So, Cenk Uygur is running for congress, and apparently he's a fan of bestiality and has a problematic history of what seems like inappropriate behavior. Although Berine did rescind his endorsement, we've really heard nothing from the majority of the political left.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-rescinds-endorsement-after-womens-groups-blast-misogynist-cenk-uygur
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxp76bwIogQ
Probably some of us have seen the video on social media of the 14 year old boy, brutally attacked for wearing clothing that indicated support of Trump. I point out that we've probably seen this in Social media because I haven't seen much, if anything, from the mainstream media on this story. I certainly haven't seen any of the lefty bloggers of social media commentators I follow spend any time on it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7787635/Florida-school-bus-bullies-pummel-14-year-old-boy-Trump-hat.html
Of course, we have seen the violent protests in the UK after the liberals went down in flames against the CW.
Clearly the left has set up a climate where it's ok to engage in violence against folx on the right, because folx on the right are the functional equivalent of NAZIs, or racists, or evil, and therefore it's appropriate employ an "ends justify the means" strategy to win.
Anyone who says that nonviolence is an essential tenet of modern political progressiveism is simply ignoring the reality that we see played out on a regular basis on video. It's why they make excuses to justify ANTIFA, and remain silent whenever possible on the violence we see from the left. I’ve been assured for years that there are certain things that are anathema to the left, yet the left seems to increasingly be engaging in exactly those things. My pointing out the silence on these stories isn’t intended as anything but a note of the hypocrisy of those on the left. I’ve also made a point of only including stories that have spread beyond the local area. I’ve never had a problem criticizing folx on the GOP side of things for moral/character failings. I’m just surprised that the leftists I read aren’t willing to criticize their own with a fraction of the vitriol they unleash on their enemies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I didn’t mention Mrs. engage in pot fueled threesomes with her staffers either. At least she had the good sense to resign.
If I get responses, they’ll likely be one of two options.
1. “I’ve already blandly condemned XYZ behavior in general, so I don’t need to condemn specific behavior now.” This standard is almost always not applied to the opponents of those who hide behind this response.
2. “XYZ republican has engaged in XYZ behavior.”. This standard is always selectively applied because those who hide behind this one, will screech in pain when it’s used against those they worship.
Response #1 is the fallback position. It allows them to ignore instances of violent behavior regardless of how many there are, or whether or not the frequency of such attacks increases. They'd prefer to spend their time highlighting the far more infrequent instances of violence perpetrated by the right-wing, because they need to spend more effort pretending it's on the rise among the right. It's exhausting to constantly posture and resist a strawman that a lefty has little time and energy for cleaning his own house.
You've got me. I have not made ONE SINGLE COMMENT on these stories or people I've never heard of. I'll tell you something else that may astound you: I have not made ANY COMMENTS EVER about stories I have not heard or read about people I do not know.
Dang, right?
But you know what is really interesting? The president of the whole US of A just admitted to cheating his charity to profit himself and his family and his political campaign and I have not read a SINGLE conservative condemn him and, in THAT case, well, everyone actually knows who he is and what he is.
Why are conservatives not clamoring for his impeachment for admitting at cheating a charity for self promotion?
Does it get any lower than that?
Well, yes, it does. Grabbing women by their pussy and forcing himself on women and teenaged girls is lower, but we've already established that most evangelicals and conservatives are cool with that... that that's not a line too far.
Let's talk about actual news and not limit the silence to small time players no one has much heard about.
And yes, the answer is OF COURSE I am opposed to bad behavior if these people you are speaking about engaged in bad behavior. WE know this because I am consistent in that regards, being opposed to bad behavior. It's why half the nation finds this pervert president to be unfit for office.
Just not the white evangelical conservative portion of the US, by and large. (And yes, Craig, I know you are not a huge fan of Trump... and STILL, you find time to drag up these smaller cases and ignore CHEATING A CHARITY... would it bring it to your attention if he actually raped some of the children who were supposed to profit from the charity that he stole from?)
And Dan manages to combine both Milner 1 and number 2, without specifically condemning any of the people mentioned.
I’ve publicly and repeatedly indicated that I have no problem with impeaching Trump. Although, now that we’ve seen the evidence, I (and large numbers of P/BO voters) aren’t convinced.
I also don’t write about every single thing Trump does that I don’t agree with, but your double standard won’t allow you to give me what you demand I give you.
Speaking of double standards, I’ll note your silence on the Clinton slush fund/foundation.
Of course you haven’t established that anyone (again with the exception of Clinton and Kennedy supporters) is fine with inappropriate sexual conduct. But, you keep pretending.
All three of the stories I’ve referenced are “actual news”, and your repeated inability to call out specific actions from your side of the aisle is again glaringly absent. As is the support for your progressive fantasy world.
It’s strange that you’ve decided that cheating a charity is somehow worse than a group of people beating a defenseless boy because they disagree with his political views.
All in all you’ve done a wonderful job of fulfilling pretty much everything I said about in my post. You’re content to remain silent even though your fantasy of progressivism is repeatedly demonstrated to be false.
FYI, I believe that Trump just paid millions over the charity thing.
What you’re so eloquently demonstrating is your willingness to ignore things on your side that you won’t tolerate on the other side. You’re also eloquently demonstrating your hubris, pride, and ego, by assuming that this post is referring to you.
Oh, the Mormon church just got busted for $100 million in a fake charity, let’s bash them because apparently this is now the worst thing that can be done.
without specifically condemning any of the people mentioned.
What part of "I DO NOT KNOW THESE PEOPLE OR THESE STORIES..." is it hard for you to understand?
The difference between your choosing to give a pass to CHEATING ON CHARITY by the president and me not being aware of these people or stories is that HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE US, elected primarily by white evangelical conservatives like yourself. YOU have an obligation to speak out to what your comrades are choosing to ignore. YOUR SILENCE is part of the Trump problem. You may not like Trump, but when you give a pass to atrocities committed by the white evangelical's pervert, YOU provide aid and comfort to him and his crimes and, more importantly, to the crimes that are being propped up by the support of YOUR people.
And GOOD GOD IN HEAVEN, what the fuck is wrong with you? I don't know a single God damned thing about the story you're speaking of, but OF COURSE, you malignant piece of shit, beating anyone is WRONG. OF COURSE, I think it's wrong. I don't know the story you're speaking about and frankly, I don't trust you and your ilk because you all are prone to passing on actual fake news from unreliable sources.
BUT we DO know about Trump CHEATING AT A FUCKING CHARITY. Stealing money from dying children. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH WHITE CONSERVATIVES that you remain silent and, therefore, lend support to a man who abuses DYING CHILDREN?!
YES, Trump DID pay back what he STOLE from dying children, but WTF is wrong with you? WHY ARE YOU NOT DEMANDING that pervert who steals from dying children SHOULD GO TO JAIL, or at least be impeached?
WHY is there no outrage amongst the so-called "religious right?" YOU all are demonstrating how very very grossly immoral you are. You are embarrassing your families and your churches.
Stop it.
This is why I don't comment on stories I'm not familiar with. Too often today, conservatives have adopted the stupidly trumpian immoral practice of passing on fake news, such that it's hard to believe anything that conservatives say today. What a sad indictment of White conservatives and evangelicals.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/maga-students-video/
If you’re going to lie, at least be creative about it. I’ve not given Trump a pass on his charitable problem. Pointing out that you’ve given the Clintons a pass on their “charity” is a waste of time, yet it’s true.
You’ll note that I’ve published links to reputable news sources for everything I’ve referenced.
You’re making more noise defending your silence, than anything else. I wonder why?
I guess pointing out that Snopes doesn’t actually provide proof that the claim is wrong would be a waste of time as well.
Given that the claim originated with the victim (for whom you still can’t muster any overt sympathy), I can only assume that you have determined objectivity that Snopes is a more reliable source than the victim. In essence you are accusing the victim of lying. What a heartless bastard you can be.
The question is why you don’t have the same standards for your side that you do for Trump. The difference between us is that I’m not defending or excusing Trump, nor am I ignoring what he’s done. I’m certainly not trying to divert attention from the incidents in my post.
Finally, you have to realize that you choosing to use the “Trump did it.” as a defense or diversion from the misdeeds of the left means that you’re acknowledging that it is a legitimate response. You’re acknowledging that you’ll treat this tactic with the same degree of weight when it’s used against you as you do now. But thank you for demonstrating the accuracy of my post and my comment to Art.
Given the fact that every instance I’ve mentioned in this post and the subsequent comments has been covered nationally, or internationally, your “I’ve never heard these things.” excise rings hollow. I guess it’s possible that you either intentionally avoid news that contradicts your fantasies about noble progressives or that you just spend so much time in an echo chamber that those stories get drowned out.
As for impeaching Trump, I’m all for it. It’s a win/win for me. If he’s convinced we get a person on much higher character as POTUS, if he’s not then y’all have likely guaranteed that the DFL candidate will lose in 2020.
You’ll note that I’m much more amused by y’all shooting yourselves in the electoral foot, than by Trump winning. That’s probably too nuanced for you, but I’ve got to acknowledge that no matter who wins it won’t be my preferred candidate, yet they’ll still be my president.
I almost want to see Trump win just to see the violent protests sure to follow the election.
Re: you're making noise about the finding your silence.
What I'm doing is saying quite clearly that I'm not familiar with these stories and I do not know that your hunches about these stories represent reality. I don't comment about stories I don't know about. I don't comment about people that I don't know about it.
For the last time you goddamn son of a bitch, do you understand why that's only rational that someone would not comment on something that they do not know about?
This is not a tough question. It's really simple you ass wipe. Do you understand why this is rational to not talk about stories you don't know about?
Good Lord.
Dan, while I can’t believe that you are so unaware of these nationally/internationally reported stories, that’s why I included links to news sources that you shouldn’t have found fault with. Your ignorance isn’t my problem. Nor is your unwillingness to research these widely reported stories.
That was a great excuse before you knew about these things. Although I provided you ample evidence of the Clinton foundation’s questionable dealings, which you never addressed. Claiming ignorance only works when you’re ignorant, now you’re not. Of course, your ego and hubris compel you to assume you’re the subject.
You probably claim you hadn’t even heard about Rep Hill and her shenanigans, and you probably wouldn’t have been critical of her if you had.
But if name calling, like a child, helps make you look better then go for it. That’s one more area where we differ. When you mention something you think I should have heard about, I check it out so I’m informed. You make excuses and call names. B
I'm not name calling. I'm asking a simple question that you keep dodging. Answer the question. Everyone sees that you're dodging it. Have integrity and answer the question.
As to your alleged stories, that's the problem with modern conservatism. Y'all have embraced wholeheartedly false claims and stupidly false claims and the Liars who tell them. Y'all have lost credibility. I'm talking about an actual news story this in the news about the president of the United States. Can you not condemn his cheating a charity? Can you not call for his impeachment for that? Can you not condemn conservatives for still embracing the Pervert liar?
We see the answer to that.
“I’m not name calling.” Dan
“You goddamn son of a bitch” Dan
But then you’ve never minded contradicting yourself, and you’ve never been bothered when your own words come back to haunt you.
The only question you’ve asked is about what’s reasonable for you to do when you’re ignorant. I’ve answered that. Inform yourself, it’s why I gave you links.
Ive mentioned 3 actual news stories, reported by multiple news outlets. The fact that you’re hiding behind your ignorance and unwillingness to read, isn’t my problem.
If you can’t condemn the three leftists I’ve referenced, why should I play your games? If you can’t condemn the Clinton foundation, why should I indulge your double standard?
I’ve been consistent in my views on impeachment and see no reason to repeat them, as you’ll just ignore what I say anyway. Again, if you won’t ever condemn the pervert liars on your side specifically, why would I condemn Trump again just because you demand it.
Again, thanks for doing such an admirable job of making my point for me. You play ignorant, divert, and hide when it’s your side.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/469462-trump-ordered-to-pay-2m-in-settlement-over-trump-foundation-lawsuit
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-paid-millions-charities-end-trump-foundation-lawsuit
I present the above links because due to my limited opportunity at present, they represent the only articles on the case that provide any word from Trump's side of the story. I haven't seen anything that says he admitted to any wrongdoing, though I'm not suggesting he didn't do anything wrong. I don't necessarily buy automatically that he created the charity simply to serve his own ends, as Trump-haters do in typical knee-jerk fashion. I would more like believe that he played fast and loose with rules about which he didn't take the time to perfectly understand and educate himself. He's a big picture kinda guy. That being said, it appears all has been resolved and fines and remaining funds donated. Not surprised that Dan would simply choose to jump on the "Orange Man Stole From Dying Kids" angle, because Dan's false Christianity doesn't really hold up under pressure.
In the meantime, Dan continues to lie about Trump grabbing women's crotches and is more than happy to believe unproven accusations of rape and sexual abuse. More of that "embracing grace" from Dan the poser.
I would also add that foul language is a form of violent behavior, thus adding to the reality that the left are typically more violent than the right, despite their failed attempts to posture as peace-loving.
It should be kept in mind that whatever bad behavior Trump has or might commit, both Craig and I have, to one extent or another, but without reservation or timidity, acknowledged that he's not an especially saintly man. It is why I didn't support him in the primaries, and why Craig doesn't support him at all. Neither of us have changed our tune on that score. In the meantime, Dan NEVER acknowledges the many failings of any of the leftist politicians he supports, largely because he's as morally corrupt as they are.
Dan,
You seem unable to comprehend the fact that despite Trump’s manifold character flaws, his tendency to lie, and the various other things I’ve criticized about him, that doesn't give progressives a free pass. The fact is that these things aren’t related and that I can and have been critical of people on the right when appropriate. The fact also is that you’ve been less able to criticize progressives, but instead try to divert attention away from those on your side.
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
But I did predict your response, pretty accurately.
Art,
You can’t call Dan mortally corrupt. Doing so, implies an objective moral standard, when we know morality isn’t objective. Morality is subjective and to suggest otherwise is problematic.
Post a Comment