I wonder what Her's position is on the Shiloh Hendrix situation. If she approves of the ruling against Hendrix, then she should know how fatal/destructive/weapon-like words can be and should be removed from office immediately for "words".
It'd be easier to take you all seriously if you didn't remain silent and still vote for a known sexual predator. Just don't. You've lost this fight. Those of us who are consistently opposed to any kind of sexual misconduct and abuse, will take up this fight if there's something to be taken up. But y'all have no moral credibility. Just move on.
That's what happens when you sacrifice any sense of morality for perceived partisan gain.
This whole faux moral high ground game you play is hilarious. Coming from someone who’s dimpling for Islam, communism, the DFL/DSA and who’s remained silent about 250,000 rapes of innocent girls, women, and boys, it’s even more hilarious.
That you won’t even condemn people on your side specifically for actions that you attack your political enemies for, tells us all we need to know about your subjective morality.
You see the difference between being morally consistent like me and not morally consistent like y'all is that one doesn't need to ask if Dan is opposed to sexual predators because the answer is always no... One doesn't need to ask if Dan is opposed to corrupt politicians because the answer is always no... Is Dan opposed to military groups killing or causing harm to innocent people or targeting areas where you can expect that innocence, men, women, and children will be harmed because the answer is always no.
You all, on the other hand, consistently have voted for and supported and defended a known sexual predator who is also known to be a hedonist, a narcissist, and a corrupt businessman. You're only opposed to it when it's someone on the other side. If you are opposed to it, it's not sufficient to cause you not to vote for the guy. It is for me and that's the difference between you and me.
No one comments on all the individual instances of harm that are done because no one can. It's an impossible task. But just because Dan has not commented on whatever 250,000 girls who've been raped, doesn't mean anything except that Dan is a finite person. You have not commented on all the women and girls who've been raped, the children who've been abused and killed, the innocent fishermen executed extrajudicially. The difference is you make excuses for it when it's your killers and rapists whereas people like me are consistently opposed to it.
As to any "dimpling"- I don't know what you mean by that. I merely note that Muslims are not one blok, that Communists are not one blok. There are good Muslims and bad Muslims, good Christians and bad Christians, good capitalists and bad capitalists. There is no shame in admitting simple reality. The question is, are you willing and ready to admit that same reality? You all are living in a hedonistic and corrupt made-up fantasy world where you want to pretend to be morally grounded and yet you vote for a known corrupt sexual predator who is actively enriching himself while killing others. Who is actively abusing our justice system and has for most of his life to enrich himself and prey on others. Be better.
You factually have no moral high ground. You've wallowed with the pigs. Now you have to lay in that shit.
The problem you have is that you may be morally consistent in your mind, but that moral consistency doesn’t get expressed when the offenses are from those on your side.
It’s easy to simp for candidates who don’t meet your high, subjective, moral standards because you’ll never have to vote for them.
It’s also easy to blow things out of proportion while minimizing the failures of your candidates.?
But you keep pretending that Islam, as a worldview, doesn’t have goals and plans, that aren’t consistent with your Pollyanna rose colored myopic view based on a few outliers.
It's worse than that. Dan continues to pretend that Trump is somehow a "known sexual predator" for no other reason than it suits him to so accuse him of such. There is no evidence that he's ever attacked any woman, that he's ever taken any advantage of any woman who didn't first give him consent to indulge in sexual relations. To Dan, that he pursued women and succeeded in acquiring their consent to indulge in sexual relations means HE alone is guilty of predation, while the woman in question is totally innocent of seeking to use her body to sway him into sharing his immense wealth and status with her. No. To Dan, Trump looking to get laid is a predatory act rather than a willing exchange between parties.
And how does the scumbag pervert Dan Trabue back this up? By insisting that the way too many accusations against Trump by women are "credible" simply because they are laid against him, and for no other reason. They accuse, therefore their accusations are credible, and Dan pretends his "morality" is consistent. Well...it is, but not in a good way. Not in a Christian way. In a partisan way. The gain he accuses us of seeking by our support for a president who has shown himself to be far more competent than any Dan has supported. He wants us to believe that competence is secondary to his twisted notion of moral character...this POS who defends pro-abortion law and the abomination of homosexuality as if it's not "sexual misconduct". Never mind what God has said about it. DAN SAYS it's just peachy and NOT "sexual misconduct". What a rank pervert Dan is! And he dares to condescend!
This is what happens when you sacrifice the Truth of God for personal gain. When one looks up the definition of "reprobate" one sees a picture of Dan's dumb face in a posture of imagined holiness.
Dan is IMmorally consistent. He is one who says evil is good and goes out of his way to chastise his fellow man on the basis of his politics and proposals, while at the same time ignoring the failings of those he prefers for actions which aren't necessarily good at all.
Dan is morally consistent in his immoral ideology. He has no idea what real morality is. It certain isn't. moral to consistently claim a person is a sexual predator when there is no actual evidence to support the claim.
Much like Dan's Rumi obsession, Dan needs to elevate the absurd civil case against Trump to something way beyond what the facts demonstrate. When his accuser cannot remember specific details, and needs to change the law to even allow the suit to be brought, the basis for Dan's claim is shaky at best. I can only assume that the appeals process is playing out, and that eventually we will have a definitive answer.
Meanwhile the party Dan loves to champion is running some of the most vile humans for national office (and state/local), yet Dan can't seem to muster up much specific outrage or even criticism for these fine humans. Rest assured, the likelihood that he'd vote for some or all of these people is high. We'll be looking at the crazy, lying, racist, running for WI governor withing the next couple of days.
Because Clinton wasn't a "hedonist, narcissist, or corrupt" in the least, yet Dan was vocally in support of Hilary (who was also those things), and P-BO certainly isn't at least a "hedonist, narcissist", and seems to be corrupt as well. But that's not a problem to Dan.
Obama has at least three residences, each of which I believe are "mansion-like" if not outright mansions: Hawaii, Chicago and Martha's Vineyard. If he's sold anyone of them or added to them, I not aware of it. But that's not "hedonism" to those who need to believe Trump is evil personified.
The Clinton's are likewise enriched, though I know nothing of their homes. But the saintly Bernie Sanders has a few homes, yet is not a hedonist.
Yeah, I'd definitely argue that multiple mansions in resort areas would qualify as hedonism. What no one mentions is that all of the big name ASPL live in places with virtually zero black people.
What's bizarre is that Trump's home in NYC and FL are part of buildings/developments which contain other homes and are investments.
15 comments:
I wonder what Her's position is on the Shiloh Hendrix situation. If she approves of the ruling against Hendrix, then she should know how fatal/destructive/weapon-like words can be and should be removed from office immediately for "words".
She was probably aghast, but lives by different rules than the rest of us.
It'd be easier to take you all seriously if you didn't remain silent and still vote for a known sexual predator. Just don't. You've lost this fight. Those of us who are consistently opposed to any kind of sexual misconduct and abuse, will take up this fight if there's something to be taken up. But y'all have no moral credibility. Just move on.
That's what happens when you sacrifice any sense of morality for perceived partisan gain.
Dan
This whole faux moral high ground game you play is hilarious. Coming from someone who’s dimpling for Islam, communism, the DFL/DSA and who’s remained silent about 250,000 rapes of innocent girls, women, and boys, it’s even more hilarious.
That you won’t even condemn people on your side specifically for actions that you attack your political enemies for, tells us all we need to know about your subjective morality.
You see the difference between being morally consistent like me and not morally consistent like y'all is that one doesn't need to ask if Dan is opposed to sexual predators because the answer is always no... One doesn't need to ask if Dan is opposed to corrupt politicians because the answer is always no... Is Dan opposed to military groups killing or causing harm to innocent people or targeting areas where you can expect that innocence, men, women, and children will be harmed because the answer is always no.
You all, on the other hand, consistently have voted for and supported and defended a known sexual predator who is also known to be a hedonist, a narcissist, and a corrupt businessman. You're only opposed to it when it's someone on the other side. If you are opposed to it, it's not sufficient to cause you not to vote for the guy. It is for me and that's the difference between you and me.
No one comments on all the individual instances of harm that are done because no one can. It's an impossible task. But just because Dan has not commented on whatever 250,000 girls who've been raped, doesn't mean anything except that Dan is a finite person. You have not commented on all the women and girls who've been raped, the children who've been abused and killed, the innocent fishermen executed extrajudicially. The difference is you make excuses for it when it's your killers and rapists whereas people like me are consistently opposed to it.
As to any "dimpling"- I don't know what you mean by that. I merely note that Muslims are not one blok, that Communists are not one blok. There are good Muslims and bad Muslims, good Christians and bad Christians, good capitalists and bad capitalists. There is no shame in admitting simple reality. The question is, are you willing and ready to admit that same reality? You all are living in a hedonistic and corrupt made-up fantasy world where you want to pretend to be morally grounded and yet you vote for a known corrupt sexual predator who is actively enriching himself while killing others. Who is actively abusing our justice system and has for most of his life to enrich himself and prey on others. Be better.
You factually have no moral high ground. You've wallowed with the pigs. Now you have to lay in that shit.
Dan
Simping, my bad.
The problem you have is that you may be morally consistent in your mind, but that moral consistency doesn’t get expressed when the offenses are from those on your side.
It’s easy to simp for candidates who don’t meet your high, subjective, moral standards because you’ll never have to vote for them.
It’s also easy to blow things out of proportion while minimizing the failures of your candidates.?
But you keep pretending that Islam, as a worldview, doesn’t have goals and plans, that aren’t consistent with your Pollyanna rose colored myopic view based on a few outliers.
It's worse than that. Dan continues to pretend that Trump is somehow a "known sexual predator" for no other reason than it suits him to so accuse him of such. There is no evidence that he's ever attacked any woman, that he's ever taken any advantage of any woman who didn't first give him consent to indulge in sexual relations. To Dan, that he pursued women and succeeded in acquiring their consent to indulge in sexual relations means HE alone is guilty of predation, while the woman in question is totally innocent of seeking to use her body to sway him into sharing his immense wealth and status with her. No. To Dan, Trump looking to get laid is a predatory act rather than a willing exchange between parties.
And how does the scumbag pervert Dan Trabue back this up? By insisting that the way too many accusations against Trump by women are "credible" simply because they are laid against him, and for no other reason. They accuse, therefore their accusations are credible, and Dan pretends his "morality" is consistent. Well...it is, but not in a good way. Not in a Christian way. In a partisan way. The gain he accuses us of seeking by our support for a president who has shown himself to be far more competent than any Dan has supported. He wants us to believe that competence is secondary to his twisted notion of moral character...this POS who defends pro-abortion law and the abomination of homosexuality as if it's not "sexual misconduct". Never mind what God has said about it. DAN SAYS it's just peachy and NOT "sexual misconduct". What a rank pervert Dan is! And he dares to condescend!
This is what happens when you sacrifice the Truth of God for personal gain. When one looks up the definition of "reprobate" one sees a picture of Dan's dumb face in a posture of imagined holiness.
Dan is IMmorally consistent. He is one who says evil is good and goes out of his way to chastise his fellow man on the basis of his politics and proposals, while at the same time ignoring the failings of those he prefers for actions which aren't necessarily good at all.
"morally consistent like me"
Dan is morally consistent in his immoral ideology. He has no idea what real morality is. It certain isn't. moral to consistently claim a person is a sexual predator when there is no actual evidence to support the claim.
Much like Dan's Rumi obsession, Dan needs to elevate the absurd civil case against Trump to something way beyond what the facts demonstrate. When his accuser cannot remember specific details, and needs to change the law to even allow the suit to be brought, the basis for Dan's claim is shaky at best. I can only assume that the appeals process is playing out, and that eventually we will have a definitive answer.
Meanwhile the party Dan loves to champion is running some of the most vile humans for national office (and state/local), yet Dan can't seem to muster up much specific outrage or even criticism for these fine humans. Rest assured, the likelihood that he'd vote for some or all of these people is high. We'll be looking at the crazy, lying, racist, running for WI governor withing the next couple of days.
Because Clinton wasn't a "hedonist, narcissist, or corrupt" in the least, yet Dan was vocally in support of Hilary (who was also those things), and P-BO certainly isn't at least a "hedonist, narcissist", and seems to be corrupt as well. But that's not a problem to Dan.
When morality is subjective, it's easier to be morally consistent because you can just define moral to suit the circumstances.
Obama has at least three residences, each of which I believe are "mansion-like" if not outright mansions: Hawaii, Chicago and Martha's Vineyard. If he's sold anyone of them or added to them, I not aware of it. But that's not "hedonism" to those who need to believe Trump is evil personified.
The Clinton's are likewise enriched, though I know nothing of their homes. But the saintly Bernie Sanders has a few homes, yet is not a hedonist.
Yeah, I'd definitely argue that multiple mansions in resort areas would qualify as hedonism. What no one mentions is that all of the big name ASPL live in places with virtually zero black people.
What's bizarre is that Trump's home in NYC and FL are part of buildings/developments which contain other homes and are investments.
Post a Comment