Again, this is a stupidly false piece of excrement. The sort of Twisted and demented and diabolical lie that comes from Prince of Lies, if you believe in that sort of thing.
Stop demonizing people. Start reading for comprehension. Not for attacks. Shane on you you lying piece of s***.
Byrd was a bad man who adhered to some awful conservative values, including racism, who then turned his life around and became a better man. Shame on cowardly shit-for-brains slanderers who ignore the racists in their midst and attack those who've progressed to more redeeming places.
Byrd was a Democrat his entire life. It’s not my fault other Democrats revered him so. I’m sorry that Democrat presidential candidates have a tendency to revere other Democrats who are racists.
I guess this means you’ll never answer the questions you’ve been dodging for almost a week.
Racism has never been, isn't now and never will be a conservative value. Talk about slander! Talk about a twisted, demented and diabolical lie...that even the Prince of Lies isn't stupid enough to believe anyone would believe! Racism, division and identity politics has always been, is now and likely always will be the way of the the Democrat/leftist/"progressive"/socialist (same things).
Ok, that settles it. Dan’s anecdotal experiences trump everything. Data, schmata, we have Dan’s anecdotes. It makes total sense to evaluate every racist throughout thousands of years of history, based on what Dan’s experienced in the last 50 years.
I’m not aware those are facts by any definition of facts, nor does any of those claims demonstrate objective proof of the original claim, let alone the last bunch.
But it is a great way to move on from the unanswered questions from recent threads, more smoke screen.
Racist, white nationalist, KKK, they do self-identify as conservatives. Do you not recognize that reality?
Do you have any proof to show that it's mistaken?
Because I can show you that they self-identify as conservatives, because it's obvious. They hate liberals. They are diametrically opposed to Liberal ideals. Do you recognize that reality?
I am just acting asking simple questions about reality. Do you recognize reality or do you not?
I've looked before, and I just looked again today. I find zero links or information about liberal racist groups. 0. If you have data that suggest that there are liberal groups out there dedicated to White nationalism or racist ideology, provide them. But you can't. Instead you'll accuse a man who reformed himself away from the worst of his racism a being a problem, all the while ignoring the white nationalist and racist within and around the Trump conservative movement. Shame on you both.
One day, you will repent. I hope you choose to do that sooner rather than later.
Ok, because you looked, and because you say that you found some people who “self identify”, then clearly “racism” is a “conservative value”. Clearly you’ve provided exhaustive, objective, proof. Why would anyone doubt you and your exhaustively documented, all encompassing, infallible research
Still can’t answer questions from last week, but you can make authoritative pronouncements about your political enemies.
We all know that LBJ was a conservative.
Thank you, for setting the precedent that objective reality is proven by finding someone who “self identifies”. From now on, I will apply this new standard you’ve used, it’ll be fun to watch you move the goalposts.
They identify as conservative, meaning, that they oppose abortion-rights, they are opposed to gay rights, they support Republican presidents, (except for maybe the ones that are too liberal for their tastes). They support small government. Tenet after tenet, value after value, they align with conservative values.
What does it take to make one conservative?
They are clearly obviously factually in the real world, conservatives. Now, we can argue whether or not conservative means racist. I'm not making that argument but you can argue that if you want.
Nonetheless, modern conservatives over the last 50 years have by and large been conservatives, that is, white men who hold conservative values. Just as a factual point in real world.
Do you recognize that reality? If you don't recognize it, do you have any data to disprove it? Do you really think that all these people who claim to be conservative actually DO support abortions and do support gay folk getting married and do support smaller military?
BS.
You have to have some data to make claims like that. You can't just make s*** up. Not if you want to discuss things like a rational adult who is connected to reality. Are you connected to reality? Answer some questions.
Okay, along with the many mistakes and cost claims and idiotic s*** y'all are saying, I do see one mistake I made. I said....
"Byrd was a bad man who adhered to some awful conservative values, including racism, who then turned his life around ..."
That was a mistake on my part in my dictation. And failing to check what came out. I didn't mean that racism is a conservative value, and it probably sounds like that to you. I was saying, instead, that racist have long identified, at least within my lifetime, with conservative values. And racism was in the mix of their conservative values. That's what I meant to say. My apologies for mistaking it.
Nonetheless, the rest remains factual. Do you recognize the reality of the rest?
That is, do you recognize that the alt right, KKK, white nationalist, and other overt racists self-identify as conservative because they hold to actual conservative values in the real world? They are literally conservatives who are racist, as well. Do you recognize that reality?
By the way, LBJ was a moderate Progressive person who was also very racist. Well done. If you go back 50 years, you can find one. Can you find any modern liberals who are overtly racist like all these very many conservatives today who are also white nationalist?
Farrakhan is a more recent liberal racist, Hillary made plenty of racist comments. I posted a list of at least 20 people who’ve engaged in actions deemed racist, none of whom are remotely conservative.
Craig... You do realize that someone “self identifying” as something isn’t actually objective proof of anything.
Of course it is. If a person says that they are a bird watcher and they are in a bird watching club and they do, in fact, spend some times on weekends regularly looking at birds, then OF COURSE it is reasonable to accept that they are a bird watcher as an objective fact.
The claim itself is not what makes them conservative, it's their ACTUAL BELIEFS. You DO understand that, don't you?
If a person consistently is opposed to liberal candidates, supportive of conservative candidates (the more conservative the better), and supports ideals like smaller gov't, bigger military/stronger defense, harsh treatment of crime and traditional values while opposing pacifism/weaker military and opposing gay folk marrying and opposing abortion, and they tell you that they are a conservative because of those things AND they are racist, THEN they are racist conservatives and we have no reason to believe otehrwise.
To answer your post's stupidly obvious question: "Is anyone who says this sort of thing about someone who was a member of the KKK really POTUS material?"
Yes. Yes. YES! Of course. IF that KKK member has repented of his past and changed his behavior significantly, moving from being an oppressor of black people to being an ally of black people. OF COURSE, there is nothing wrong with honoring such a person. Do you think there is a problem with that?
Good God, I hope not. What sort of graceless evil would that be?
Now, following YOUR lead of asking about a POTUS candidate's support for racists and other evil people, how about the man who appears on the show of a dangerous rightwing conspiracy theorist and appears to have a great relationship with him and even calls him to thank him (the POTUS thanking the conspiracy nut) for his work? Should such a person be supported in his run for office? What about the POTUS candidate who laughs about sexually assaulting and harassing women and getting away with it because of his wealth and power... should THAT sort of deviant be supported for even one second in a run for office?
What about the man who has cheated charities and college students and employees out of money and used his position to get away with it all, should THAT man be considered for a second as POTUS?
If that man was Obama, conservatives would go nuts in their hatred for him, but they give a pass to Trump. Where are the conservatives calling out the Trump conservatives?
That man has ruined conservatism for at least a generation. He is going to be hung out to dry in a landslide this fall and he'll probably take down the GOP senate with him, as well, if there's any justice and reason in the world.
I just in the debacle of the failed Trump disaster, conservatives learn the right lessons.
You realize that in the current culture where absolutely nothing that even hints of racism (per the 2020 liberal definition), no matter how long ago, no matter the culture at the time, goes unpunished that you look like an idiot for making excuses for racism.
We see you protecting the racists while attacking the reformed.
We see your blatant attacks that only a moron could take seriously.
We see your gaslighting attempts that only serve to support oppressive racists.
Shame on you.
One day, you will recognize the harm you've supported and defended and the harmful attacks you've engaged on and you will be sorry. Hopefully, you'll recognize and acknowledge your foolish mistakes earlier rather than later. Hopefully, you'll be part of the group that tries to redeem the modern GOP from the cesspool of gross immorality and degenerate irrationality.
Trump on the degenerate liar and con man, Alex Jones:
"Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down," Trump told Alex Jones during a Wednesday afternoon appearance on the Infowars.com proprietor's show.
Unlike Byrd, who redeemed himself, Jones is still quite perverted in his attacks. Trump has never distanced himself from him.
The pervert, Trump, on the pervert, Epstein:
“Terrific guy,” said Trump. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
Deviant sexual predators, birds of a feather.
Your party's candidate is a degenerate with no apparent sense of morality.
Dan proves he knows nothing of conservatism or of Christian honesty. If racist "self-identify" with conservatives and/or Republicans, a self-identifying "progressive Christian", one would hope, would have the honesty to tell the racist that hating/opposing black people is what conservatism is all about. Nor is it what being American is all about. Conservatives don't hate/oppose immigrants. Conservatives oppose illegal immigration, as it's a crime. Conservatives don't hate/oppose homosexusls. Conservatives oppose sexually immoral behavior such as homosexuality and oppose efforts to normalize it through laws and court decisions forcing us treat them as if their behavior and agenda is normal and moral...which it isn't.
It's one thing to fail to disavow the racist, and quite another to pretend that the promotion of American ideals is intended to recruit racists. The former is an oversize which for most is no more than such, while the latter is a conscious, purposeful lie common to the leftist.
Conservatives/Republicans don't play the identity politics game, treating all...even the less than perfect...as Americans. Holding fast to truth, values and ideals will neccesarily compel those who won't to segregate themselves from us. That's not being divisive like the left and racists do.
Craig... "You realize that in the current culture where absolutely nothing that even hints of racism (per the 2020 liberal definition), no matter how long ago, no matter the culture at the time, goes unpunished"
You realize that in the current culture of conservatism, where they don't understand motives and reasoning of those fighting actual racism and prefer, instead, to mock a caricature of it, that your analysis isn't worth much?
There certainly IS an element, to be sure, of actual cancel culture that is troubling, by and large, most people can easily differentiate between a man like Byrd who DID embrace bad ideals and eventually repented and was redeemed and a man like Trump who daily embraces corruption and vulgar dishonesty with amoral abandon and yet is still embraced by his followers, supposedly older white "evangelical christians..."
Are you finding some people in the real world who are actually criticizing Byrd and Biden for acknowledging Byrd's leadership? Or is this just another brainless attempt at an inept and dishonest smear?
"We see you protecting the racists while attacking the reformed."
No, you don't. If you did you'd be able to provide quotes and links to demonstrate that I support "racists", as well as quotes and links proving the "racism" of those you claim I support. Also, I'm not "attacking the reformed", I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of you and others who pile "racism" on your political enemies while ignoring it in those your support. The fact that Farrakhan is still a person who's imprimatur is greedily sought by virtually every DFL candidate running for national office tells us how much you really care about "racism". The fact that you fail to apply the same standards for your own, that you do for others is the target.
You forget that you've got folks of your side of things tearing down statues of people for what they did hundreds of years ago. If you're going to apply that kind of retroactive scrutiny to others, you need to apply it to your own.
"We see your blatant attacks that only a moron could take seriously."
Again, more bullshit claims, with absolutely no proof.
"We see your gaslighting attempts that only serve to support oppressive racists."
"Unlike Byrd, who redeemed himself, Jones is still quite perverted in his attacks. Trump has never distanced himself from him."
Jones is a freaking talk show host, get real.
Again, the point isn't to bask Biden, it's to point out the hypocrisy on your side.
As far as Epstein goes, I think that you'll probably want to look at the folks on your side of the aisle who spent time with him.
Here's the difference, I've been on record for years criticizing Trump for his moral failings, I've been consistent in my continued criticism of his moral failings, I didn't vote for Trump and haven't supported Trump. If I vote for him, it isn't because I support him, it's because you've chosen assholery over any other possible option. Therefore if the Epstein thing touches Trump, it'll just be one more conformation of his moral failures and confirmation of my initial response to him.
When the Epstein thing touches folks on your side (as you did with Weinstein), you'll most likely remain silent and continue your blindly partisan stance.
Here's one more question for you to avoid answering.
Would you ever vote for someone who supported, endorsed, or accepted awards from or endorsements from any person or organization founded on "racist" principles?
If you did you'd be able to provide quotes and links to demonstrate that I support "racists", as well as quotes and links proving the "racism" of those you claim I support.
A quote where you do this:
Is anyone who says this sort of thing about someone who was a member of the KKK really POTUS material?
When you twist history and facts to demonize and attack people on a partisan basis and undermine actual concerns about racism, you are gas lighting and therein giving support to actual racists who argue much in the same manner that you do.
When you quote only the minority of blacks who happen to agree with you and ignore the vast majority of black people who disagree with you, you undermine the concerns of black people and therein give support to actual racists who do this very same thing.
When you are regularly silent on Trump's dogwhistles and racism, you give comfort to actual racists and promote/enable/strengthen the white supremacists/racists out there.
How many instances do you need?
You see, part of your problem is that you are apparently thinking the ONLY way to protect racists (what I charged you with) is by actively speaking words in defense of racists. Being silent, too, protects racists.
If you can set aside your partisan blindness, you can almost certainly agree with this.
How many of Trump's racist attacks have you denounced on this blog?
On the other hand, here you have making a vague attack on Biden in a wimpy, gas lighting sort of way, and have done similar posts, I'm sure. When you treat racists as only mildly problematic and are silent in the face of an overtly racism-promoting president, you lend support to racists. Trump's many xenophobic comments should be a deal-breaker. Period. End of sentence. It should lead good conservatives to speak actively and often out against the majority of Trump-defending or Trump-abiding conservatives.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.”
Don't do nothing, Craig. Repent. Change your ways.
If Dan wants to set the standards of proof as "self identified" and "opinion polls", I say let him. It simply puts him in a position to ignore or come up with excuses when his two sources of proof disagree with him.
Dan insists that "90% of blacks" want to "defund the police". Or words to that effect.
Yet, "However, when it comes to policing and crime, black attitudes elude simple explanations. In polling, black people often express disgust at police racism yet support more funding for police. A 2015 Gallup poll found that black adults who believed police treated black people unfairly were also more likely to desire a larger police presence in their local area than those who thought police treated black people fairly. A 2019 Vox poll found that despite being the racial group with the most unfavorable view of the police, most black people still supported hiring more police officers. And more recently, a June 2020 Yahoo News/YouGov survey taken after the killing of George Floyd found that 50 percent of black respondents still said that “we need more cops on the street,” even as 49 percent of black respondents said when they personally see a police officer it makes them feel “less secure.” "
So, I say let him establish "self identifying and opinion polls" as the standard of proof.
the point isn't to bask Biden, it's to point out the hypocrisy on your side.
There IS no hypocrisy. If Trump had repented of his racist and misogynist attacks on women and minorities over the years and demonstrated that change with action, I'd gladly praise him, as well. There is no hypocrisy. This is just a stupidly false empty charge with nothing to support it.
When the Epstein thing touches folks on your side (as you did with Weinstein), you'll most likely remain silent and continue your blindly partisan stance.
This is another bullshit blindingly stupid false charge. The difference between people like me and people like you is that, IF there is ANY evidence that Clinton engaged in bad behavior with Epstein, I'll say, "String that MF up!" IF Clinton had laughed about assaulting women, I'd say string him up and certainly don't elect him. Hell, I didn't vote for him TWICE because of the very meager evidence against him, that was sufficient.
On the other hand, Trump conservatives appear prepared to defend him no matter what.
It doesn't MATTER to Trump conservatives that he was caught boasting about sexually assaulting women and laughing about i.
It doesn't MATTER to conservatives that he has repeatedly engaged in racist dogwhistles and attacks.
It doesn't MATTER to conservatives that he attacks the free press with an insane abandon.
On and on and on, Trump conservatives have given him a pass on things that ought not be ignored.
You can't say the same about me or my type of progressives.
So go to hell with the bullshit claim that I or my people would "remain silent" on sexual assault/oppression. That is a demonically false claim. Take it to hell with you and Trump and his enablers.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Or, to defend the racists and corrupt by making Trump-like stupidly false claims.
More stupidly false claims and straw man defense of racists...
You forget that you've got folks of your side of things tearing down statues of people for what they did hundreds of years ago. If you're going to apply that kind of retroactive scrutiny to others, you need to apply it to your own.
IF they were going to raise a statue for Byrd, I'd oppose it. You, on the other hand, appear to support keeping statues attempting to honor actual racists up.
Join the right side of morality, Craig.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Craig... Jones is a freaking talk show host, get real.
Jones is part of the Trump-world conspiracy theory/false claim/attacks on the actual free press and journalism threat to our nation's well-being.
Jones promoted Pizzagate theories that almost resulted in people getting killed.
Jones attacked school children and their families with his idiotic Sandy Hook conspiracy theories.
Jones and Trump both attack actual journalists with a deadly enthusiasm.
Jones and Trump and that sort of false claim/conspiracy theory/junk-fake "news" are a deadly threat to a free republic.
That you don't appear to understand how deadly serious these false attacks on the press and on experts and on science is part of the problem. Of the MANY ways that Trump is a threat coming from the White House in a way unique in our history, his attacks on facts, Truth and the press are perhaps the most serious.
Understand that for what it is.
YES, God damn Trump and Jones and their ilk! YES, we MUST stand opposed to such reckless and relentless assaults on facts and Truth.
And shame on those who remain silent in the face of such blatant evil.
I've been trying to find quotes from Byrd regarding his alleged conversion. What I've found so far is advice that those thinking of politics should avoid the Klan because associating with them will hurt their political careers. That's not a change of heart so much as a regret for the trouble being a Klansman was for his political career. Thus, for him to have supported civil rights for blacks, homosexuals, etc., was quite possibly for show...not because he truly repented. It's pretty SOP for Dems to flip-flop when it serves them to do so. We've seen an example or two since Trump took the oath. Talk about con men!!
Sure there is. It's more about what you'll tolerate from your side than anything else.
"This is another bullshit blindingly stupid false charge."
It's not a charge, it's an opinion. An opinion based on your silence and lack of specificity whenever anyone on your side does anything you bash the GOP for. You'll note the words "most likely".
I'll note that the Epstein thing HAS already touched Clinton much more directly than it's touched Trump, yet you still pretend that it's "if".
"On the other hand, Trump conservatives appear prepared to defend him no matter what."
Speaking of "stupidly false". In the absence of actual proof, I see no point in playing your game. Of course there are some people who won't call those things out, but the majority of conservatives are critical of him for virtually all of those things.
"You can't say the same about me or my type of progressives."
I can and have. I've pointed out specific instances where you've turned a blind eye and your usual response is vague, generalized, platitudes.
"So go to hell with the bullshit claim that I or my people would "remain silent" on sexual assault/oppression."
I guess pointing out that this is a false claim, would be a waste of time. Since I never made a claim, there could not possibly be a "false claim". You, on the other hand did make a false claim.
"That is a demonically false claim."
You can solve this right now, prove me wrong and win, if you can do one simple thing. Provide the quote and link to any contemporaneous (or later) example of you specifically condemning the specific allegations against Bill Clinton. I could probably go back and find your bland excusing of Franken's actual sexual assault, if necessary. You could provide quotes and links specifically condemning Keith Ellison for his sexual assault. If the claim (which isn't a claim) is false then these should be easy.
"Take it to hell with you and Trump and his enablers."
Again, I'm glad that you don't get to decide who goes to hell and who doesn't.
"IF they were going to raise a statue for Byrd, I'd oppose it."
So you claim.
"You, on the other hand, appear to support keeping statues attempting to honor actual racists up."
Really? Please provide the quote and link to prove this claim, or retract and apologize.
"Join the right side of morality, Craig."
If morality isn't objective and immutable, how can you possibly assert that there is a "right" side of something that's subjective? How can you objectively assert that I'm not on the "right side", or that you are on the "right side" of a subjective line?
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Since you have no idea what I'm doing, and that there's no evidence of you doing anything but bitching on social media, this quote is simply idiotic.
"Another stupidly false claim."
Really? You haven't thrown out the "90% of blacks..." multiple times on multiple issues? You also missed the "words to that effect" part of my comment. That indicates that I'm not specifically quoting you.
"YES, God damn Trump and Jones and their ilk! YES, we MUST stand opposed to such reckless and relentless assaults on facts and Truth."
A couple of threads ago, you posted a link to a CNN piece that contained blatantly false information, I pointed this out to you, and you didn't bother (as far as I could tell) to acknowledge the fake news.
As long as you continue with this charade that this is a one sided issue, you have absolutely zero credibility and just come off as a blindly partisan hack.
There are plenty of conservatives that are critical of Trump and others for these sorts of things, the fact that you aren't aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Again, I'm grateful that you have absolutely zero input into who God chooses to damn. (Of course the fact that you virtually deny the notion that hell exists or that God's damns anyone also undercut your outrage.)
The degree you'll go to, the mounds of bullshit you'll pile, and the straw men you'll incinerate in order to avoid questions from around a week ago, is impressive.
I tried to approve comments from both of you that aren't showing up on the post. I honestly don't know if I hit the wrong icon and deleted them, or if it was a problem with Blogger.
If I accidentally did it, as always, I apologize. I realize that commenting takes time and effort and how frustrating it can be to have those comments not show up because of an error on the part of someone else. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with moderating comments and this occasionally will happen.
While I'll post whatever comment you make, I'm going to suggest that if you plan to dispute anything without the evidence of quotes and links that you will be wasting your time. You can't seriously expect to be allowed to make false claims without being expected to provide proof.
Further, if you're going to try to argue that my statements of opinion are somehow statements of fact, you're probably also wasting your time since the wording of the statements themselves indicate that they aren't claims of fact.
Craig stupidly and falsely said... Dan insists that "90% of blacks" want to "defund the police". Or words to that effect.
Another stupidly false claim. I didn't say that.
Craig responds by saying, You haven't thrown out the "90% of blacks..." multiple times on multiple issues? You also missed the "words to that effect" part of my comment.
Yes, when I've talked about polls that had 90% results, I used that number, "90%." But I did NOT say that 90% of black people want to defund the police. Not in ANY words, even to that affect.
If you are wanting to argue that I used the number, 90%, at some point, then you could say that. But instead, you referred to something that I have not said, in ANY words, "to that effect" or not.
Do you understand that this is a stupidly false claim?
We see what you're doing. Admit the false claim, the mistake, the factual error.
Or don't. What's the point? You appear to be either delusional/detached from reality or deliberately trying to demonize and divide. If it's the former, get help. If it's the latter, get help.
The reality is that you throw out the 90% of blacks “stat”, whenever you think it’s beneficial for you. But please focus on this if you think it diverts from the questions unanswered from last week and everything.
If you invested this much effort in demonstrating that the “quotes” you frequently attribute to me or that I actually said your “you said” statements it’d demonstrate how full of bullshit your “quotes” are.
Links and quotes, two things you just won’t provide.
Craig... "reality is that you throw out the 90% of blacks “stat”, whenever you think it’s beneficial for you...."
Once again and for the final time, this is stupidly false. The only time I cite 90% of anything is when I'm in a conversation and the topic turns to numbers and the number happens to be 90%.
If we're talking about the percentage of white evangelicals who support Trump and that number is not 90%, I don't cite it. If we're talking about the numbers of black people who support Trump and the number is not 90%, I don't cite it. If we're talking about the percentage of black people who think Trump is racist and that number is 90%, in that case and in that case alone I would site 90%. Because that's what the data is.
It has zero to do with being beneficial to me. Of course. If it's a conversation about data and if the data says 90%, then I will say 90%. If the data says 20% Then I will say 20%. Because that's how adults have conversations about data.
Nothing, I read what you write and I take you at your word. When you throw out the 90% number or the much more vague “vast majority “, it’s not unreasonable to accept your argument from authority, as you seem to intend. It’s also not unreasonable to use hyperbole, sarcasm, and a bit of mockery to puncture your balloon of self righteousness.
But you keep worrying this bit of minutiae as long as it keeps you away from answering the questions you’ve been dodging since last week.
Dan asks what's wrong with you, as if you're the one relying on vagueness and opinion to make your case. When he speaks of majority opinion, his latest whining spoke of how many black people believe XYZ, as if XYZ has any meaning or truth to it, instead of the false beliefs too many in the black community have come to believe is true.
Then he goes on about con men in speaking of Trump and Alex Jones. I'm not a Jones guy, and from the time I first was encouraged to check him out, I found him wanting, to say the least. But that doesn't mean he's wrong all the time, or that all he does is wallow in conspiracy. Not so long ago, Steven Crowder had him on his show (Crowder is not necessarily a fan, but there was a particular issue unrelated to Jones' ideology regarding being shut out by social media that was the point) and they touched on a few things, one of which was the mainstream media. Dan likes to believe that there's no justification for criticizing the media. He likes to believe that Trump's attacks on the media are more harmful to the republic than a media that so often fails in its purpose. I've listed a host of examples that justify calling the leftist driven media the enemy of the people. Since that time, things have not improve with regard the usual suspects. The coverage of the Floyd case, the Brooks case and the subsequent attack on America by Antifa and BLM activists and rioters (who are "mostly peaceful") is the most obvious example.
Dan spends far more time demonizing (Trump, the right-wing, us) than he does providing any proof, evidence or "hard data" to back up what he says. He neither proves his position is true, nor does he proves ours isn't. He just whines and attacks in that special "grace embracing" way that typifies his fake Christianity. He's as false as he tries to contend Trump is, if not more so...and cowardly, too.
43 comments:
Again, this is a stupidly false piece of excrement. The sort of Twisted and demented and diabolical lie that comes from Prince of Lies, if you believe in that sort of thing.
Stop demonizing people. Start reading for comprehension. Not for attacks. Shane on you you lying piece of s***.
Byrd was a bad man who adhered to some awful conservative values, including racism, who then turned his life around and became a better man. Shame on cowardly shit-for-brains slanderers who ignore the racists in their midst and attack those who've progressed to more redeeming places.
Shame on you.
Byrd was a Democrat his entire life. It’s not my fault other Democrats revered him so. I’m sorry that Democrat presidential candidates have a tendency to revere other Democrats who are racists.
I guess this means you’ll never answer the questions you’ve been dodging for almost a week.
Racism has never been, isn't now and never will be a conservative value. Talk about slander! Talk about a twisted, demented and diabolical lie...that even the Prince of Lies isn't stupid enough to believe anyone would believe! Racism, division and identity politics has always been, is now and likely always will be the way of the the Democrat/leftist/"progressive"/socialist (same things).
That’s a claim Dan should probably prove.
Facts:
Racists have been closely associated with conservatives and conservative values my entire life.
They typically self-identify as conservative.
They are typically hostile towards liberal values.
They say, themselves, they are energized and emboldened by Trump's type of conservatism.
You aren't aware of these facts?
Ok, that settles it. Dan’s anecdotal experiences trump everything. Data, schmata, we have Dan’s anecdotes. It makes total sense to evaluate every racist throughout thousands of years of history, based on what Dan’s experienced in the last 50 years.
I’m not aware those are facts by any definition of facts, nor does any of those claims demonstrate objective proof of the original claim, let alone the last bunch.
But it is a great way to move on from the unanswered questions from recent threads, more smoke screen.
Racist, white nationalist, KKK, they do self-identify as conservatives. Do you not recognize that reality?
Do you have any proof to show that it's mistaken?
Because I can show you that they self-identify as conservatives, because it's obvious. They hate liberals. They are diametrically opposed to Liberal ideals. Do you recognize that reality?
I am just acting asking simple questions about reality. Do you recognize reality or do you not?
I've looked before, and I just looked again today. I find zero links or information about liberal racist groups. 0. If you have data that suggest that there are liberal groups out there dedicated to White nationalism or racist ideology, provide them. But you can't. Instead you'll accuse a man who reformed himself away from the worst of his racism a being a problem, all the while ignoring the white nationalist and racist within and around the Trump conservative movement. Shame on you both.
One day, you will repent. I hope you choose to do that sooner rather than later.
Ok, because you looked, and because you say that you found some people who “self identify”, then clearly “racism” is a “conservative value”. Clearly you’ve provided exhaustive, objective, proof. Why would anyone doubt you and your exhaustively documented, all encompassing, infallible research
Still can’t answer questions from last week, but you can make authoritative pronouncements about your political enemies.
We all know that LBJ was a conservative.
Thank you, for setting the precedent that objective reality is proven by finding someone who “self identifies”. From now on, I will apply this new standard you’ve used, it’ll be fun to watch you move the goalposts.
What about this are you failing to understand?
They identify as conservative, meaning, that they oppose abortion-rights, they are opposed to gay rights, they support Republican presidents, (except for maybe the ones that are too liberal for their tastes). They support small government. Tenet after tenet, value after value, they align with conservative values.
What does it take to make one conservative?
They are clearly obviously factually in the real world, conservatives. Now, we can argue whether or not conservative means racist. I'm not making that argument but you can argue that if you want.
Nonetheless, modern conservatives over the last 50 years have by and large been conservatives, that is, white men who hold conservative values. Just as a factual point in real world.
Do you recognize that reality? If you don't recognize it, do you have any data to disprove it? Do you really think that all these people who claim to be conservative actually DO support abortions and do support gay folk getting married and do support smaller military?
BS.
You have to have some data to make claims like that. You can't just make s*** up. Not if you want to discuss things like a rational adult who is connected to reality. Are you connected to reality? Answer some questions.
Okay, along with the many mistakes and cost claims and idiotic s*** y'all are saying, I do see one mistake I made. I said....
"Byrd was a bad man who adhered to some awful conservative values, including racism, who then turned his life around ..."
That was a mistake on my part in my dictation. And failing to check what came out. I didn't mean that racism is a conservative value, and it probably sounds like that to you. I was saying, instead, that racist have long identified, at least within my lifetime, with conservative values. And racism was in the mix of their conservative values. That's what I meant to say. My apologies for mistaking it.
Nonetheless, the rest remains factual. Do you recognize the reality of the rest?
That is, do you recognize that the alt right, KKK, white nationalist, and other overt racists self-identify as conservative because they hold to actual conservative values in the real world? They are literally conservatives who are racist, as well. Do you recognize that reality?
By the way, LBJ was a moderate Progressive person who was also very racist. Well done. If you go back 50 years, you can find one. Can you find any modern liberals who are overtly racist like all these very many conservatives today who are also white nationalist?
LBJ, was an easy target. As a liberal racist.
If 50 years is a problem, why is 150 not a problem.
Your mistake is now our problem, nice job.
You do realize that someone “self identifying” as something isn’t actually objective proof of anything.
Farrakhan is a more recent liberal racist, Hillary made plenty of racist comments. I posted a list of at least 20 people who’ve engaged in actions deemed racist, none of whom are remotely conservative.
Craig... You do realize that someone “self identifying” as something isn’t actually objective proof of anything.
Of course it is. If a person says that they are a bird watcher and they are in a bird watching club and they do, in fact, spend some times on weekends regularly looking at birds, then OF COURSE it is reasonable to accept that they are a bird watcher as an objective fact.
The claim itself is not what makes them conservative, it's their ACTUAL BELIEFS. You DO understand that, don't you?
If a person consistently is opposed to liberal candidates, supportive of conservative candidates (the more conservative the better), and supports ideals like smaller gov't, bigger military/stronger defense, harsh treatment of crime and traditional values while opposing pacifism/weaker military and opposing gay folk marrying and opposing abortion, and they tell you that they are a conservative because of those things AND they are racist, THEN they are racist conservatives and we have no reason to believe otehrwise.
Do you recognize that reality?
To answer your post's stupidly obvious question: "Is anyone who says this sort of thing about someone who was a member of the KKK really POTUS material?"
Yes. Yes. YES! Of course. IF that KKK member has repented of his past and changed his behavior significantly, moving from being an oppressor of black people to being an ally of black people. OF COURSE, there is nothing wrong with honoring such a person. Do you think there is a problem with that?
Good God, I hope not. What sort of graceless evil would that be?
Now, following YOUR lead of asking about a POTUS candidate's support for racists and other evil people, how about the man who appears on the show of a dangerous rightwing conspiracy theorist and appears to have a great relationship with him and even calls him to thank him (the POTUS thanking the conspiracy nut) for his work? Should such a person be supported in his run for office? What about the POTUS candidate who laughs about sexually assaulting and harassing women and getting away with it because of his wealth and power... should THAT sort of deviant be supported for even one second in a run for office?
What about the man who has cheated charities and college students and employees out of money and used his position to get away with it all, should THAT man be considered for a second as POTUS?
If that man was Obama, conservatives would go nuts in their hatred for him, but they give a pass to Trump. Where are the conservatives calling out the Trump conservatives?
That man has ruined conservatism for at least a generation. He is going to be hung out to dry in a landslide this fall and he'll probably take down the GOP senate with him, as well, if there's any justice and reason in the world.
I just in the debacle of the failed Trump disaster, conservatives learn the right lessons.
Great. From now on I’ll expect to to uncritically accept “self identification” as objective proof in all cases.
So, gotcha it’s ok to support racists as long as you’re not Trump.
I’d ask for specific instances where a Trump has said anything comparable.
But thank you for confirming that you’ll support a candidate that was mentored by a racist.
Dan,
You realize that in the current culture where absolutely nothing that even hints of racism (per the 2020 liberal definition), no matter how long ago, no matter the culture at the time, goes unpunished that you look like an idiot for making excuses for racism.
We see you protecting the racists while attacking the reformed.
We see your blatant attacks that only a moron could take seriously.
We see your gaslighting attempts that only serve to support oppressive racists.
Shame on you.
One day, you will recognize the harm you've supported and defended and the harmful attacks you've engaged on and you will be sorry. Hopefully, you'll recognize and acknowledge your foolish mistakes earlier rather than later. Hopefully, you'll be part of the group that tries to redeem the modern GOP from the cesspool of gross immorality and degenerate irrationality.
Repent.
Trump on the degenerate liar and con man, Alex Jones:
"Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down," Trump told Alex Jones during a Wednesday afternoon appearance on the Infowars.com proprietor's show.
Unlike Byrd, who redeemed himself, Jones is still quite perverted in his attacks. Trump has never distanced himself from him.
The pervert, Trump, on the pervert, Epstein:
“Terrific guy,” said Trump. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
Deviant sexual predators, birds of a feather.
Your party's candidate is a degenerate with no apparent sense of morality.
Dan proves he knows nothing of conservatism or of Christian honesty. If racist "self-identify" with conservatives and/or Republicans, a self-identifying "progressive Christian", one would hope, would have the honesty to tell the racist that hating/opposing black people is what conservatism is all about. Nor is it what being American is all about. Conservatives don't hate/oppose immigrants. Conservatives oppose illegal immigration, as it's a crime. Conservatives don't hate/oppose homosexusls. Conservatives oppose sexually immoral behavior such as homosexuality and oppose efforts to normalize it through laws and court decisions forcing us treat them as if their behavior and agenda is normal and moral...which it isn't.
It's one thing to fail to disavow the racist, and quite another to pretend that the promotion of American ideals is intended to recruit racists. The former is an oversize which for most is no more than such, while the latter is a conscious, purposeful lie common to the leftist.
Conservatives/Republicans don't play the identity politics game, treating all...even the less than perfect...as Americans. Holding fast to truth, values and ideals will neccesarily compel those who won't to segregate themselves from us. That's not being divisive like the left and racists do.
Craig... "You realize that in the current culture where absolutely nothing that even hints of racism (per the 2020 liberal definition), no matter how long ago, no matter the culture at the time, goes unpunished"
You realize that in the current culture of conservatism, where they don't understand motives and reasoning of those fighting actual racism and prefer, instead, to mock a caricature of it, that your analysis isn't worth much?
There certainly IS an element, to be sure, of actual cancel culture that is troubling, by and large, most people can easily differentiate between a man like Byrd who DID embrace bad ideals and eventually repented and was redeemed and a man like Trump who daily embraces corruption and vulgar dishonesty with amoral abandon and yet is still embraced by his followers, supposedly older white "evangelical christians..."
Are you finding some people in the real world who are actually criticizing Byrd and Biden for acknowledging Byrd's leadership? Or is this just another brainless attempt at an inept and dishonest smear?
https://www.byrdcenter.org/statement-on-systemic-racism.html
"We see you protecting the racists while attacking the reformed."
No, you don't. If you did you'd be able to provide quotes and links to demonstrate that I support "racists", as well as quotes and links proving the "racism" of those you claim I support. Also, I'm not "attacking the reformed", I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of you and others who pile "racism" on your political enemies while ignoring it in those your support. The fact that Farrakhan is still a person who's imprimatur is greedily sought by virtually every DFL candidate running for national office tells us how much you really care about "racism". The fact that you fail to apply the same standards for your own, that you do for others is the target.
You forget that you've got folks of your side of things tearing down statues of people for what they did hundreds of years ago. If you're going to apply that kind of retroactive scrutiny to others, you need to apply it to your own.
"We see your blatant attacks that only a moron could take seriously."
Again, more bullshit claims, with absolutely no proof.
"We see your gaslighting attempts that only serve to support oppressive racists."
Again, bullshit with no proof.
"Repent."
You first.
"Unlike Byrd, who redeemed himself, Jones is still quite perverted in his attacks. Trump has never distanced himself from him."
Jones is a freaking talk show host, get real.
Again, the point isn't to bask Biden, it's to point out the hypocrisy on your side.
As far as Epstein goes, I think that you'll probably want to look at the folks on your side of the aisle who spent time with him.
Here's the difference, I've been on record for years criticizing Trump for his moral failings, I've been consistent in my continued criticism of his moral failings, I didn't vote for Trump and haven't supported Trump. If I vote for him, it isn't because I support him, it's because you've chosen assholery over any other possible option. Therefore if the Epstein thing touches Trump, it'll just be one more conformation of his moral failures and confirmation of my initial response to him.
When the Epstein thing touches folks on your side (as you did with Weinstein), you'll most likely remain silent and continue your blindly partisan stance.
Here's one more question for you to avoid answering.
Would you ever vote for someone who supported, endorsed, or accepted awards from or endorsements from any person or organization founded on "racist" principles?
If you did you'd be able to provide quotes and links to demonstrate that I support "racists", as well as quotes and links proving the "racism" of those you claim I support.
A quote where you do this:
Is anyone who says this sort of thing about someone who was a member of the KKK really POTUS material?
When you twist history and facts to demonize and attack people on a partisan basis and undermine actual concerns about racism, you are gas lighting and therein giving support to actual racists who argue much in the same manner that you do.
When you quote only the minority of blacks who happen to agree with you and ignore the vast majority of black people who disagree with you, you undermine the concerns of black people and therein give support to actual racists who do this very same thing.
When you are regularly silent on Trump's dogwhistles and racism, you give comfort to actual racists and promote/enable/strengthen the white supremacists/racists out there.
How many instances do you need?
You see, part of your problem is that you are apparently thinking the ONLY way to protect racists (what I charged you with) is by actively speaking words in defense of racists. Being silent, too, protects racists.
If you can set aside your partisan blindness, you can almost certainly agree with this.
How many of Trump's racist attacks have you denounced on this blog?
On the other hand, here you have making a vague attack on Biden in a wimpy, gas lighting sort of way, and have done similar posts, I'm sure. When you treat racists as only mildly problematic and are silent in the face of an overtly racism-promoting president, you lend support to racists. Trump's many xenophobic comments should be a deal-breaker. Period. End of sentence. It should lead good conservatives to speak actively and often out against the majority of Trump-defending or Trump-abiding conservatives.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people] to do nothing.”
Don't do nothing, Craig. Repent. Change your ways.
Art,
If Dan wants to set the standards of proof as "self identified" and "opinion polls", I say let him. It simply puts him in a position to ignore or come up with excuses when his two sources of proof disagree with him.
Dan insists that "90% of blacks" want to "defund the police". Or words to that effect.
Yet, "However, when it comes to policing and crime, black attitudes elude simple explanations. In polling, black people often express disgust at police racism yet support more funding for police. A 2015 Gallup poll found that black adults who believed police treated black people unfairly were also more likely to desire a larger police presence in their local area than those who thought police treated black people fairly. A 2019 Vox poll found that despite being the racial group with the most unfavorable view of the police, most black people still supported hiring more police officers. And more recently, a June 2020 Yahoo News/YouGov survey taken after the killing of George Floyd found that 50 percent of black respondents still said that “we need more cops on the street,” even as 49 percent of black respondents said when they personally see a police officer it makes them feel “less secure.” "
So, I say let him establish "self identifying and opinion polls" as the standard of proof.
the point isn't to bask Biden, it's to point out the hypocrisy on your side.
There IS no hypocrisy. If Trump had repented of his racist and misogynist attacks on women and minorities over the years and demonstrated that change with action, I'd gladly praise him, as well. There is no hypocrisy. This is just a stupidly false empty charge with nothing to support it.
When the Epstein thing touches folks on your side (as you did with Weinstein), you'll most likely remain silent and continue your blindly partisan stance.
This is another bullshit blindingly stupid false charge. The difference between people like me and people like you is that, IF there is ANY evidence that Clinton engaged in bad behavior with Epstein, I'll say, "String that MF up!" IF Clinton had laughed about assaulting women, I'd say string him up and certainly don't elect him. Hell, I didn't vote for him TWICE because of the very meager evidence against him, that was sufficient.
On the other hand, Trump conservatives appear prepared to defend him no matter what.
It doesn't MATTER to Trump conservatives that he was caught boasting about sexually assaulting women and laughing about i.
It doesn't MATTER to conservatives that he has repeatedly engaged in racist dogwhistles and attacks.
It doesn't MATTER to conservatives that he attacks the free press with an insane abandon.
On and on and on, Trump conservatives have given him a pass on things that ought not be ignored.
You can't say the same about me or my type of progressives.
So go to hell with the bullshit claim that I or my people would "remain silent" on sexual assault/oppression. That is a demonically false claim. Take it to hell with you and Trump and his enablers.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Or, to defend the racists and corrupt by making Trump-like stupidly false claims.
Shame on you.
More stupidly false claims and straw man defense of racists...
You forget that you've got folks of your side of things tearing down statues of people for what they did hundreds of years ago. If you're going to apply that kind of retroactive scrutiny to others, you need to apply it to your own.
IF they were going to raise a statue for Byrd, I'd oppose it. You, on the other hand, appear to support keeping statues attempting to honor actual racists up.
Join the right side of morality, Craig.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Dan insists that "90% of blacks" want to "defund the police". Or words to that effect.
Another stupidly false claim.
Craig... Jones is a freaking talk show host, get real.
Jones is part of the Trump-world conspiracy theory/false claim/attacks on the actual free press and journalism threat to our nation's well-being.
Jones promoted Pizzagate theories that almost resulted in people getting killed.
Jones attacked school children and their families with his idiotic Sandy Hook conspiracy theories.
Jones and Trump both attack actual journalists with a deadly enthusiasm.
Jones and Trump and that sort of false claim/conspiracy theory/junk-fake "news" are a deadly threat to a free republic.
That you don't appear to understand how deadly serious these false attacks on the press and on experts and on science is part of the problem. Of the MANY ways that Trump is a threat coming from the White House in a way unique in our history, his attacks on facts, Truth and the press are perhaps the most serious.
Understand that for what it is.
YES, God damn Trump and Jones and their ilk! YES, we MUST stand opposed to such reckless and relentless assaults on facts and Truth.
And shame on those who remain silent in the face of such blatant evil.
Art,
For example the founders of BLM as self identified "Marxists"...
I've been trying to find quotes from Byrd regarding his alleged conversion. What I've found so far is advice that those thinking of politics should avoid the Klan because associating with them will hurt their political careers. That's not a change of heart so much as a regret for the trouble being a Klansman was for his political career. Thus, for him to have supported civil rights for blacks, homosexuals, etc., was quite possibly for show...not because he truly repented. It's pretty SOP for Dems to flip-flop when it serves them to do so. We've seen an example or two since Trump took the oath. Talk about con men!!
"There IS no hypocrisy."
Sure there is. It's more about what you'll tolerate from your side than anything else.
"This is another bullshit blindingly stupid false charge."
It's not a charge, it's an opinion. An opinion based on your silence and lack of specificity whenever anyone on your side does anything you bash the GOP for. You'll note the words "most likely".
I'll note that the Epstein thing HAS already touched Clinton much more directly than it's touched Trump, yet you still pretend that it's "if".
"On the other hand, Trump conservatives appear prepared to defend him no matter what."
Speaking of "stupidly false". In the absence of actual proof, I see no point in playing your game. Of course there are some people who won't call those things out, but the majority of conservatives are critical of him for virtually all of those things.
"You can't say the same about me or my type of progressives."
I can and have. I've pointed out specific instances where you've turned a blind eye and your usual response is vague, generalized, platitudes.
"So go to hell with the bullshit claim that I or my people would "remain silent" on sexual assault/oppression."
I guess pointing out that this is a false claim, would be a waste of time. Since I never made a claim, there could not possibly be a "false claim". You, on the other hand did make a false claim.
"That is a demonically false claim."
You can solve this right now, prove me wrong and win, if you can do one simple thing. Provide the quote and link to any contemporaneous (or later) example of you specifically condemning the specific allegations against Bill Clinton. I could probably go back and find your bland excusing of Franken's actual sexual assault, if necessary. You could provide quotes and links specifically condemning Keith Ellison for his sexual assault. If the claim (which isn't a claim) is false then these should be easy.
"Take it to hell with you and Trump and his enablers."
Again, I'm glad that you don't get to decide who goes to hell and who doesn't.
"IF they were going to raise a statue for Byrd, I'd oppose it."
So you claim.
"You, on the other hand, appear to support keeping statues attempting to honor actual racists up."
Really? Please provide the quote and link to prove this claim, or retract and apologize.
"Join the right side of morality, Craig."
If morality isn't objective and immutable, how can you possibly assert that there is a "right" side of something that's subjective? How can you objectively assert that I'm not on the "right side", or that you are on the "right side" of a subjective line?
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Since you have no idea what I'm doing, and that there's no evidence of you doing anything but bitching on social media, this quote is simply idiotic.
"Another stupidly false claim."
Really? You haven't thrown out the "90% of blacks..." multiple times on multiple issues? You also missed the "words to that effect" part of my comment. That indicates that I'm not specifically quoting you.
"YES, God damn Trump and Jones and their ilk! YES, we MUST stand opposed to such reckless and relentless assaults on facts and Truth."
A couple of threads ago, you posted a link to a CNN piece that contained blatantly false information, I pointed this out to you, and you didn't bother (as far as I could tell) to acknowledge the fake news.
As long as you continue with this charade that this is a one sided issue, you have absolutely zero credibility and just come off as a blindly partisan hack.
There are plenty of conservatives that are critical of Trump and others for these sorts of things, the fact that you aren't aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Again, I'm grateful that you have absolutely zero input into who God chooses to damn. (Of course the fact that you virtually deny the notion that hell exists or that God's damns anyone also undercut your outrage.)
The degree you'll go to, the mounds of bullshit you'll pile, and the straw men you'll incinerate in order to avoid questions from around a week ago, is impressive.
Art, and Dan,
I tried to approve comments from both of you that aren't showing up on the post. I honestly don't know if I hit the wrong icon and deleted them, or if it was a problem with Blogger.
If I accidentally did it, as always, I apologize. I realize that commenting takes time and effort and how frustrating it can be to have those comments not show up because of an error on the part of someone else. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with moderating comments and this occasionally will happen.
As always, please re comment and I'll post them.
Dan,
While I'll post whatever comment you make, I'm going to suggest that if you plan to dispute anything without the evidence of quotes and links that you will be wasting your time. You can't seriously expect to be allowed to make false claims without being expected to provide proof.
Further, if you're going to try to argue that my statements of opinion are somehow statements of fact, you're probably also wasting your time since the wording of the statements themselves indicate that they aren't claims of fact.
Craig stupidly and falsely said... Dan insists that "90% of blacks" want to "defund the police". Or words to that effect.
Another stupidly false claim. I didn't say that.
Craig responds by saying, You haven't thrown out the "90% of blacks..." multiple times on multiple issues? You also missed the "words to that effect" part of my comment.
Yes, when I've talked about polls that had 90% results, I used that number, "90%." But I did NOT say that 90% of black people want to defund the police. Not in ANY words, even to that affect.
If you are wanting to argue that I used the number, 90%, at some point, then you could say that. But instead, you referred to something that I have not said, in ANY words, "to that effect" or not.
Do you understand that this is a stupidly false claim?
We see what you're doing. Admit the false claim, the mistake, the factual error.
Or don't. What's the point? You appear to be either delusional/detached from reality or deliberately trying to demonize and divide. If it's the former, get help. If it's the latter, get help.
No, it’s an opinion, expressed with hyperbole.
The reality is that you throw out the 90% of blacks “stat”, whenever you think it’s beneficial for you. But please focus on this if you think it diverts from the questions unanswered from last week and everything.
If you invested this much effort in demonstrating that the “quotes” you frequently attribute to me or that I actually said your “you said” statements it’d demonstrate how full of bullshit your “quotes” are.
Links and quotes, two things you just won’t provide.
Craig... "reality is that you throw out the 90% of blacks “stat”, whenever you think it’s beneficial for you...."
Once again and for the final time, this is stupidly false. The only time I cite 90% of anything is when I'm in a conversation and the topic turns to numbers and the number happens to be 90%.
If we're talking about the percentage of white evangelicals who support Trump and that number is not 90%, I don't cite it. If we're talking about the numbers of black people who support Trump and the number is not 90%, I don't cite it. If we're talking about the percentage of black people who think Trump is racist and that number is 90%, in that case and in that case alone I would site 90%. Because that's what the data is.
It has zero to do with being beneficial to me. Of course. If it's a conversation about data and if the data says 90%, then I will say 90%. If the data says 20% Then I will say 20%. Because that's how adults have conversations about data.
What is wrong with you?
Nothing, I read what you write and I take you at your word. When you throw out the 90% number or the much more vague “vast majority “, it’s not unreasonable to accept your argument from authority, as you seem to intend. It’s also not unreasonable to use hyperbole, sarcasm, and a bit of mockery to puncture your balloon of self righteousness.
But you keep worrying this bit of minutiae as long as it keeps you away from answering the questions you’ve been dodging since last week.
Dan asks what's wrong with you, as if you're the one relying on vagueness and opinion to make your case. When he speaks of majority opinion, his latest whining spoke of how many black people believe XYZ, as if XYZ has any meaning or truth to it, instead of the false beliefs too many in the black community have come to believe is true.
Then he goes on about con men in speaking of Trump and Alex Jones. I'm not a Jones guy, and from the time I first was encouraged to check him out, I found him wanting, to say the least. But that doesn't mean he's wrong all the time, or that all he does is wallow in conspiracy. Not so long ago, Steven Crowder had him on his show (Crowder is not necessarily a fan, but there was a particular issue unrelated to Jones' ideology regarding being shut out by social media that was the point) and they touched on a few things, one of which was the mainstream media. Dan likes to believe that there's no justification for criticizing the media. He likes to believe that Trump's attacks on the media are more harmful to the republic than a media that so often fails in its purpose. I've listed a host of examples that justify calling the leftist driven media the enemy of the people. Since that time, things have not improve with regard the usual suspects. The coverage of the Floyd case, the Brooks case and the subsequent attack on America by Antifa and BLM activists and rioters (who are "mostly peaceful") is the most obvious example.
Dan spends far more time demonizing (Trump, the right-wing, us) than he does providing any proof, evidence or "hard data" to back up what he says. He neither proves his position is true, nor does he proves ours isn't. He just whines and attacks in that special "grace embracing" way that typifies his fake Christianity. He's as false as he tries to contend Trump is, if not more so...and cowardly, too.
Post a Comment