where land that had accumulated in the hands of a few rich people would be redistributed back to the hands of the original families in an effort to deal with greed and the accumulation of power and wealth in a few hands.
* who advocated policies that made sure that women and children - who were not citizens with full rights - were not taken advantage of.
* who warned that nations who did NOT look out for the poor and marginalized or that actually oppressed the poor and marginalized will be judged harshly and have to account for that oppression or neglect.
and so on. We believe in a God who fully expects us to systematically do better as societies, and not only as individuals.
As to this...
" praying for God to intercede and work in a situation is the absolute highest and best they can offer. Even if someone doesn't agree, why would you mock millions of people who are genuinely concerned."
I note that the Apostle James (and others) have done the same, mocking mere words of encouragement when they're not backed by actions.
"Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
If one of you says to him,
"Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,"
but does nothing about his physical needs,
what good is it?
In the same way, faith by itself,
if it is not accompanied by action,
is dead."
Why would James mock those who merely wished people well? Because such words without actions is meaningless and not just unhelpful, but an active stabbing of the hearts of the oppressed. ADDING TO rather than alleviating suffering.
Also addressed at my blog and linked to on my FB page, because I know conservative people ask questions like this and I think there are reasonable answers.
Art,
Taking the stick away from the child who is misusing it, seems like it goes without saying. Which is why I didn't. But yes, stopping the immediate misuse of the stick, and limiting access to sticks for the child doing the beating, are givens. What's not a given is taking a stick from some kid who's using it to draw pictures in the dirt, or pretending that their stick is a guitar.
"So, yes, it's not an either or choice. It's a both choice."
All you had to do was stop there. But you just couldn't help yourself.
I suspect that whatever comes next will negate all that has come before, meaning that your initial "agreement" was just more bullshit.
"Why would we NOT place, if not faith, then effort in making sure we have good policies in place?"
1. I asked a specific question about putting faith in government, politics, and politicians.
2. Where did I even suggest that we shouldn't work toward "good" policies?
Without going down the rabbit hole of your sudden respect for the mythic stories in the OT, I'll simply note that those policies were intended specifically for the nation of Israel while it was a theocracy. I'll also note that not many of those policies were actually implemented. I'll also note that the purpose of the nation of Israel was to serve as the People of God. Surely you aren't advocating a similar theocratic government for the US, are you?
I'm too busy to wade through whatever screed you've posted elsewhere, I suspect that it doesn't address this fundamental issue.
Most school shooters have already broken multiple laws before they every pull the trigger the first time, why would they obey any new laws?
What other factors play into someone choosing to kill multiple people, regardless of the inanimate object they use to do so?
Shouldn't we be as zealous in addressing those issues as in restricting law abiding citizens?
Craig...
"1. I asked a specific question about putting faith in government, politics, and politicians.
2. Where did I even suggest that we shouldn't work toward "good" policies?"
Well, you led with a twisted suggestion that we're "putting faith" in human politicians. I was making it clear that the faith is not in human politicians, but in creating good policies.
I'm glad to hear you support working towards good policies.
Craig...
"I'll simply note that those policies were intended specifically for the nation of Israel while it was a theocracy."
Actually, the rules were also in place (or were supposed to be in place) while Israel was a monarchy, after they were no longer a theocracy. Right?
"Most school shooters have already broken multiple laws before they every pull the trigger the first time, why would they obey any new laws?"
Most criminals are glad to break laws. That's not an argument against having laws and policies in place.
The point of policies would be to reduce the likelihood of harm and the ease of causing mass harm.
Given that this problem is often a problem with young men, why not have a policy in place that prevents them from buying "assault style" guns with high capacity magazines until they're 21? 25?
Given that a large number of mass shooters had displayed warning signs, why not have more red flag laws in place?
Why not require licensing and training?
Why not close the gun show loophole/have universal background checks?
https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/
We have a range of reasons and mitigating factors that contribute to these mass killings. No one policy will fix everything. What many of us object to is doing nothing. At least TRY to implement some policies to try to make change.
What policy changes would you suggest/support?
Just to be clear:
Craig...
"1. I asked a specific question about putting faith in government, politics, and politicians.
2. Where did I even suggest that we shouldn't work toward "good" policies?"
And I answered that specific question: We aren't "putting faith in government, politics, and politicians" as in, over and against God. We're saying that it's vitally important to work for smart, good, data-informed policies and we think so because we think that's what God would have us do, as well as basic reason.
Do you see how that was a direct answer to that specific question? Do you and I agree that this is entirely reasonable and vitally important?
To address, again, this question from you:
"Even if someone doesn't agree, why would you mock millions of people who are genuinely concerned."
It appears you agree it is good and important to support smart policies about issues like this. Can you cite any/many policy changes or investments in programs that the GOP has done to try to improve this problem directly?
Maybe they have, I'm not saying they haven't. I just can't think of many/any and more than anything else, I can remember all the various policy changes and investments they opposed.
From past discussions, I doubt the policies Dan would support are worth a damn. After all, Dan's incredibly lacking in the intelligence department. I'm also not impressed by a supporter of abortion constantly speaking of the "least of these", "the historically oppressed" and "the marginalized". A more heinous liar would be hard to find. Except for maybe his troll.
"Well, you led with a twisted suggestion that we're "putting faith" in human politicians. I was making it clear that the faith is not in human politicians, but in creating good policies."
1. Literally political policies are put in place by politicians, to suggest that they spring into being apart from politicians is absurd. Presumably you have faith that those people elected will enact "good policies" not bad ones.
2. It seems clear that putting faith in "good policies", is just a semantic dodge to avoid the reality of how policies come to be,
"I'm glad to hear you support working towards good policies."
What have I ever said (direct quote and link for context required) that would indicate otherwise?
"Actually, the rules were also in place (or were supposed to be in place) while Israel was a monarchy, after they were no longer a theocracy. Right?"
Possibly, which doesn't really help your case that we should use those as examples in formulating "good policy" in a 21st century representative republic. Are you really suggesting that we should adapt God's rules? FYI, the rule of God's that you ignored, which actually bears on this topic is the obvious, "Thou shall not murder.". If people ignore that one of God's rules, why would they obey any of the others?
"Most criminals are glad to break laws. That's not an argument against having laws and policies in place."
Of course I never said that it was. It is an argument regarding adding additional laws on top of the ones already being broken, as if new laws will magically be obeyed.
"The point of policies would be to reduce the likelihood of harm and the ease of causing mass harm."
Isn't that what the existing laws (the ones being broken) are intended to do?
You do realize that US law is not intended to reduce of eliminate crime don't you? That there are actually laws in place that protect criminals from being charged for acts they might commit in the future? Do you really support charging people with crimes for what they might be thinking about doing?
"Given that this problem is often a problem with young men, why not have a policy in place that prevents them from buying "assault style" guns with high capacity magazines until they're 21? 25?"
There might be some possible merit to this, depending on how the law was written. Of course, it violates their constitutional rights, and raises questions about military service. But in this sort of vague, undetailed, general sense, it's worth discussing. How about discussing and dealing with other factors that influence these shooters?
"Given that a large number of mass shooters had displayed warning signs, why not have more red flag laws in place?"
Again, it would require massive changes in US criminal law, to charge and convict someone for something they might be thinking of doing. The best potential option is to revise involuntary commitment laws and deal with it as a mental health issue, which would also affect the homeless. Personally I find the trend toward criminalizing thought repugnant, but I guess it should be discussed. Wouldn't these laws put rappers, artists, and musicians at some risk of prosecution?
"Why not require licensing and training?"
In theory, although it'd probably have to be tied to some level of protection for those who undergo training. Do you really think these shooters are going to go to training or get licenses?
"Why not close the gun show loophole/have universal background checks?"
I'd be willing to bet that you have absolutely zero idea what the "gun show loophole" is, how it works, of what % of guns sales it affects. I further doubt that you have any concept of what the existing background check system entails. If you have specific detailed examples, by all means. Otherwise, enough with the talking points.
"What policy changes would you suggest/support?"
I wrote an entire post on this a while back. Why not start there.
"Do you see how that was a direct answer to that specific question? Do you and I agree that this is entirely reasonable and vitally important?"
I see why you think it is. I also see how you trying to suggest that your personal opinions somehow represent the vast spectrum of everyone who's posting these stupid memes.
Given the disregard for the current laws shown by these people, I can't see how adding new laws for them to ignore will stop the problem.
"It appears you agree it is good and important to support smart policies about issues like this. Can you cite any/many policy changes or investments in programs that the GOP has done to try to improve this problem directly?"
I fail to see the relevance of you making this a partisan issue.
Craig...
" Literally political policies are put in place by politicians, to suggest that they spring into being apart from politicians is absurd. Presumably you have faith that those people elected will enact "good policies" not bad ones."
? YOUR original question:
"If you believe in an all powerful, all knowing, deity, then why would anyone place their faith in politicians, the political process, and humans in general instead of God?"
I responded to THAT question noting that we weren't necessarily "putting faith" in politicians or even policies, but it IS VITAL to put EFFORT into good policies.
With me so far?
Then you wrote words that made it sound like you agree with the notion that we should strive to have good policies... that we agreed on that point.
Was I mistaken or do we both agree that putting effort into having good policies is a moral and rational thing to do?
So, your last question/comment...
"" Literally political policies are put in place by politicians, to suggest that they spring into being apart from politicians is absurd. Presumably you have faith that those people elected will enact "good policies" not bad ones."
I am making it clear that I am putting effort into creating good policies and when good policies are put in place, I am hopeful that they will have good results and if not, then we'll learn from that and try to improve those policies.
What are you disagreeing with or objecting to?
Craig...
" which doesn't really help your case that we should use those as examples in formulating "good policy" in a 21st century representative republic. Are you really suggesting that we should adapt God's rules? FYI, the rule of God's that you ignored, which actually bears on this topic is the obvious, "Thou shall not murder."."
I'm pointing to the reality of having national policies in place is a reasonable and moral thing to do. FOR CHRISTIANS (and especially conservative Christians who put some good bit of effort into trying to take the Bible literally), I was additionally pointing out that THIS PRINCIPLE is a sound biblical principle.
The point being that we're not merely to strive to do personal moral Good, we're also to strive to have rational, moral STATE policies in place because when we live in a society, not everything can be accomplished by merely having good individuals and hoping everyone is doing good in a rational and good way.
Do you understand all of that, now?
The point was NOT that we should implement Sabbath or Jubilee laws precisely as they existed in the OT. The point was it's RATIONAL to have public policy that is smart and designed to watch out for human rights AND it's BIBLICAL to do the same thing, for those who think following biblical example is a good thing.
Does that make sense? Do you disagree with any of that?
Thus, those ARE "good examples" of the PRINCIPLE of having national policies in place as to how to live in a society. How is that mistaken?
Should we adopt God's rules? We should adopt rules that are 1. Reasonable, 2. Moral and 3. Just... rules that especially watch out for and work to prevent oppression and to support human rights. We can do that regardless of anyone's religion (or lack thereof) and, the great good advantage to this from my point of view (as a Christian) is that we ARE adopting God's rules when we try to implement such policies/rules.
Do you disagree?
How have I ignored "thou shalt not murder..."? What does that even mean in the context of this conversation?
Craig...
"Of course, it violates their constitutional rights, and raises questions about military service. But in this sort of vague, undetailed, general sense, it's worth discussing. How about discussing and dealing with other factors that influence these shooters?"
We know now that brains in children and young adults don't fully develop until about the age of 25. This contributes to impulsivity of the sort that we often see especially with young men. This is something that is well-documented. I think it makes sense to consider such notions when creating policies.
But yes, we should consider all factors that help lead to deadly violence, especially mass violence like we've seen three times this week.
For instance, in our nation especially (but not exclusively), we're seeing that a sort of Toxic Masculinity is in place amongst many young men that help make them more violent. We should look into why we see that so much here especially and what can be done to abate/address it.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/guys-guns-men-vast-majority-americas-gun-violence/story?id=79125485
Perhaps in a similar vein, a large percentage of mass shooters have been misogynists. We should research that more and try to address this problem.
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2019/06/domestic-violence-misogyny-incels-mass-shootings/
And, as already noted, we have a problem with deadly violence coming from white supremacists. I support taking actions/creating policy that tamps that down. Do you agree?
Craig...
"Of course I never said that it was. It is an argument regarding adding additional laws on top of the ones already being broken, as if new laws will magically be obeyed."
But, while these mass shootings are not solely the province of the US, we have a problem here that is not found in many other places. Policies and laws can and do make a difference, as well as culture. I think we should actively and deliberately see what we can do to make our numbers of mass murders smaller, as is seen in other nations. What are we specifically doing wrong/differently from these other nations?
We have a gun culture that is not like in other nations. There is a near-deification of gun ownership here that is not like in other places. Can you agree with that characterization of reality? If not "near-deification," can you agree that we have a dedication to guns and gun ownership and the shooting of guns that is not found in many other nations. Our percentage of gun ownership is WAY higher than any other nation, even though we're a relatively safe nation. Why?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country
Craig...
"I fail to see the relevance of you making this a partisan issue."
In your post, you decry those who would mock those who'd offer only "thoughts and prayers" in response to tragedies.
Right?
I'm pointing out that this is directed towards those who offer "thoughts and prayers" but no actions. You seem to agree that having actions in addition to thoughts and prayers is a good thing.
Right?
In the context of the conversation this week, the criticism of only offering "thoughts and prayers" with NO solutions or action taken is directed towards the GOP.
Right?
So, it behooves the GOP and their allies to be prepared to say, "We on the Right are not only offering thoughts and prayers, we're offering policy changes to try to make things better as it relates to mass violence."
Right?
And so, it IS a partisan issue because it is the GOP/Right that is being met with these criticisms. That was sort of your point, wasn't it (ie, why are they being mean to us when we offer thoughts and prayers?)
"Given that this problem is often a problem with young men, why not have a policy in place that prevents them from buying "assault style" guns with high capacity magazines until they're 21? 25?"
Let's discuss the percentage of imprisoned people who are black, or fatherless, etc., and go back to profiling, which I recall leftists protesting in a most vociferous manner.
Anyone who speaks of "preventative" policy using the terms "assault rifles" and "high capacity" magazines indict themselves as wholly ignorant of facts necessary to participate in a debate of this importance. Just point at them and mock them. They are clowns and a particular danger to society.
"With me so far?"
Yep.
"Was I mistaken or do we both agree that putting effort into having good policies is a moral and rational thing to do?"
Nope.
"What are you disagreeing with or objecting to?"
Your notion that you can separate the policy from those who make and implement the policy. Your semantic game where you act as if putting your faith is policy is substantially different from putting your faith in those who make policy.
"Do you understand all of that, now?"
I've always understood all of that. I just find it strange that you're trying to lift God's rules from they myth parts of scripture and use them as US law.
"Does that make sense? Do you disagree with any of that?"
It's always "made sense". I don't necessarily disagree with it. It's just strange to hear you advocate for applying God's rules from the myth part of the Bible to the US.
"How have I ignored "thou shalt not murder..."? What does that even mean in the context of this conversation?"
1. You didn't mention it as one of God's rules that should be followed.
2. It's a rule, handed down by God, that pre-dates the theocratic period of Israel's history.
3. If we're cherry picking God's rule to apply to the US, it seems like a good place to start.
"Should we adopt God's rules? We should adopt rules that are 1. Reasonable, 2. Moral and 3. Just... rules that especially watch out for and work to prevent oppression and to support human rights. We can do that regardless of anyone's religion (or lack thereof) and, the great good advantage to this from my point of view (as a Christian) is that we ARE adopting God's rules when we try to implement such policies/rules."
1. Virtually all of the legal codes that underpin the US legal system are derived (at least in part) from God's rules.
2. I understand that you're only talking about those of God's rules that you find "Reasonable, Moral, and Just".
"Do you disagree?"
No, I agree that God's rules should be followed, and that US law is underpinned by God's rules.
"Do you agree?"
Do I agree that "ban or restrict guns" is a simplistic and incomplete answer to the question, yes. Do I agree that this is a multifaceted problem that goes way beyond the minuscule number of gun owners that engage in these "mass shootings", yes. Do I agree that this "white supremacist" bogyman you keep bring up is so bad that we should ignore other motivations for crimes, no.
"What are we specifically doing wrong/differently from these other nations?"
Good question, I have no idea how to address every other nation on the globe and assess how their laws would apply here and be "better". Especially since we have that pesky constitutional rights issue that they don't have.
It does seem strange that the Biden administration is spending billions of borrowed or "printed" dollars (harming our already historically bad economy) to arm Ukrainian citizens with the same types of weapons (and even deadlier) that y'all want to prevent law abiding US citizens from owning.
"We know now that brains in children and young adults don't fully develop until about the age of 25."
That's fascinating. Yet those same "children and young adults" are perfectly capable of deciding to undergo irreversible medical procedures, drink alcohol, smoke tobacco and weed, take out massive unsecured loans, serve in the military, and all sorts of other things. Why only restrict one particular right for those under 25?
"Right?"
Yes, I do. But that's not a partisan response.
"Right?"
So, again not partisan.
"Right?"
I was unaware that only the "GOP" was offering "thoughts and prayers".
"Right?"
Possibly. But who cares?
"Right?"
No, in the absence of hard evidence that the "GOP" the only group offering "thoughts and prayers". and in the absence of evidence that the entirety of the "GOP" is ONLY offering "thoughts and prayers", your claim can't be considered objectively "right".
All that and you're still the one who turned this partisan.
Your problem, I suspect, with the "GOP" isn't that they aren't offering options to deal with this problem. Your problem, I suspect, is that the "GOP" isn't blindly jumping on the simplistic bandwagon of invoking restrictions on the 99.9% of law abiding gun owners because of the actions of a tiny minority of people who've already broken multiple laws before they ever shot their first victim.
You claim that "toxic masculinity" is a problem. I'd argue that it's more of a perversion of masculinity that's a problem. But, what affect do the following have on how boys develop, socialize and see other people?
1. An education system steeped in Darwinian values which minimizes the value of human life?
2. A culture where humans in various stages of life can be terminated for the convenience of others?
3. The effects of the COVID lock downs on a population which already is dealing with a mental health crisis?
4. The effects of a steady diet of "screens" instead of human interaction?
5. The effects of first person shooter video games? How many of these shooters "killed" thousands of people in video games long before they ever picked up a real gun?
6. The inability to involuntarily commit those with mental health issues?
7. The easy accessibility of violent porn?
8. The lack of a "gun culture" that believes that training children to handle firearms safely leads to respect for firearms?
9. An entertainment culture which glorifies violence and killing?
10. Lack of fathers.
11, The postmodern notion that Truth doesn't exist?
I'm sure there are plenty more factors, but I haven't seen anyone who is advocating for simplistic "gun bans" or "restrictions" offer anything to address any of these things.
It certainly doesn't help when y'all are so uninformed about firearms either. Biden's idiotic "blowing out lungs" comment just makes him look stupid. Especially since the 9mm has been considered to be an inferior cartridge for defense for quite some time.
I left one thing off of the list. Dan called for "red flag" laws, which are problematic from a civil liberties/innocent until proven guilty stance. What's interesting is the recent trend of DA's in deep blue jurisdictions to choose not to prosecute certain crimes. Yet wouldn't some of those "non or less violent" offenses be "red flags" that might indicate a propensity toward greater violence? It seems inconsistent to advocate for laws that would jail people because of "red flags", when they might not have actually committed a crime, while releasing people who've gone on to commit violent crimes soon after. We've certainly seen multiple people released after being detained for illegal immigration who've killed people.
Again, it seems like consistency is the key here. You can't logically reduce the number of people in prison while adding more ways to incarcerate people.
This is especially troubling given the number of these "mass shooters" who were on the radar of LE for extended periods before they acted.
I'm not saying I have the answer, as much as pointing out the "ban assault weapons" is a simplistic, one dimensional, feel good, response that plays to a certain demographic without addressing else.
Given the fact that LE was well aware of many of these shooters, and their red flags, it's not as easy as folks make it sound like to intervene preemptively.
More to the point, how about we stop with the simplistic meme solutions and myopic focus on only one aspect of the problem.
RE "Toxic Masculinity" this is another of those terms that can mean everything, anything, and therefore nothing depending on what the user intends. But I want to unpack it a bit.
1. The term implies that there is a "non toxic masculinity". If this is the case, wouldn't it make more sense to aggressively teach/promote this "non toxic" version instead of complaining about the "toxic" version.
2. When I was growing up one of the ideals of masculinity that I was taught was that a man should protect those younger and weaker then himself. That a man should be prepared to place himself in danger to protect others. Somehow any version of masculinity that fails to protect the weak, doesn't seem like masculinity at all.
3. Maybe after years of trying to de-masculinize boys, we might consider the possibility that trying to try to force boys to act in ways that run counter to their nature, that we're creating frustrated, confused boys/young men and that the frustration and confusion they feel actually pushes them toward these sorts of behaviors.
4. Maybe after a couple of generations of allowing our kids to be raised by screens, and taking the competition out of sports, it could be that it's better for boys to spend their time competing at real sports than playing Madden. Maybe learning how to compete, win with grace, lose with self respect, is an important lesson for boys and young men to learn.
5. Maybe the no tolerance policies in school aren't the best way to raise healthy well adjusted boys. Maybe, when a boy gets bullied or teased, a punch in the nose IS the best way to make the bully stop.
6. Maybe having a school system (nationwide) that is more concerned with self esteem than with equipping children with an education that prepares them for a productive working life in the 21st century isn't such a good idea. Maybe telling kids that 2+2=5 and that they can spell words however they want isn't a good idea. Maybe a kid with a high school diploma who graduated below grade level in core subjects, and who can't get a good job because of that might get frustrated enough to blame other people and snap.
Again, I'm sure this isn't exhaustive, nor is it making any claims to be the Truth, simply some things that I wonder about instead of looking for simplistic, cosmetic, band aids.
Speaking of things that don't help. Biden's idiotic comment about people owning cannons in the 1700s, just makes him (and those who repeat him) look stupid. Ditto those who think that the Brown Bess musket was the best available weaponry during the American Revolution.
Also, the fact that the British attempted to disarm the colonists is probably one reason why the 2nd amendment made the cut.
Finally, some of the earliest attempts at gun control/confiscation through the legal system were sponsored by the democrat party, and specifically aimed at disarming blacks in the south.
One last thought on masculinity.
We live in a society that has largely bought into a Darwinian/Materialist/Naturalist, and that believes that humans are just one more mammal. No better, no worse, than a horse. The problem is that if we look at the rest of the animal kingdom, we see behaviors that would seem toxic in humans. Involuntary sex (both same and opposite sex) are regular occurrences in the rest of the animal kingdom. Two males fighting to the point of harm or death to one of them, for the right to breed the females. While killing for food is somewhat analogous to the entire animal kingdom, the non human animals are certainly inflict much more suffering on their victims than humans usually do. Leaving the weaker members of the pack to die while the Alpha male leads the rest onward also seems problematic.
It's like we accept the fact that all animals (including humans) are equal, yet don't live out lives in the same "survival of the fittest", "red in tooth and claw", "kill or be killed" world as the rest of the other animals.
I do wonder if being told that humans have no more or less value than any other animal might tend to make some humans believe it, and treat other humans as if they don't have any intrinsic value.
Good God. So much lack of understanding. I'm trying to stop, but feel compelled to offer at least one last set of responses. Re: Masculinity:
"1. The term implies that there is a "non toxic masculinity". If this is the case, wouldn't it make more sense to aggressively teach/promote this "non toxic" version instead of complaining about the "toxic" version."
Why not both? It's VITAL to point out the bad masculinity, the harmful masculinity at the same time we teach a basic humanity to all people, including boys and men.
Why would we NOT complain about toxic masculinity when it arises?
"2. When I was growing up one of the ideals of masculinity that I was taught was that a man should protect those younger and weaker then himself. That a man should be prepared to place himself in danger to protect others. Somehow any version of masculinity that fails to protect the weak, doesn't seem like masculinity at all."
This, itself, is a bit of the problem. The notion that "big strong men" have a responsibility to "protect the younger and weaker" suggests that they have a role that isn't theirs. It's ALL of our responsibility to watch out for any who might be oppressed or bullied. When we suggest that some portion of us (big men) have a special responsibility, it's toxic, leading to a presumption of power that is not helpful.
"3. Maybe after years of trying to de-masculinize boys, we might consider the possibility that trying to try to force boys to act in ways that run counter to their nature, that we're creating frustrated, confused boys/young men and that the frustration and confusion they feel actually pushes them toward these sorts of behaviors."
You confuse trying to raise healthy, respectful boys and young men with "de-masulinizing" them. That's part of the problem. Boys being respectful, healthy, rational and kind is HUMANIZING them, not "de-masculinizing" them.
"4. Maybe after a couple of generations of allowing our kids to be raised by screens, and taking the competition out of sports, it could be that it's better for boys to spend their time competing at real sports than playing Madden. Maybe learning how to compete, win with grace, lose with self respect, is an important lesson for boys and young men to learn."
You can do the latter (win with grace, lose with self respect) without insisting on negative forms of the former. Competition with an emphasis on "winning" and even "winning at all costs" is not something worth teaching. Competing for fun, that's okay, as long as it's taught respectfully.
"5. Maybe the no tolerance policies in school aren't the best way to raise healthy well adjusted boys. Maybe, when a boy gets bullied or teased, a punch in the nose IS the best way to make the bully stop."
Nope. Not according to research nor basic reason. Oftentimes, bullies bully because they are bigger and can beat up smaller kids/adults. Punching back may be dangerous. Restorative justice, THAT is a healthy way that leads to stronger, more respectful young men. Punching to settle problems of bullying teaches the wrong lesson. The lesson learned is: If I can just punch someone and get away with it, then justice is done. That's toxic, dangerous and part of the problem.
This is not to say that I'm criticizing those who fight back. Just that it's not the answer because, Reason.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/10/31/living/bullying-fight-back/index.html
As to your last comment (12:56pm): Survival of the fittest, as applied to humans, is more of a conservative philosophy, not a progressive one.
As to your comment vis-a-vis survival of the fittest, it's absurd to characterize it as a "conservative" philosophy. The very notion is straight from Darwin, who's not a conservative by any means. It's much more of an expression of a scientific philosophy than a political one. But, by all means, try to make everything political, and the fault of conservatives.
"Good God. So much lack of understanding."
What a condescending, patronizing response. The notion that anyone who doesn't buy your vague, non-specific, bullshit, repetition of other people's talking points, just has no "understanding".
"Why would we NOT complain about toxic masculinity when it arises?"
1. I'll note that you didn't define "toxic masculinity".
2. I'll note that you couldn't have read what I said (or comprehended what I said), before you spewed your response.
"This, itself, is a bit of the problem."
Really, the notion of protecting those weaker or more vulnerable than one's self is problematic.
Yet, somehow you advocate that very thing in the next sentence.
As for the rest, just more vague, blather, repeating a bunch of talking points.
As a parent of a kid that was bullied, I can say that the no tolerance, let the teachers/principal handle it crap, just turns out kids who are afraid of the bullies, and afraid of what will happen when their fellow students find out the "snitched".
Heaven forbid we teach our kids to stand up and defend themselves.
When a kid fights back against a bully, even if the kid loses, a message is sent which is the message all assholes need to hear. If every bully must deal with an aggressive response every time he tries to bully someone, eventually bullying won't have the same thrill. Eventually, one of the bullied will inflict serious hurt. Assholes respond to force. Good people know when to step back from inflicting such a response. It's how every war is won, every criminal is put away or put down.
It's also important for the bullied to learn that he can survive a beating. The vast majority will fell a whole lot better than constantly bending the knee to assholes. It also emboldens others who could be victimized in the same way. Character is built in such ways.
I first posted this at Dan's blog, but as he presented the link here as well (thinking it was a good find) and can't delete my response to it, I'm submitting it here as well.
In response to your first link from ABC News,
It's absolutely absurd to suppose recognizing most gun crimes are committed by males is meaningful. It's never been less obvious than it is now. It's only highlighted by those who have no real plan to do anything about it. It will never change. What's made it more a threat to society is a matter of cultural changes which have made it more likely. Those changes are mostly those made by leftists. One way to prove this is to list ways leftists have made it less likely. I'll wait here.
American males are no more or less prone to violence of any kind...armed or not. This notion that we are unique is what we honest people refer to as "bullshit". Mass casualty incidents are prevalent throughout the world, and even among western countries, the United States ranks around 11th when adjusted for population...which is the only way to get a true understanding of how bad it is here.
"Toxic masculinity" is a trope. It's meaningless except to promote leftist social change, which results in more angry men doing things they would not otherwise have chosen to do in a more traditional atmosphere of yesteryear...you know...when guns were brought to school for gun clubs and hunting after class. A worsening disregard for life is added to the male nature and what can one expect except more death over less important problems?
When men are considered unnecessary by radical feminists, fewer kids are raised with men in the homes guiding their upbringing. This has a compounding effect as boys raised in such homes grow up with no true understanding of how to raise their own boys to be the old-style boy scout type of kid most two parent families hoped for their boys. A look at gun crimes, prison populations and the like shows a high percentage were fatherless. Leftist ideology led to this sad stat.
"The traditional idea of masculinity is, "You don't get mad, you get even," Kimmel said." This is the type of crap honest people have come to expect from "gender studies 'experts'" That was never the "traditional" idea by moral people of character and virtue. We'll never solve the problem...or even lessen it...with asshole like this putz being given the time of day for the purpose.
There are two reasons for the rise in gun purchases and they are both the result of leftist policy. The rise in violent crime, enabled by asshats like Kim Foxx, Chesa Boudin and that Garcon moron in LA, as well as the influx of criminals over our open southern border thanks to idiots who didn't vote for Trump.
The second is the the consequence of all those idiots who didn't vote for Trump. Intelligent people knew that Biden was going to seek to impose more impotent gun control laws, like the moronic "assault weapons ban" which did nothing to make a difference when he got it passed in the 90's. My own effort to obtain a gun was because of his being fraudulently elected to destroy the nation...which he's been doing quite effectively. I figured I'd be better off having a piece before rather than after he was sworn in.
continuing...
"Peterson, of the Violence Project, said the key to fewer shootings is prevention, and offered four prongs."
In each "prong", we see evidence of leftist idiocy:
1. Boys were always better guided when they had fathers in the home. While bullies certainly existed...often raised by bullies as well...there was an overall better sense of the moral in years prior to the last fifty or so.
"When it comes to male mass shooters, Peterson said many tend to have an attitude that "the world owes me more than what I have."" This is a leftist enabled belief. Conservatives do not teach this to their kids. Indeed, they teach just the opposite. The world owes us nothing.
2. There have always been methods in place for detecting and dealing with wackjobs. The problem has been in doing the job, not dropping the ball, not fearing blowback when trying to do the job properly and enforcing the many laws already on the books. We must return to the time when a wackjob would be committed before doing harm to others and when criminal behavior was not tolerated by early release of the more dangerous.
3. This one is redundant. If kids are raised properly, they would not be influenced by the internet, video games or exposure to the Three Stooges.
4. This is another nonsensical view which demonstrates one is listening to the wrong person. Go ahead. Go to the next gun show in your area and try to buy a gun without being put through a background check.
God save us from leftists!
I'll peruse the other two links later.
Quick question:
The racist who did the mass shooting in Buffalo did so, in part, because he believed in the "great replacement theory. " I've seen in recent polls that over half of Trump supporters believe in this dangerous and racist nonsense that is being espoused by many noted MAGA-stlye conservatives.
This stupidly false narrative is, nonetheless, very dangerous as the Buffalo shooter demonstrated. Can you agree that this is a dangerously false narrative and that all these so called conservatives need to be called out for believing in it and promoting it? Do you think denouncing that theory unequivocally and speaking out against those who support it would be a step towards reducing violence and the threat of violence?
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/1099034094/what-is-the-great-replacement-theory
"This stupidly false narrative is, nonetheless, very dangerous as the Buffalo shooter demonstrated. Can you agree that this is a dangerously false narrative and that all these so called conservatives need to be called out for believing in it and promoting it?"
1. Are you suggesting that the Buffalo shooter should have been arrested for believing in the "replacement theory"?
2. While there may be some specifics of the theory that are false, a theory by itself isn't dangerous. It's inanimate, it literally doesn't have the capacity or ability to harm. Like many things, a theory might provide justification for someone who isn't completely rational.
3. Strangely enough, I've heard multiple DFL lawmakers over the years advocate for granting citizenship to immigrants who come to to country illegally, or to expedite the citizenship of all immigrants in the hopes that those immigrants will vote DFL. I know it's not the specifics of the theory, but it's not dissimilar.
4. BLM was founded on a false narrative, do you object to all false narratives, or just those you don't like?
"Do you think denouncing that theory unequivocally and speaking out against those who support it would be a step towards reducing violence and the threat of violence?"
No.
To be clear, I believe that the First Amendment to the Constitution is clear.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I don't see any exception for theories that you don't like.
Re: Marshal's unsupported claim that mass shootings are product of liberal ideas. what bs.
"Over the past decade, the Anti-Defamation League has counted about 450 U.S. murders committed by political extremists.
Of these 450 killings, right-wing extremists committed about 75 percent. Islamic extremists were responsible for about 20 percent, and left-wing extremists were responsible for 4 percent.
Nearly half of the murders were specifically tied to white supremacists:...
The pattern extends to violence less severe than murder, like the Jan. 6 attack on Congress. It also extends to the language from some Republican politicians — including Donald Trump — and conservative media figures that treats violence as a legitimate form of political expression. A much larger number of Republican officials do not use this language but also do not denounce it or punish politicians who do use it..."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/briefing/right-wing-mass-shootings.amp.html
That last sentence gets to Craig's unwillingness to condemn even the most vile and dangerous theories. And of course, don't be an idiot, theories can be dangerous. Words have power. Especially when there are idiots out there willing to believe stupidly dangerously false claims.
Craig...
"I don't see any exception for theories that you don't like."
Is it the case that you thought I was saying let's criminalize the speech? Of course, I did not say that. what I asked you was a simple rational question. This theory is dangerous and racist and false. If you can recognize and agree to that reality? And then, will you condemn those who promote it?
This is not a liberal or conservative thing. Thing. Liz Cheney is an ultra conservative and she recognizes the great danger posed by these sorts of ideas. She speaks out against them. Won't you get on the right side of history? Or is it the case that you don't even recognize how fast and how dangerous this is? She speaks out against them. Won't you get on the right side of history? Or is it the case that you don't even recognize how fast and how dangerous this is?
Can you condemn the man who killed those people in Buffalo for his beliefs in this false theory which pushed him to do it?
Craig...
"theory by itself isn't dangerous. It's inanimate, it literally doesn't have the capacity or ability to harm..."
Rather an astonishing claim given that this theory is what pushed this man to kill people… theories can be dangerous when they are actively promoted by powerful people and taken to their logical conclusions by dangerous people with access to dangerous weapons.
So , is there any chance in all of hell that you will directly answer my actual questions?
Ultra-conservative Liz Cheney on the very real threat of Trumo and his words...
""You know, we are not in a situation where former President Trump has expressed any sense of remorse about what happened," Cheney said. "We are in fact in a situation where he continues to use even more extreme language, frankly, than the language that caused the attack. And so, people must pay attention. People must watch, and they must understand how easily our democratic system can unravel if we don't defend it."
SHE recognizes the very real threat of these conspiracy theories and anti-liberty language being used by too many modern conservatives.
https://www.westernjournal.com/media-keep-blaming-tucker-great-replacement-theory-created-democrat-senator/
https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/18/if-anyone-believes-in-replacement-theory-its-democrats-who-think-voters-are-stupid/
If there are any on the right expressing concerns about a "Great Replacement", it seems an actual concern those like Dan exploit to continue disparaging those on the right as racist. But it seems Dems have been accepting a racial demographic change for some time, and it's only a problem when anyone on the right references that potential reality.
And again, Dan lies when he tries to make a connection between any center-right politician and any nutjob or actual racist who says anything remotely similar (distorted as it usually is) or finds common ground. That is, if a racist or nutjob agrees with a politician in any way, that politician is seeking out nutjobs and racists and promoting insanity and racism. It's pure lying and Dan is nothing if not a liar.
I just looked at Dan's blog and sure enough, he deleted the comments I posted above. Given how many Dems and leftists have acknowldeged whites will soon be in the minority in this country, I can't understand any of them presuming to attack anyone at all, regardless of political leanings, doing so as well. Maybe Dan can explain, with evidentiary support, why it's only racist when a center-right person says it.
Re: the constitution and free speech... you DO know that doesn't mean ideas can't be denounced, right? I'm relatively sure you know this but modern conservatives often seem like they have a right to say anything without criticism or objection.
You all don't. It's perfectly good and rational to harshly criticize evil and dangerous ideas. Especially when people are getting harmed and oppressed and killed because of those bad ideas.
"DO know that doesn't mean ideas can't be denounced, right?"
Of course it does. But "denounced" doesn't mean silenced, and there's no requirement to denounce every single thing people say that is wrong or misinformed.
"Liz Cheney" is hardly "ultra conservative". But please trot out one of those few people to the right of you who occasionally say something that you think helps you. FYI, I'm quite opposed to Trump.
"Rather an astonishing claim given that this theory is what pushed this man to kill people..."
This is quite a claim. The notion that an inanimate object or idea overrode this guy's thoughts, controlled his actions, and removed his agency is astounding. But if you're right, it's a defense that should get him acquitted.
"So , is there any chance in all of hell that you will directly answer my actual questions?"
As usual there's an excellent chance I've already answered all the questions I've seen up to this point. If there are specific questions I've missed, by all means point them out.
I can only assume (with too little time to verify) that the above means that you've answered every single question you've been asked recently.
"Is it the case that you thought I was saying let's criminalize the speech?"
No.
"Of course, I did not say that. what I asked you was a simple rational question. This theory is dangerous and racist and false. If you can recognize and agree to that reality? And then, will you condemn those who promote it?"
I guess the notion that I should be the one to decide who and what I invest my time in "condemning" isn't one you'd agree with. I see no agreement to "condemn" people just because you don't like what they say.
"Won't you get on the right side of history?"
I have no interest in trying to pretend like I know what "the right side of history" is, and even less in trying to jump through your hoops in order to align with your hunches about the "right side of history".
"Or is it the case that you don't even recognize how fast and how dangerous this is?"
I was unaware that a fringe theory that's been around for decades (even if DFL pols do say things that sound similar to this theory) could be considered "fast". Clearly it's not been too fast. Again, there are a lot of theories that are dangerous if taken to seriously or taken to an extreme. I don't feel compelled to address everyone of them, and even less compelled to adopt your priories about which one's I should "condemn".
"Won't you get on the right side of history? Or is it the case that you don't even recognize how fast and how dangerous this is?"
Again, if you can guarantee me with perfect accuracy that you can predict the "right side of history", I'll consider your offer of proof. Until then, I don't define myself by or consider myself subject to your hunches. Again, it's a relatively fringe theory that's been around for decades, the fact the one guy chose to blame this theory for the actions he chose to engage in doesn't make it "fast" in any sense.
"Can you condemn the man who killed those people in Buffalo for his beliefs in this false theory which pushed him to do it?"
I can condemn him for killing innocent people. His reasons or thoughts are immaterial. Murder is a crime, are you suggesting that he be punished for his thoughts as well? That he should have been preemptively arrested because of what he thought about a theory? Were his thoughts about this theory an accurate reflection of what the theory actually posits? If he was wrong in his interpretation of the theory, should he get additional punishment for being mistaken? He's likely to be convicted and sentenced to multiple life sentences without parole (if not death), how exactly would adding on punishment for his deranged thoughts have deterred him, or how will additional jail sentences (or executions) improve the lot of the victims families and friends?
Not long ago, there was a dude who attacked the office of a conservative organization, attempting to shoot up the place. He was motivated by his belief the organization was wrong and thus it was righteous for him to act in the manner he did. I do not at all recall Dan ever arguing against the false beliefs of this dude. The same could be said of the 2020 riots. Did Dan condemn the beliefs behind them? No. He supports those beliefs which have many times provoked violence he then defended as righteous or "the voice of the unheard". This is the kind of selective promotion Dan projects onto conservatives. He defends that which he likes because it is what he likes, not because it's true or provable.
"Ultra-conservative Liz Cheney"
?!?!?!?!?!?
No way can she be considered "Ultra-conservative" to anyone but an ignorant fool. She's a stinking RINO.
And only a brainwashed fool would claim that Trump had anything to do with the Jan 6 riots.
I'm always trying to figure out the nonsensical phrase, "right/wrong side of history." History has no moral side to it. THINGS and PEOPLE in history can do moral good or moral evil but history has nor right or wrong side.
I prefer to be on God's side with whatever my thoughts, decisions, actions may be regardless of what the culture is doing.
Dan once again proves his low character (which, frankly, he does with amazing regularity) by once again suggesting you might NOT condemn murderers.
Art,
Hell, I don't think Dan condemned that leftist who shot the GOP rep at baseball practice. I can't imagine he's condemned any of the mass shooter/driver folks who are black supremacists or leftists. Once a shooter/driver is revealed to be black of leftist, then they just disappear from public copiousness.
Strangely, even though I raised concerns similar to Cheney's, I've been labeled as a Trump supporter and had all sorts of things attributed to me. I guess some folks only deal in simplistic, and nuance confuses them.
Glenn,
I agree. History has no moral compass, no scales to balance anything. It's simply what happened. Hitler, Mao, Napoleon, Pot, Stalin, and many others were just as convinced as Dan that they were "on the right side of history", and that didn't work out so well. Since things seem to exist as a series of swings of a pendulum, it seems safe to say that history will eventually swing away from this current leftist, post modern, hedonist, nihilist, naturalist, materialist, worldview and back toward something more reasonable. Unfortunately, we may never see the swing, and it will likely end up at some more extreme place than we'd like.
Liz Cheney: Pro-life, Pro-Gun, NRA-Endorsed, daughter of uber-conservative Dick Cheney, voted WITH Trump NINETY-TWO % of the time, is more conservative than her current opponent by a significant amount...
And yet, in your collective dreamworld, the idea that Cheney is a conservative is beyond your understanding.
Is there any more proof that you all have been brainwashed necessary?? Y'all are straight out delusional. In what POSSIBLE sense is she NOT ultra-conservative? That she won't kiss the ass of the pervert you all (conservatives) mostly support? She brings shame to you all.
Glenn...
"History has no moral side to it. THINGS and PEOPLE in history can do moral good or moral evil but history has nor right or wrong side."
Dr MLK...
“The Arc of the Moral Universe is Long, But it Bends Toward Justice.”
When we speak of the "right side of history," we're merely acknowledging that many times, in hindsight, what the Right thing to do is obvious. OF COURSE, Southern Baptists and other conservative types should have condemned slavery. OF COURSE, Germans in Nazi Germany should have been loud and strong in their opposition to Hitler. OF COURSE, we can recognize that refusing to give the vote to women and people of color was a great moral atrocity. We ALL recognize these things now (hopefully you all do). OF COURSE, it was a great evil to tell people that black people should not marry white people. OF COURSE, it was a great evil to deny LGBTQ people basic human rights, including the right to marry the person of their choice.
We generally all recognize these things now in the moral and rational world. You all probably recognize MOST (but not all) of the ideas I listed above. But people "back then," did not see it. Eventually, they and/or their grandchildren were shamed by their support of slavery, by their opposition to giving the vote to women and POC, by their silence in response to (or outright support of) Hitler.
There is a moral arc of the universe and it does bend towards Justice. Dr King was not wrong. Open your eyes. Your grandchildren will rise up and call you evil.
Craig... " it seems safe to say that history will eventually swing away from this current leftist, post modern, hedonist, nihilist, naturalist, materialist, worldview and back toward something more reasonable."
Wow. Supporting people getting married, having children together, being welcomed to faith groups, being concerned about the environment and about human degradation thereof... all these things are "hedonist, nihilist, naturalist, materialist..." and other words you consider evil.
You all are morally and rationally upside down on way too many topics. Open your eyes. You will be considered the villainous supporters of immorality and oppression.
Open your eyes, soften your hearts, let God heal this seething corruption in your souls. Embrace grace, dear men. Embrace grace and decency and love and the Beloved Community of God.
"And yet, in your collective dreamworld, the idea that Cheney is a conservative is beyond your understanding."
Well done, the goal posts get moved and Dan kicks a straw man's ass.
"Supporting people getting married, having children together, being welcomed to faith groups, being concerned about the environment and about human degradation thereof... all these things are "hedonist, nihilist, naturalist, materialist..." and other words you consider evil."
1. Excellent job of taking something I said, and applying your own interpretation to it. Well done. Of course my characterization was aimed at a much broader view of culture. But, feel free to twist what I say as you wish.
2. Where exactly did I say that those "words are evil"?
The irony of you telling anyone to "embrace grace" is astounding.
"Wow. Supporting people getting married, having children together, being welcomed to faith groups, being concerned about the environment and about human degradation thereof... all these things are "hedonist, nihilist, naturalist, materialist..." and other words you consider evil."
This is Dan whitewashing his perversion, his covetousness and his heresies. He's far more welcoming than God, Who assures us we need to live on His terms, not our own. That's not how Dan rolls at all.
As to Cheney, we see a similarity to Dan's defense of the sexually perverse. Her most outstanding sin is covered up...in Dan's fevered imaginings...by her "good" works. But her Trump-hatred...and it's attendant hatred for Trump supporters and their legitimate complaints...is what matters at this time. She's among the worst of the political world attacking falsely people who are undeserving of such treatment. Like all lefty hacks and morons, she hates Trump because "he's not a nice guy". He's an average Joe, and reverence for her version of the GOP...which the Dems disparaged just as much as they now do Trump...isn't sufficient enough for her. And like the Dems, she's not at all concerned about the rioting at the Capitol, nor does she believe any more than they do the bullshit about their lives having been truly threatened, or that they were looking to be "insurrectionists". She, like the lying Dems, simply want to do harm to Trump and anyone who so much as appears to support him.
She, like the Dems, is a liar and that's what Dan finds so appealing about that party and conservatives like Cheney. Birds of a feather.
Post a Comment