https://www.instagram.com/p/Dd4dePhAchk/?stkn=cHdlNmNxMjJ3dDZr
This is what democrats like Dan are going to vote for in November, but it’s “right wing” violence is the problem.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dd5SXy8sUrL/?stkn=ZDEzYTFocDJjaGkw
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
94 comments:
Again, your lack of nuance in reading comprehension is hamstringing you. Clearly, he's talking about metaphorically beating Maher in an intellectual discussion, not a physical assault.
This, for someone who remains silent or actually defends actual killings, beatings, violence and kidnapping by your actual brutality makes this lightweight nonsense attack from you just lack entirely in credibility.
How about these political commercials your felon is running using our tax dollars? The ones where he's talking about removing citizens who he accuses of socialism and communism- - NEITHER of which is criminal EVEN IF it were true..?
Will you condemn those violent threats paid for with tax dollars?
You have no credibility.
Dan
If you say so. By all means, prove your claim.
Remember when y'all had an absolute fit over a TV commercial with archery targets on DFL candidates in races for seats that the GOP wanted to flip? I guess it's only OK to use this kind of language if you're a democrat now.
What silence? What killings or kidnappings? I've been posting for months, of not years, on all sorts of killings, kidnappings, and rapes which you've chosen to ignore. Which isn't surprising.
What "political commercials" are being paid for with "our tax dollars" ? What specific "citizens" are being talked about being "removed" specifically for supporting "communism and socialism?
How could I possibly condemn something about which I have no knowledge, and you've provided no proof?
If, for example, these alleged ads are talking about removing the DSA candidates from their races by beating them electorally, I see no problem with that. Yet, with no evidence of your claims, I cannot respond.
Coming from someone with no credibility himself, that's hilarious.
Do you have any problem with Al-Sayed lying repeatedly in interviews and commercials?
To be clear, the point of the post is the hypocrisy of y'all on the left. If Vivek had said something like this, y'all would be freaking out because "right wing violence", but because it's one of yours, it's all cool.
What's hilarious is that Maher constantly talks about all of the leftist politicians and public figures who his show asks to come on and how few of them actually do. He regularly has conservatives on (JD Vance for example) and has respectful conversations even when they disagree. I have no question that Maher has invited El-Sayed on and that El-Sayed has declined.
But I'm the one with no nuance or whatever.
Last one on this idiocy.
1. Maher did respond by inviting El-Sayed on his show.
2. El-Sayed misrepresented what Maher has said about Islam. The problem is not whether Maher's comments are "terrible" but whether his comments are accurate. I have no problem with someone saying something "terrible" as long as their statements are accurate and truthful.
Pointing out the reality that the Japanese military engaged in some of the most heinous activities imaginable from 1931 to 1945, might appear "terrible" to some Japanese, yet that doesn't negate the Truth of the Japanese actions.
The point of the post remains valid. You and folx like you would and will vote for all sorts of candidates regardless of their behavior or political goals.
If you lived in MN right now, you know as well as I do that you'd gladly vote against the black woman running for governor in favor of a senator that actively helped those who were defrauding the government, you'd vote for the Lt Governor who presided over the worst fraud in recent history, and the AG who colluded with those defrauding the government.
You almost certainly know that Trump used tax dollars to pay for these political commercials. Here's the transcript for one...
"This is the final battle. We will cast out the communists, Marxists, and fascists. We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country. We will rout the fake news media, and we will liberate America from these villains once and for all."
This is the language that he regularly uses about mainstream Democrats and media, who are simply fellow citizens who dare to disagree with his actually fascist-leaning policies, his murders, his executions, his abuses of power, like using tax dollars to pay for partisan ads. Shame, shame.
Dan
"but because it's one of yours, it's all cool."
No. It's because he has no history of promoting actual violence and quite the opposite. People who are not overtly violent can get away with using language that figuratively speaks of beating others, as in debates, not with actual assaults and murder like your boys are doing.
Dan
1. You providing a "quoted" snippet of something isn't proof.
2. Given the reality that "mainstream democrats" are actively supporting DSA candidates, that's a bit childish.
3. That's what politics is right now, appealing to one's voters to throw out or defeat those with whom they disagree using the electoral process.
4. Making another unproven claim to "prove" an earlier unproven claim is one of the most childish and idiotic bits of BS you've ever done. Prove your damn clam!
It's not that dissimilar from the language that DFL candidates use about GOP candidates or that you use about Trump.
Hell, the last line of your comment is simply a list of slanderous BS with absolutely zero proof of any of it.
Shame on you for making a BS claim, not proving it, and doubling down on the BS claim.
Again with unproven claims, lies, and slander.
But thanks for making my point that you'll support those who use this sort of language as long as they're on your side of the aisle.
Again, as long as you continue to defend the actual killers, rapists, kidnappers, and assailants in the GOP, including at the highest levels, then your little protest against somebody using words that hurt your feelings (but not actual violence) falls flat. You have no credibility. I don't know how you can't understand this, historically you have no credibility. Historians will look back at the GOP and weep. They already are. Open your eyes. You're on the wrong side of history son.
There is no proof of El Sayad being violent. There IS objective proof that the GOP is engaging in active violence and active harm and ongoing threats against half the nation.
Dan
Did you see where Marshall joined in with the other Christian nationalist extremists saying maybe it's not a good thing that women vote? That is a direct threat to human rights. Will you take a stand against it? Will you denounce it in the strongest terms possible?
Here's a chance to demonstrate you're actually against violence despite what your party keeps doing and leaning into. Because right now frankly, your protests against violence aren't believable.
Dan
Again, as long as you continue to make unfounded accusations, unproven claims, and sling BS, you literally have no credibility.
Nothing here has "hurt my feelings", and you could have known that based on what I've said in this thread.
Hey, if you want to make wild and unfounded accusations feel free. I can't stop you from looking paranoid and stupid. I've never claimed that El-Sayed was "violent", so you engage in this BS straw man nonsense.
It's hilarious how determined to ignore what is going on across the globe, not to mention in the US which is enabled by left wing policies and politicians.
Meanwhile you just lie and slander with your unproven claims and BS.
What insanity is this? You make all sorts of unfounded, unproven comments and simply refuse to prove your claims, then pivot to this unrelated BS?
Expressing an opinion that you personally don't like is not "violence". My responding to this is not me addressing "violence" in any real sense. It's you making demands that I must do something in a certain way to try to earn your approval.
I'll say this on the subject generally. Current US law allows women to vote, and I support current US law. If there is a movement to change the law using a legal process, I'll deal with that if it happens.
I'm not playing along with your BS games though.
Prove your claims.
After your bold claim, I looked to find the evidence of this great "violence" you claimed, and I found a nothingburger.
I found one sentence which opined that opined that those who authored the 19th amendment would have thought differently if they could have seen what is happening today. I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment, but the monolithic voting trends of women are interesting. I saw no "violence", nothing but one person offering an opinion that you don't like.
Is offering opinions that you don't like grounds to cancel or silence someone?
Is making a promise or commitment and failing to keep that promise or commitment behavior that you would endorse?
Is lying about one's background or qualifications enough to prevent you from voting for someone who you might otherwise support?
Marshal actual words as regards to the option of depriving women of a human rights basic (ie, his tepid support for active oppression).
Looking at women of today,
I don't see that the 19th Amendment was all that great an idea.
This again points to use of the term "hero" for
those who champion bad ideas.
He's literally saying that he does NOT see women having the vote as "all that great of an idea..." and then, an example of a "bad idea."
This exactly points to the difference between a non-violent person (El-Sayed, in this case) saying something with figurative language that, IF he meant it literally, would be an atrocious thing to say... but of course, he didn't mean it literally and of course, he's not promoting violence...
THAT, on the one hand, and then today's GOP (especially their maga wing) who are actively promoting and accepting notions that Democrats and liberals and the free press are "the enemy" and "commies" who need to be "gotten rid of" and those IN THE ADMINISTRATION, along with people like Marshal, who are testing out the idea of removing human rights from some people JUST LIKE they did/are doing with innocent people off the shores of Venezuela, just like they're doing with people they "suspect" of being an immigrant... etc. You all are the team that is promoting curbs on human rights/ie, oppression, in the far right wing of magop, and then most of the rest of you remain silent, in effect giving your blessing to human rights abuses.
You're on the wrong side of morality, of reason, of decency and of history.
This is why you should read my comments before you spew idiocy. I understand that you've blown an offhand, seemingly humorous or hyperbolic aside into some massive offense to human dignity.
I suspect it has to do with your ignorance of the data regarding how women (particularly left wing women) vote and what drives them to vote the way they do. I suspect that Art is referring to this data (I've posted about it as well) and the results of this monolithic voting bloc supporting candidates and policies he disagrees with. In general, most people (including you) don't particularly care for those who disagree with you politically and occasionally make comments to express their frustration. I seem to recall you making some decidedly graceless and nasty comments about my votes.
But nonetheless, I see no reason to join your hysterical rant about this one sentence.
I also get that it's a way for you to divert attention from you and on to others. But hey, why prove your claims to be True when it's so much easier to just spew whatever BS comes to your childish little mind.
By all means, prove your claims, and I might take you seriously.
Craig:
Is offering opinions that you don't like grounds to cancel or silence someone?
We should NOT silence someone's free speech by force of law.
BUT, when someone is espousing human rights abuses/oppression/denying the vote/encouraging slavery, etc, GOOD people have a responsibility to denounce that sort of talk in the strongest terms possible.
A. Do you agree?
And especially, IF someone on "your side" of politics is advocating slavery, disenfranchisement, killing, etc, THEN the people on that person's "side" is especially obligated to speak out against it and denounce it in the strongest terms... again, when we're talking about advocating oppression and human rights abuses.
B. Do you agree?
C. Do you agree that denying the vote to women IS a human rights abuse?
Is making a promise or commitment and failing to keep that promise or commitment behavior that you would endorse?
Not generally, UNLESS someone made a promise or a commitment to do bad stuff. The politician who runs on promoting slavery or oppression of women should ABSOLUTELY NOT keep that promise.
D. Do you agree?
Is lying about one's background or qualifications enough to prevent you from voting for someone who you might otherwise support?
Generally, yes. That is, IF someone said he was the very top of their class and they were only second or third from the top, that's an exaggeration that I wouldn't punish with NOT voting for them.
IF they said that, "ON DAY ONE," and "in 24 hours" they were going to end the war in Ukraine on Day One and bring down inflation... first of all, I wouldn't vote for that person because that is 1. A stupid couple of "promises" that 2. He OBVIOUSLY wasn't going to keep. People who lie with abusive, stupid lies automatically lose my respect and likely my vote.
E. How about you?
IF, on the other hand, they made promises to commit human rights abuses and undermine the rule of law and justice AND he kept those promises (or even TRIED to keep them), he wouldn't have had my vote in the first place and him keeping bad promises would only undermine him further.
If a president was overtly corrupt, a convicted felon, an acknowledged cheater in his business and multiple marriages and girlfriends, laughed and boasted about sexual assault and sexual abuses... would that person even remotely have your support? OF COURSE, such a person is not someone I would EVER vote for, but how about you?
Oh, wait. We know that answer for you. Much to your shame.
I've answered your questions. How about you, will you answer mine?
I suspect it has to do with your ignorance of the data regarding how women (particularly left wing women) vote and what drives them to vote the way they do. I suspect that Art is referring to this data (I've posted about it as well) and the results of this monolithic voting bloc supporting candidates and policies he disagrees with.
Wait. Are you suggesting here (as it sounds like you are) that if you think "too many" in a certain demographic bloc vote in a way that you personally disapprove of, you'd support removing the right to vote for that who CLASS of people?
WILL YOU STATE, unequivocally, that you would ALWAYS condemn denying the right to vote to women?
WILL YOU STATE, unequivocally, that anyone who proposes such an idea - even HINTS at it - is an enemy to human rights and thus, to you and such ideas have NO place in a free republic?
And because you keep trying to dodge, I'm NOT asking "Would you lock them up for bad speech?" I'm saying will you stand for the women, the black people, the socialists, the communists, the Jews, etc, when "they" come for them? Or will you cowardly remain silent because it's not your in-group?
"We should NOT silence someone's free speech by force of law."
Just by the force of the delete button or any extra legal means available.
"GOOD people have a responsibility to denounce that sort of talk in the strongest terms possible. "
Says who" (To quote/paraphrase you)
" Do you agree?"
I agree that you have the freedom to say whatever you want, and almost always your crap gets posted here. I do not agree that you get to dictate to others what they should believe, how they should act, or that they should "denounce" something (you blew out of proportion) simply because you demand it.
" Do you agree?"
If someone on "my side" (I guess you get to determine that too) was advocating for all of the horrible things you list, I'd argue against those things. Are you saying that you would do the same 100% of the time anyone on "your side" advocated one of those things? When those on "your side" advocate "oppression and human rights abuse" do you automatically denounce them? When those on "your side" use the power of the federal government to censor dissenting opinions and to pressure religious leaders to parrot what we now know to be lies, do/did you denounce them? If so, show me the link to where.
"Do you agree that denying the vote to women IS a human rights abuse?"
No. Do you regularly and loudly denounce countries and cultures that DO deny women the right to vote?
"Not generally,..."
So, if you (for example) made a promise and failed to fulfill that promise, then you would acknowledge that you would not endorse your own behavior?
" Do you agree?"
Of course, I would prefer that people not fulfill their promises that end up badly for other people. For example, a politician who promised to end cash bail (and did so) which allowed a repeat violent offender the opportunity to kill someone should definitely not have kept their promise.
"Generally, yes."
So, if a person claimed to be say a nuclear physicist but was not a nuclear physicist, you would not vote for them based on that lie. Is that correct? Would you encourage others to vote for that person if they were in a position to vote for them?
I think that we all understand that campaign promises come with a degree of hyperbole and optimism regardless of the candidate. But, I'm specifically saying that if someone referred to themselves repeatedly as "a physician" when they were not licensed to practice medicine (or had never been a licensed physician) would you vote for them?
"How about you?"
As always I will vote for the candidate that is most aligned with my political positions and against the candidate who is antithetical to my political positions. I do not expect imperfect people to run for office. Yet, I do hold those who run for or serve in higher office to some basic standard of honesty. So lying about one's background, or making nonsensical statements about a rash of "lynchings" would almost always be a big no for me.
If my only options were those who supported policies that I strongly disagreed with, then I would reluctantly do so. BUT, we're not talking about what I would do, we're talking about what you would do in the very specific instance of a candidate for national office lying about their professional CV.
Let's recall that there was a point when Joe Biden's lying and plagiarism was disqualifying, and he continued to tell the same disproven lies throughout his presidency. Kamala Harris has a history of trading sex for political gain, and you voted for her.
You are the one presenting yourself as someone who would never vote for anyone less than perfect, nor would you advocate or support someone like that. I'm trying to determine what is disqualifying TO YOU in a candidate. In this case, whether or not you would vote for, support, or advocate for, a candidate for national office who had egregiously lied about their professional CV. It's really not that hard of a question for you to answer, yet you spewed a bunch of bullshit instead of a simple yes or no.
I almost always do. You on the other hand... I recall someone promising to answer my questions when they were not on their phone and had more time. Look how well that went.
"Wait. Are you suggesting here (as it sounds like you are) that if you think "too many" in a certain demographic bloc vote in a way that you personally disapprove of, you'd support removing the right to vote for that who CLASS of people?"
No.
"WILL YOU STATE, unequivocally, that you would ALWAYS condemn denying the right to vote to women?"
No. Because I have no obligation to do what you demand because you'll respond with hatred, vitriol, and childish nonsense if I don't do what you demand.
"WILL YOU STATE, unequivocally, that you would ALWAYS condemn denying the right to vote to women?"
No. (see above) However, I firmly believe that the 1st amendment to the US Constitution protects ALL speech no matter how offensive you find it. You appear to be suggesting that anyone who says something you don't like on this topic should be silenced (at minimum) or expelled from the US. Are you really suggesting what you seem to be suggesting.
I haven't dodged anything. Unlike you, I answered both of your gotcha questions in a simple direct manner.
Would I support a movement to deprive anyone who is currently eligible to vote of their ability to vote, no. Would I silence someone for suggesting it, also no.
Of course, this means that I vehemently oppose anything, anyone, or any political party/movement, or any religion that works to allow those who are ineligible to vote.
Given that I am much more apt to speak out here about my disagreements with those on "my side" than you are anywhere that last bit seems divorced from reality. I regularly have extended and somewhat heated disagreements with Glenn and Art about things. The difference is that we can disagree on some things without hatred, vitriol, deleting each other, or demands that others denounce people. You know, like respectful adults.
Dan:
"Do you agree that denying the vote to women IS a human rights abuse?"
No.
Wow. God have mercy on. your soul and the lives of any women who are around you. Repent.
Holy Jesus, what in the name of all that is holy has happened to our so-called "conservative" family and friends? Why have their hearts hardened? Their minds weakened? Is it fear of being replaced or "less than" that causes them to cower and join in with oppressors? Is it simple amorality based upon personal whims and hunches? Is it a great fogging of their minds by their own human traditions?
Whatever it is, O God, we pray for the depraved and deflowered, the abusers of humanity, those who side against the poor and marginalized. Even thought you literally promised such people "eternal flames prepared for them," I pray that their eyes are opened and their minds restored. God, in your grace for them, help guide their feet to paths of righteousness, and in your justice, grace and love, remove them from any positions where they can continue to cause harm and oppression.
Break their abusive spirits and save our land from such oppressors. Rebuke them in their oppression and bring down such violent aggressors and lift up the poor and marginalized, women and immigrants and the others they would harm, given the opportunity and power.
In the name of the almighty God of grace and justice and just basic decency I pray.
Amen.
Do you regularly and loudly denounce countries and cultures that DO deny women the right to vote?
Yes. Of course. When someone is ALWAYS opposed to human rights abuses, including disenfranchisement, then one is ALWAYS opposed to it. It's pretty easy when one's morality is fairly consistent and rational and not based upon the interpretations of what one might view as a whimsical, graceless piece of shit "godling."
You appear to be suggesting that anyone who says something you don't like on this topic should be silenced (at minimum) or expelled from the US
Then you can't read and can't understand. God, remove this spirit of stupidity from this poor man. Save him from his cowardice and idiocy and abusive obtusity.
I've just literally made it clear that free speech is not penalized by law. You, Craig, CAN endorse raping women and enslaving children for your sexual pleasure if you want and we won't arrest you.
But you are NOT free from being loathed for holding such despicable opinions (whether it's rape, disenfranchisement or ANY misogynistic abuses). You are NOT free from being denounced for being a wannabe coward-tyrant-pig if you act in such ways and promote such theories.
What has become of you (you all)? Do you so easily abandon the love, grace, human decency and brave support for human rights you learned from Jesus and common sense and basic decency?
You are free to say out loud that you lust after little girls or want to deny women their liberty. We are free to find such positions pathetic, dangerous and loathesome, of the great Satan, if such a figure existed and certainly having nothing to do with an almighty God. AND, if you promote such anti-human rights too far, we have the right to pursue arrest if you break any laws.
For you see, in the wisdom of OUR nation, at least, free speech (which is foundational and great) DOES have limits. When such speech starts to infringe upon the rights of others - when you're inciting riots, violence or harm to others directly - THEN charges might legally and reasonably be made and you'd have your day in court. EVEN under this depraved, abusive administration, there ARE limits.
Well, I appreciate how Grace filled your screed is. What an example you are for us all.
Where, specifically have you specifically opposed countries that do not allow women to vote? Link to your blog or facebook post where you’ve done that explicitly. Not your blather about opposing “all” of something. Show me where you specifically, publicly, denounced countries that don’t allow women to vote.
Yes, you limited yourself to “by law”, which leaves many other ways to silence your enemies, some of which you invoke.
Tne problem is that your disapproval, hatred, vitriol, lies, and attacks mean nothing. It’s just you lashing out at anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
C
So you have no problem justifying limits on the right to free speech, but vehemently object to limits on the ability to vote. Interesting.
There is, of course, nothing morally wrong or rationally inconsistent with deleting obscene, oppressive posts from one's website. It's not counter-to the teachings of Jesus and it's not contrary to human rights.
Because, of course.
Ontheother hand, promoting the misogynistic notion that women should be denied the vote IS obscene and contrary to human rights.
You've taken your stand. Maybe one day you'll come to repent for holding such a vulgar and oppressive position.
Ahhhhhhh the self-serving, self-justifying excuses for silencing those you disagree with.
Strangely enough you didn’t object when the Biden administration used the power of the federal government to do exactly that.
But making shit up is something you do endorse.
Craig, obscenely asked:
Where, specifically have you specifically opposed countries that do not allow women to vote?
WHAT DO YOU CARE? You won't even come forward and affirm that women's right to vote is a basic human right! You CLEARLY don't give a damn about women's rights or the oppression of women ANYWHERE, if you can't support it here.
You lose, Craig. I don't know what you're failing to get. You have NO standing to question women's suffrage anywhere if you won't support it clearly here and affirm it as a specific human right.
Let me know when you can slap yourself back into even a smidgeon of reason, common sense and moral decency and take the "brave" stand that, of course, women IN THE US voting is a basic human right... THEN we can talk about my position for human rights in other places (Hint: I'm ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF IT... that should be your first clue, no matter how much you denigrate such a crazy position!)
Craig:
you have no problem justifying limits on the right to free speech,
You just continue to disappoint me and amaze me with your ignorance and lack of understanding. You DO know that "the right to free speech" does not mean that there are NO LIMITS on free speech? It doesn't mean that everyone needs to accept awful, vulgar, oppressive comments and opinions and policy suggestions, all in service to "free speech..."? That would be the OPPOSITE of free speech.
When you cut part of a thought off from its context and use that as justification for bullshit, you should be ashamed. But you have no shame or grace.
The limits on free speech are few well known. Offending you isn’t one of those limits.,
What a verbose and obfuscating way to acknowledge that you cannot do what I asked you to do. You can’t prove your claim so you lash out at me for putting you in this position.,
We’ve all heard your blanket BS that you hide behind to avoid dealing with specifics.
But thanks for emphatically demonstrating that you’ve never denounced the countries/religions/cultures that treat women like shit and that you want to mass immigrate into the US.
250,000 rapes of British girls, boys, and women, and you hide blithe generalizations.
Watching you expose your True self is disturbing and amusing at the same time.
The more interaction I see between you/Marshal and Dan, the more his abject depravity, obfuscation, ignorance of reality and downright stupidity is exposed. The man is unable to just stick to the topic of a post and when he tries to do so he is a master of misrepresenting those who disagree with him.
I can’t argue with any of that.
By all means come, Glenn. Come make yourself clear. I'm saying moral and rational people always stand in support of human rights, including the vote, including, obviously, for women. Will you take a strong stand in support of the vote for women? Also do you understand how insane it is that I have to even ask that question?
If you can and will take a strong stand in support of the rights of women, including the right to vote, will you take a strong stand against those in your party who oppose the rights of women? Will you denounce them for such an immoral, ungodly, and oppressive position?
To call me depraved while Marshall is advocating denying the right to vote to women is just a little bit crazy. Can you understand that?
Dan
To be clear I've always figured that Glenn was the sort who would be misogynistic and anti-human rights. I had expected it from Marshal as well although I did not expect it to be so blatantly put out there.
Craig, God bless your sad, sad, soul, I half expected that you would give this sort of mambypamby, vaguely, "I sort of support women but I'm not going to denounce their oppression..." response, because that's your emo.
But that sort of makes you the worst of all. It seems like you have some bit of humanity left in yourself that you recognize it's wrong and yet are too cowardly to take a stand for human rights that your comrades are promoting.
Dan
"Is offering opinions that you don't like grounds to cancel or silence someone?"
That's just a rhetorical question, right? It's S.O.P. for Dan!
Once again, what we see from leftist women these days, their having the "right" to vote does indeed seem like a horrible idea. This of course bodes ill for intelligent women...that is, conservative women and Christian women who are conservative because conservatism more closely aligns with the Will of God. The nation can't afford to lose the voices of such women. Those who march around with pink pussy hats? Losing them would be a great benefit to the nation. Plus, fewer infants would be murdered.
Just as true is how Dems and libs in general are enemies and need to be recognized as such because it's true. Their policy proposals are detrimental. The "free press", so long as they are most heavily populated with Dems/libs/marxists who think their job is to influence the nation are especially worthy of replacing and marginalizing.
I know of know one on my side of the ideological divide who are promoting any proposal to deprive anyone of their human rights. But this is yet another term Dan perverts to include behaviors which aren't themselves rights at all. That's typical of most on the left, who insist whatever it they feel like doing they have a right to do. That's not what liberty and freedom is all about. Murdering one's own child...in the womb or not...is not a right by any stretch of the imagination, but Dan supports that oppression and that denial of the actual human right of life.
If the current administration "suspects" someone of being an illegal alien (NOT merely an "immigrant" which is not what an illegal alien is), it's with good cause and upon learning they're not illegal aliens, nothing happens to such a person.
"BUT, when someone is espousing human rights abuses/oppression/denying the vote/encouraging slavery, etc, GOOD people have a responsibility to denounce that sort of talk in the strongest terms possible."
That's why I denounce you as complicit in the murders of millions of innocent conceived yet unborn people. It's why I think it's detrimental that stupid people like you are allowed near ballots. You and the women you defend support the oppression, murder and enslavement of the unborn. You're scum.
Dan, if you can’t define a universal moral standard then your claim makes no objective sense. By what standard do you declare someone or something objectively moral?
Beyond that I’m not arguing against your fantasies.
C
It’s strange, I document all sorts of real, actual oppression of women across the globe and you say nothing. But now you’ve magically turned one person’s opinion into full blown oppression. No wonder you’re more worried about “right wing” violence than anything else.
Living in fear of everything being oppressive must be difficult.
Move to Hamtramck and see how oppressive that feels.
That was funny! I love when someone who so clearly rejects the Will of God so often pretends to pray to Him.
"When someone is ALWAYS opposed to human rights abuses, including disenfranchisement, then one is ALWAYS opposed to it."
Unless the abused, oppressed and disenfranchised is in the womb, then that's OK. Oppress the hell out them!
OH NO! Dan's loathing you now! Oh, woe is you! But I'm certain he's loathing you in a really, really grace embracing manner.
"There is, of course, nothing morally wrong or rationally inconsistent with deleting obscene, oppressive posts from one's website."
Of course there is, especially when what you delete is neither obscene or oppressive. (How can an opposing opinion, position or statements of fact be "oppressive"?)
"It's not counter-to the teachings of Jesus and it's not contrary to human rights."
That is, according to the Gospel of Trabue.
Is the right to vote completely unrestricted?
Should someone diagnosed with mental illness be able to vote with no restrictions?
Is the right to Vote unrestricted? For whole groups of adult citizens, YES!! That is, we do not and should not say all female citizens, all black citizens, all latino citizens, all LGBTQ citizens, all Jewish citizens... as a class should NOT be allowed to vote. Will you join with the moral, rational liberty loving world in agreement with this foundational basic point?
Are there some groups/classes of people you'd prevent from voting?
At the very least, can you understand how rational adults would reject banning women, as a class, from voting? ...Why we consider that evil fascism?
WHY do I even have to ask?!
Dan
"Should someone with a mental illness be able to vote...?"
YES!!!
GOOD GOD! Are you going to disenfranchise those with mental and physical disabilities, too?? Is there no end to your fascism?
"According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone with a mental disability who understands what it means to vote can vote in federal elections."
We're talking groups or classes of people, here.
To try to prevent women, black people, lgbtq people, those with disabilities AS A GROUP from voting is an evil fascist tactic.
It is always wrong.
Agree or repent or be dismissed as a fascist.
Dan
Are you insane? Do you not understand the concept of asking a question?
What’s hilarious is that your ADA reference supports my asking the question. You acknowledge that the answer to my question is no, there are/should be restrictions on the mentally ill voting. Is the ADA snippet you referenced/quoted “fascism”?
Again are you insane, obtuse, or stupid? To take one question (which, per the ADA is reasonable) and make an insane leap to banning entire classes of people from voting is nuts.
Why would I repent of asking a question your ADA thing literally contradicts your hysterical screeching.
C
So, you aren’t going so simply answer the question as asked. Yet, despite your verbose scared, you did (between this and your other comment) acknowledge that the answer is yes, voting does come with restrictions.
While your first “question” actually points out the fact that you acknowledge at least one restriction (amusing) the obvious answer is that those who qualify to vote should be allowed to vote.
Yes.
Without agreeing that you personify a “rational adult”, I can see that banning women from voting would be rejected by many.
Why do you continue to pretend you speak for some magical “we”?
Because you’re obsessed with asking stupid and overwrought questions based on your prejudices and assumptions instead of what was actually said.
Read for understanding. There are NO restrictions in place to ban THE GROUP of those with disabilities because they are in that GROUP. There USE to be bans on GROUPS of people - those with disabilities, women, black people... - but that was in our more oppressive, racist, exist, bigoted days. Now, there are no bans on whole groups because of their being a part of a certain group. As it should be.
Are you still not understanding?
Dan
You referenced more than once "hysterical screeching" sorts of language when I'm talking about how gravely concerned we who believe in human rights are about people in our nation talking openly about removing rights to vote, which would be human rights abuse and oppression.
At the very least, do you understand WHY people are quite concerned, given that people in power connected to this administration are talking that way about removing rights from women? Do you understand why, when y'all won't answer directly, we are seriously concerned? Do you not think that is cause for grave outrage and concern? Do you at least understand why other people are seriously concerned and take it seriously?
With slavery and the oppression of women and the oppression of gay folks and the oppression of people with disabilities, we thought we had moved mostly past the worst of that. Y'all sound like you're wanting to go back to those good old days when America was great and human rights abuses were accepted and legislated. We want to know that our fellow Americans are at a basic level of understanding about human rights and are seriously concerned when they can't answer straight reasonable questions on settled matters.
Dan
"Last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reposted a CNN interview of his pastor, Christian nationalist Doug Wilson, writing “All of Christ for All of Life.” In the video, church members discussed why they believe women shouldn’t be allowed to vote — a tenet of Wilson’s main church, Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho.
In the CNN segment, Wilson, who founded a network of churches in the late 1990s called the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, or CREC, said “women are the kind of people that people come out of.” He has written several books on marriage, masculinity and childrearing, along with blog posts with titles like “The Lost Virtues of Sexism.” He has referred to various women as “small-breasted biddies,” “lumberjack dykes” and “cunts” and extolled the “benefits” of slavery."
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/women-rule/2025/08/15/christian-nationalists-target-womens-right-to-vote-00511090
Dan
"The researchers behind the Religion in Public blog surveyed 3000 American Christians and discovered that 20% of the overall sample — about 24% of men and 17% of women — want to repeal the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote.
How is that possible? How can anyone in the 2020s believe that women should have fewer legal and political rights than men?"
https://medium.com/backyard-theology/surveys-prove-that-christian-nationalism-strips-womens-rights-ae24eb43fdd3
We are greatly concerned about growing support for oppression. As the data shows, with just cause.
Dan
I tend to take any poll you provide with a grain of salt because every time I dig into them, the questions seem geared toward a specific response.
I'd be curious as to how they selected their sample and what "American Christians" actually means, but not curious enough to dig through it to find out.
What's hilarious in your hysterical screeching is that apparently WOMEN are on board with this.
I'll further note that, based on what you quoted, the title in the link makes a huge lead of logic from "American Christians" to "Christian Nationalists", it'd be interesting to see if the pool bears that out, but I don't care that much.
Strangely enough, I posted polling recently that showed that something like 30% of liberals approved of political violence and around 20% supported the idea of Trump being removed from office via assassination. But I guess we should ignore those polls.
While I have significant problems with Doug Wilson, treating his position as simply "women shouldn't be allowed to vote" is a misrepresentation of what I've seen of his position.
I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole, as much as you'd like to, but the historical precedent he's basing this on isn't nearly as sinister as you'd like it to be.
Again, I know you'd like to do so, but I'm not entertaining any further diversions down this rabbit hole.
But if you want to obsess over one fringe "pastor" and his small following go right ahead. Just not in this thread.
I'm not understanding what in the hell the point of this incoherent comment is.
You copy/pasted some ADA thing and I'm agreeing that there should be some restrictions on those who are mentally ill. You're making hysterical leaps from what I've actually said, to what your tiny little brain wants me to have said.
Yes, yes I did. Because you hysterically exaggerate or outright make shit up and pretend that it's something I've said or I advocate.
No, can you provide me with one example of someone "in power in this administration" who has made an official attempt to "remove rights from women"? For starters, I don't understand why you don't answer things directly (or at all), nor do I understand how you can twist direct answers into something entirely different. No. No.
You do understand that it is perfectly acceptable for people to hold opinions that you don't like, don't you? You do understand that unless people actually act on their opinions, that there is not risk to anyone?
Given the fact that there are more slaves in the world now than at any time in human history, roughly half of the countries in the world "oppress" women, minorities, and multiple active genocides in Africa, it seems a bit naive that you think that we've moved past "the worst of that".
What you "sound like" to your biased, prejudiced, ears means nothing because your imagination doesn't define reality. You'd like to think so, but it does not.
As I've answered all of your questions, I fail to see what your hysterical screeching is all about.
Since we agree that the ADA is clear that those with mental illness should be restricted in their ability to vote and that the ADA language mentions being able to understand "what it means to vote", how is that measured?
What does "understand what it means to vote" mean practically?
Does that mean that they understand what they are voting on?
Does that mean that they can take someone with them to "explain" the issues or candidates?
Would it require a grasp of basic math, for example?
I want to be clear, I'm asking for a purpose and I'm hoping for clear, direct answers. If, as you note, there are restrictions on the mentally ill voting, it seems reasonable to understand what those are and how those restrictions are implemented.
How then do we treat the elderly who suffer from some level of dementia or loss of cognitive function? (no the answer is not elect them president and lie about their cognitive decline)
I know you don't like it, but I'm trying to get some direct answers from you for a reason.
Answer or not, I don't really care at this point. But at least stop jumping to conclusions based on questions.
I know that this concept might be foreign to you, but consider the possibility that someone could hold the personal opinion that the 19th amendment was flawed in some way and should not have been passed as written or not have been passed at all, yet also understands that it is virtually impossible to get rid of or change a constitutional amendment. Likewise, it's possible to disagree with something without automatically being compelled to change that thing.
That may be hard for you to understand, but most of us intuitively grasp the reality that some things we may not agree with (either fully or in part) can or will be changed.
I'm more than glad to answer questions directly because they're easy to answer for rational adults. But given your cowardly dodging and refusal to answer my questions about human rights basics, I will answer your question when you answer mine. Stop being a coward. Take a stand for justice and human rights.
Do you unequivocally affirm that women should have the right to vote? Period. Full stop.
Will you take stands against people on your side who are saying those rights should be limited?
Do you understand how very basic this question is and how very awful it is that I even have to ask it?
If you won't answer very basic questions about very basic human rights positions that are settled in the rational world, then my rational answers to your questions are meaningless. Besides that I've already clearly answered them. But I'm glad to answer again once you take a stand for justice and human rights. Failing that, once you make clear that you are an oppressor and on the side of the oppressors. That ball is in your court, coward.
Dan
Craig...
"While I have significant problems with Doug Wilson, treating his position as simply "women shouldn't be allowed to vote" is a misrepresentation"
Bullshit. I know he's advocating for "head of household" voting... Should it be the case (God forbid) that there's a poor woman living on her own, helpless without the support of men, in that case she is sort of officially the "head of the household" and we would allow her to vote. That's bullshit. The man is a misogynist and a pig. That you won't call it out for what it is and that you won't take a stand for human rights shows that you are the equivalent of a Nazi sympathizer. One of those Germans who remained quiet instead of taking a stand against the Nazis. It's a very simple question. Will you take a stand for human rights, for the rights of women, or will you be a coward and a piece of shit and an ally to oppressors?
These are vital questions to a free republic. Which side are you on, boy?
Dan
"To call me depraved while Marshall is advocating denying the right to vote to women is just a little bit crazy. Can you understand that?"
Says the guy denying the conceived yet unborn the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I fully understand the depravity in dismissing that while posturing as morally superior for defending the 19th Amendment.
How about age restrictions?
The National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage (NAOWS) was said to have as many as 350,000 members at its peak. This was the largest organization opposed to ratification of the 19th Amendment, though opposition to woman suffrage was not limited to a single organization but included a network of local and state groups that collectively voiced their concerns against granting women the right to vote. So, several hundred thousand "irrational" adult women sought to ban women from voting. That's a lot of misogynists!
Craig, speaking like a fascist sympathizer...
"I know that this concept might be foreign to you, but consider the possibility that someone could hold the personal opinion that the 19th amendment was flawed in some way and should not have been passed as written or not have been passed at all, yet also understands that it is virtually impossible to get rid of or change a constitutional amendment."
??
I know this concept might be foreign to you but their inability to pull off more fascist policies does not make their ungodly positions reasonable or acceptable or something to remain silent about.
Are you saying that if some white fella was saying, "Boy, I wish the days of slavery were back. Black people really aren't fully human and they should be in our care as their slaveholders. Yeah I know, 'cause of those damn liberals! We couldn't change the rules to make it happen again but sure is the way God wants it!" ...Are you saying that, because at least at this point in time they can't enact their wishes, you would remain silent about that? What about if they were longing for the days when you could just rape women and children without being held accountable? Would you remain silent about that? Is there no end to your cowardice and your unwillingness to stand up against oppressors, even if they are impotent oppressors?
Dan
I'm on the side that can disagree without the incessant vitriol and name calling.
As someone who's done a little bit of research on the concept, it has a solid historical precedent in the US and isn't as radical as you need it to be. The chances of it happening, are virtually zero so I don't obsess over something that unlikely. I also have no problem with people freely advocating for ideas in the public square.
If anything you sound a bit NAZI like yourself with your seeming determination to silence those you disagree with. Finally. before I start aborting any further comments on this topic, I'll note that you've chosen emotion, name calling, and vitriol instead of making a reasoned argument against the actual premise.
Feel free to do so, just don't do it here. I simply don't care.
Then, by all means, do so. Answer the questions asked simply and directly instead of this bullshit. So, you "answer" a question that you made up and asked, then start asking me the same questions you've already asked. Even you can see that you aren't doing what you said you would do.
Let's try this. Do you unequivocally affirm that all women should have the unrestricted right to vote?
No, the first amendment protects the right of people to express themselves and their ideas and I am not required to speak against everything you disagree with. If, by some miracle, there is ever an actual attempt to engage in the legal process to eliminate the 19th amendment, I'll deal with that reality, but not your fantasy.
No, I have no idea why you "have" to ask the question (you simply didn't "have" to ask it), and I don't care. That you've gotten yourself worked into a tizzy over one more bogeyman is hardly reason for me to join your hysteria.
The problem is that I have answered your questions, whether you like the answers or not, I have. Demonstrably so.
But go ahead and brag about how you answer any and every question, and make excuses for why you won't in the same comment. Adult, rational, respectful, and embracing grace, that's absolutely you.
Let's note that Dan claims that voting is unrestricted, and restricted in the same comment and how incoherent that is.
OBVIOUSLY, anyone with half a brain understands that voting is restricted in various ways.
To your point, at what age does someone become a "woman" and gain the right to vote?
The absurdity of discussing the right of women to vote with someone who's political movement can't define what a women is, is growing more obvious.
What would stop women from identifying as men to vote?
Anyway, I'm trying to make a point but Dan's obfuscation and diversions are making that challenging.
I've corrected Dan on this Wilson nonsense already. What Wilson advocates would not deny women as a group, but would restrict voting to one person per household...i.e., the "head of the household"...which Wilson acknowledged would certainly include women, such as single mothers. I would not take the word of any leftist as to the specifics of the positions held by anyone the leftist doesn't like. As we see so often with Dan, leftists lie, distort and corrupt to serve their agenda.
What is the internet law that posits that when someone calls their opponent a NAZI that they've lost the argument? I think we're at that point. Dan is reduced to name calling, and slander, because he's incapable of disagreeing any other way.
Look, if you want to cry wolf about every "right wing" conspiracy theory that floats across your transom, feel free. Just stop demanding that everyone else must follow you down these conspiracy theory rat holes.
Interesting hypothetical. In fact, I absolutely and regularly speak out against those who are currently advocating that some people are not "fully human", or don't have "personhood". The problem you have is that you ignore this sort of position when it's actually happening in real life, but obsess over some conspiracy theory and get your panties in a wad over nothing.
We literally live in a world where entire cultures/societies/religions are actively raping boys, girls, and women because they believe that it is perfectly acceptable. While this is actual happening in the real world, you stay virtually silent about it, while spewing this BS.
Art,
I deleted a few of your comments because I am trying to lay a logical foundation for something, and your comments got ahead of the point I hope to make. I hope that you will understand my reasoning.
I may have accidentally aborted one of Dan's comments as well. Thanks to Blogger I can't resuscitate it, but as always please try to reconstruct it. I apologize.
"treating his position as simply "women shouldn't be allowed to vote" is a misrepresentation"
Dan then proceeds to demonstrate that I was correct and that Dan was misrepresenting Wilson's position...
So basically, simply calling someone a fascist or an oppressor means it's absolutely and unequivocally true of the one so labeled and no explanation for why it's appropriate is necessary. Dan has spoken and that's all there is to it. I've provided evidence of hundreds of thousands of women supporting the blocking of the 19th's ratification and referenced women of today who are cool with it's repeal. All these women are fascist oppressors according to you. Make that make sense.
In the meantime, it is wholly childish and far, far from "respectful, adult, good faith 'grace embracing'" discourse to behave as you are in demanding full agreement with your OPINION regarding this issue. It's not "fascist" because you want it to be. It's not "oppressive" because you need it to be. You want and need it to be in order to demean those who won't simply say, "Gee, Dan! You're a great and wonderful intellect!" You're not. You ignore that our society is rife with regulations and laws which infringe upon the ability of various people to indulge in their "self-determination" on a variety of issues. You don't whine about "oppressive fascism" when it comes to gun control, for example. You don't whine about it when it comes to murdering one's own child in utero. You don't whine about it when it comes to 17 year olds being denied a beer.
Respectful, adult, good faith discourse does not include immediately choosing labeling, name calling and hysterical screeching. It requires an objective, reasoned and emotionally detached argument for or against a position.
You prove you're incapable.
Craig...
"I am trying to lay a logical foundation for something"
If the consequences weren't so serious and y'all weren't talking about denying human rights and the oppression of people, this would be almost cute that you're trying to go all Eric Schmitt on me.
https://www2.thedailybeast.com/maga-senator-eric-schmitts-hometown-paper-goes-nuclear-on-his-embarrassing-self-own
Will they never learn?
Dan
Art,
As noted, Dan knows that he’s misrepresenting Wilson. He just doesn’t care enough to be accurate.
After insisting that he’ll answer questions because that’s what he thinks he does. Proceeds to ignore questions, make excuses for why he has not and will never answer questions because Mr embrace grace is just going to resort to calling everyone fascists.
What’s hilarious is that you think that me trying to get you to answer specific questions in a direct way in order to potentially make a larger point is somehow a problem for me.
I’m trying to establish some things, you keep offering diversions and name calling, but somehow that reflects badly on me.
Maybe you shouldn’t be voting if you have such low comprehension.
Marshal and Craig...
"simply calling someone a fascist or an oppressor means it's absolutely and unequivocally true of the one so labeled"
Blocking ho groups from voting is a core descriptor of fascism. That is, y'all are acting like fascists by definition. I'm not calling you fascists for fun. I'm noting that denying the right to vote to women or people with disabilities, as a group, is fascist behavior, definitionally.
Understand?
"Anti-democratic action and the systematic restriction of political opposition are core defining traits of fascism. Fascist ideology fundamentally rejects liberal democracy, pluralism, and the principle of political equality."
In other words if you don't want to be called fascist, don't act like a fascist. Don't promote fascistic policies and human rights abuses.
Do you recognize or not understand that denying the right to vote to women would be a fascist characteristic, in addition to being oppressive and a human rights abuse?
Dan
No worries.
Dan, I've never even mentioned anything about voting rights for women. I'm not going along with your demands.
"To be clear I've always figured that Glenn was the sort who would be misogynistic and anti-human rights. I had expected it from Marshal as well although I did not expect it to be so blatantly put out there."
Give one, just ONE, piece of evidence to support your claim here.
You know that he is literally incapable of producing evidence, let alone proof, of the claims he makes about us.
Lucky for you, Dan has already decided what your position is and he already hates you for the position that he assigned to you. You don't have to do a thing, he's a;ready done it.
1. Who is advocating blocking "ho groups" from voting? Which means specifically who is advocating (not merely opining) for action to be taken along this line?
2. What are "ho groups"? I thought sex workers were a proud and noble profession worthy of all of the honor and respect that can be mustered.
3. You're noting and treating as a fact, something which you have not proven to be objectively correct.
4. If, hypothetically, there was a proposal to replace the 19th amendment that was properly formulated and submitted, and that amendment went through that arduous and extremely difficult process of getting ratified by the required majority of states, you would call that "fascism". Interesting.
5. I understand that that you've made up a bunch of BS and are acting like you've magically imputed your BS to us. I also understand that literally half of the countries in the world (and growing) are much further down the road you fear, and that you don't seem to worried about that.
6. I understand that you keep making these absurd claims and not actually proving those claims. I don't understand where you got the power and authority to dictate who is a "fascist" and who is not.
7. Is government using it's power to censor dissenting views on public media platforms something "fascist"?
8. Is using the power of the government to seize private property without paying fair market value "fascist"?
9. Is using government regulation and policy to force private property owners into a situation where they are unable to abide by the regulations in order to force them into a situation where the government can seize their property without paying fair market value "fascism"?
10. Is banning the display of affinity group symbols on public buildings or limiting the public expression of specific religious or social groups "fascism"?
Some more questions for you to make up excuses to not answer.
I appreciate your understanding. Unfortunately Dan is determined to avoid answering the questions I've asked which would move things along, instead he's just choosing graceless name calling.
Glenn...
Give one, just ONE, piece of evidence to support your claim here.
1. it's not a claim. It's a vibe. You give off strong misogynist vibes. The EVIDENCE though...
2. Glenn, replying to Dan simply asking the reasonable question: DO YOU support women having the vote? Are you opposed to those who would deny the right to vote to women?...
I've never even mentioned anything about voting rights for women. I'm not going along with your demands.
You see? It's a VERY LOW bar. Simply me stating, "Human rights supporters have long, of course, supported the right of women to vote. It's not a notion that's open to vote. Surely, you boys agree with the obvious human rights position that women SHOULD have the right to vote...?"
And not ONE of you have stepped up and made it clear what SHOULD be obvious: "OF COURSE, I'm strongly opposed to any suggestion that women shouldn't be given the vote... and I would denounce any son of a dog who would make that proposal!"
You boys are like boys who KNOW you'll get in trouble if you admit that you did something wrong, and yet, don't have the moral turpitude to either make it clear: OF COURSE, I support women voting OR to say clearly: I DO think it's a worthwhile question to consider to remove the right to vote from women...
That you dodge the question suggests cowardice and guilt, but I can't say for sure BECAUSE YOU KEEP RUNNING AWAY FROM THE QUESTION.
Craig:
If, hypothetically, there was a proposal to replace the 19th amendment that was properly formulated and submitted, and that amendment went through that arduous and extremely difficult process of getting ratified by the required majority of states, you would call that "fascism".
Good God, YES, of course. Denying the right to vote in determining your own nation and community's policies IS LITERALLY, by definition, part of the fascism deal. It doesn't matter if someone managed to get it passed through an election, it remains oppressive and fascist. How do you not understand this?
IF you boys and your KKKlan were able to pass legislation that, by law, made black people only worth 3/5 of a person and you were able to re-legalize slavery, slavery would STILL remain oppressive and a great evil. Right? TELL ME you understand that.
What in the name of all that is even grade-school-rational is going on?
Craig, missing the point and standing firmly on the villainous side of history, said:
What’s hilarious is that you think that me trying to get you to answer specific questions in a direct way in order to potentially make a larger point is somehow a problem for me.
What's hilarious is that YOU think refusing to answer a very basic human rights question is NOT a problem for you. Do you not understand how you all are coming across? Would you want your children and grandchildren to read this interchange? If you had younger women and girls in your life, do you not think they would be horrified to learn that "grandpa" or Mr Chatfield and Mr Craig CAN'T affirm the right of women to vote? Does this exchange NOT embarrass you deeply?
I mean, it seems like on some level, you DO recognize how awful you sound, because you won't simply answer the reasonable human rights question. But then, you miss how NOT answering it only makes you look worse and more guilty? Like not only you a human rights villain, but you're a liar and coward about your position, involved in trickery and hoaxes.
You don't see that?
Ohhhhhhhhh, Dan has the magic power of discerning things based on the "vibe" from a blog thread. How precious. Simply because Glenn chooses not to go along with Dan's demands. But, just like with Jesus, Dan has super secret special knowledge. Because "vibe".
Well, I should be pleased that Dan answered one whole question. It's good to know that Dan has now declared roughly half of the nations on earth to be "fascist".
So, somehow "democracy" is the idea way for progressives like Dan to get what they want, but it magically turns to "fascism" when the majority makes hypothetical decisions Dan doesn't like.
Speaking of a lack of a grade school understanding, the 3/5 compromise was the ABOLITIONIST/ANTI SLAVERY position you moron. Had the southern states been allowed to count the slave population for purposes of representation, the south would have dominated the congress and controlled the direction of the country. The 3/5 compromise laid the foundation for ending slavery by limiting the power of the slave holding states. That you misrepresent it is not a surprise, nor is your lack of knowledge of the reason for it. Without the 3/5 compromise, either the entire country would have been controlled by the south, or the whole thing would have likely collapsed.
Of course, now your projecting all sorts of nonsense. Have you considered therapy?
Because the insane incantations magically make Dan's nonsense better.
OK, let's leave aside the mounting number of questions you've dodging, and play your childish little game.
What single, specific "basic" question have a been "refusing to answer"? You've made the claim, and I've answered so many of your idiotic questions that I can't remember which specific one you've decided is the single, "basic" foundational question of all. So, one opportunity. You copy paste this one single question with no attached commentary or additional questions and I'll answer it (likely again).
No, I don't understand or care how I come across to you.
I'd prefer to protect my children and grandchildren from your stupidity and refusal to do what you say you'll do. But I'd be happy to have a discussion on my actual views with them, as opposed to your made up BS version of my views.
I do have "younger women" in my life and I don't think they'd appreciate your lies. No, your refusal to answer questions in a simple direct manner, and your constant misrepresentation, diversion, obfuscation, and continued name calling don't embarrass me at all. I've spent so much time dealing with your BS, that I haven't even begun to do anything but deal with your shit.
Again, if you're going to make these sorts of claims, you need to prove them. But don't do that and keep citing your unproven claims as your excuse for pretty much anything.
Oh, I left out slander and gracelessness in my list of reasons for you being embarrassed.
So, let's see it. The ONE magical question that you claim I haven't answered. I want the date and time stamp of this question so I can see it in context and see whether or not you are lying. This is critically important because you have a tendency to cite one specific question, then change or add to it when asked for specifics.
I'm showing you the grace of giving you the opportunity to show me what I could possibly have missed.
I'm not going to abort any comments that happen before you provide this mystery question, but they'll stay in moderation until you provide me with the one, single, question you've been hysterically screeching about.
One comment from Dan, one from anonymous that appears to be Dan.
Neither has given me what I asked for.
How hard is it to copy/paste this question along with the date and time of the comment it was in, in a comment with no other bullshit.
As it seems beyond Dan's ability so far, the hysteria remains in moderation.
You know, I sometimes think I'm beginning to understand what "embrace grace" means, and then Dan opens his virtual mouth and I become confused again. I'm beginning to think it means nothing at all.
"Glenn...
Give one, just ONE, piece of evidence to support your claim here.
1. it's not a claim. It's a vibe. You give off strong misogynist vibes. The EVIDENCE though...
2. Glenn, replying to Dan simply asking the reasonable question: DO YOU support women having the vote? Are you opposed to those who would deny the right to vote to women?...
I've never even mentioned anything about voting rights for women. I'm not going along with your demands.
You see? It's a VERY LOW bar. Simply me stating, "Human rights supporters have long, of course, supported the right of women to vote. It's not a notion that's open to vote. Surely, you boys agree with the obvious human rights position that women SHOULD have the right to vote...?"
Okay fool Dan, "You give off strong misogynist vibes"
What evidence do you have to give you such lying "vibes"?
When it comes to women's vote, suddenly if I don't want to play your childish and stupid game and respond to your demands that means I am against women's rights to vote?!!!? That's the problem with you and your LEFTIST ilk--either play your arrogant games or get slandered.
We’re up to three comments from Dan and he still seems to be having trouble doing what he was asked to do.
Or, it’s possible that he’s being petulant and assumes that we’ll eventually guess.
In any case, it’s on him, not me.
C
I don’t think Dan would know Grace if it bit him on Baalam’s donkey.
It’s all about the vibes, man.
C
Post a Comment