Thursday, September 28, 2017

Is the GOP Embarrassed, Yet?

Ashamed? Disturbed?

What will it take for the GOP to draw back from the ugly, racist, bigoted, hateful, oppressive, ignorant paths they are sending themselves down?

Roy Moore doesn't know who Dreamers are or what DACA is, in this day and season.

He has advocated criminalizing homosexual behavior. He has called it akin to bestiality.

He has spewed overtly racist commentary.

He has opposed Muslims being elected.

(Enough with the links, anyone can look them up.)

He holds to anti-American, ugly theocratic ideals.

He is so bigoted, hateful, ignorant and distasteful that even Donald Trump wouldn't endorse him!

Think about that!

Man, what the GOP is tailspinning itself into is an embarrassment to the world and our nation, and frankly, all of humanity.

When will God save those people?


Bubba said...

Dan is absolutely right.

It's horrible to mention reds and yellows, even though it's quite alright to mention blacks and whites -- and all four colors are quite famously mentioned in a children's church song that almost everyone Moore's age learned growing up.

It's also horrible to oppose homosexuality, and it's simultaneously wrong to oppose the election of Muslims even though sharia law forbids homosexuality and makes it a capital crime.

It's wrong to make ANY comparison between homosexuality and bestiality even only to note that the state has traditionally criminalized private behavior in both cases; the only permissible comparisons are positive comparisons, since the demand for the public celebration of sodomy is just like the struggle to ensure that blacks can vote.

And, it's also ridiculous not to know simple facts about contemporary politics: basic political literacy is absolutely essential for effective service in representing one of our fifty-seven states.

Roy Moore doesn't go out of his way to jump through the absurd and often contradictory demands of political correctness, selectively imposed by our sovereign elites to keep out the rabble. Indeed that's an embarrassment, and if there's anything more fundamentally American than a enthusiastic embrace of perversion and jihad, it's deference to the ruling class.

I simply cannot imagine why anyone would support the guy.

Dan Trabue said...

So, no, you're not embarrassed? Not even by the apparent sheer stupidity of a Trump or a Moore? Or their complete apparent ineptness for the job?

What WOULD it take to embarrass you?

Would a Trump or a Moore actually have to murder someone before you'd be embarrassed? Not even then?

So, while most conservatives seem to be, at least publicly, walking back their prejudice against gay folk, saying of course they wouldn't criminalize it... are you saying you WOULD criminalize homosexual acts?

And yes, I did learn "red and yellow, black and white" growing up. But I've learned that it's racist to say "the reds" or "the yellows," so I wouldn't do it. It would be an embarrassment.

Bubba said...

Moore didn't say "the" reds or "the" yellows, but I'm sure that what he said is just as bad as you make it out to be -- you'd never bend the truth to make your opponents look bad -- and it's racist and outright evil for a 70-year-old Southerner not to keep up with the latest guidelines about what you can and cannot say.

He probably even thinks that men can't get pregnant.


Personally, I believe that homosexual acts between consenting adults should remain legal, but I recognize that not all traditionalists share my libertarian outlook, and I think people can support Moore to make some small, incremental progress in advancing the cause of social conservatism while recognizing that measures such as criminalization are political impossibilities for the foreseeable future.

But, sure, Moore isn't an ideal candidate and neither is Trump. Moore isn't a reasonable and realistic political philosopher like Bernie Sanders, and Trump isn't a paragon of virtue like that amateur lifeguard, Ted Kennedy.

For some reason, thinking about that lion of the Senate brings me back to that particularly heinous subject of murder -- certainly I would draw the line well before that.

Suppose that Moore started his political career in the home of an attempted mass murderer, an unrepentant domestic terrorist who tried to bomb a military dance, deliberately targeting soldiers AND their civilian loved ones with a nail bomb designed to cause maximum bodily harm.

I certainly would be embarrassed by Moore, and I wouldn't cover for that attempted mass murderer by falsely claiming that he only targeted "stuff."

Or suppose that Moore supported institutionalized infanticide -- not just voicing his theoretical assent to it, but actually voting for it as a legislator, casting a vote against a bill that would protect newborns who had the misfortune of surviving an attempted abortion.

I would definitely be ashamed to support such an inhuman monster, and I wouldn't have the shamelessness to celebrate his election by claiming that he ran "so all our children could fly."

But maybe that's just me.

Anonymous said...

You give way too much slack to this guy on his criminalizing sexuality. I mean, wow, you ARE progressive in that you'd allow the gays to roam free, but it's no small insanity that this idiot would criminalize certain sexual acts between consenting adults. And the comparison to bestiality is, itself, a sick perversion.

That you aren't ashamed to have this pervert be an actual elected representative for your side does not portray your sort in a favorable light.


Bubba said...

Ugly, racist, bigoted, hateful, oppressive, ignorant, anti-American, ugly, theocratic, bigoted, hateful, ignorant, distasteful; stupidity, ineptness, insanity; idiot, pervert.

You know what your problem is, Dan?

Not enough name-calling. In fact, you should just stick to sputtering bad names about the people you don't like, as that is the most effective method of persuasion, to say nothing of showing grace!

And I think you should invoke more epithets even at the expense of documenting the authority with which you pronounce on issues of popular opinion and public perception. You seem to be speaking for an awful lot of people in telling us what's embarrassing and what puts us in a bad light, and I certainly appreciate the effort to justify your doing so and prove to us -- with hard data, no less! -- that you're not presuming to speak for others out of turn.

But, it's overkill.

We don't need any reason to believe that you speak for all mankind, just as you speak for reality.

What we need are more pejoratives.

Marshal Art said...

According to Dan, whatever he says is sick perversion IS sick perversion, merely because he says it is. Talk about confusing fact with opinion!! And he will treat this opinion as fact when he mostly certainly will delete comments he will prefer to regard as supportive of "sick perversion", when those comments merely clarify the reality of the situation.

I've been trying to find actual quotes of Moore regarding SSM and homosexuality in general, and I've found nothing that isn't shared by millions of Americans with regard to his opinions. One article referenced a World Net Daily interview in which Moore allegedly advocates for capital punishment (saying something to the effect that if we kill a few of them, they'll get the message), but the article offers no link for this particular charge, and I've yet to find it.

In any case, I'm not an advocate for CP for homosexuality, but criminalizing sexual behavior is not a problem for me in general, as we still have prostitution illegal in most states, and that's certainly consensual.

As to comparing homosexuality to bestiality, it's enough for actual Christians (pay attention, Dan as this is what actual Christians believe) to recognize that the comparison is apt insofar as is the case with incest and adultery, they are both examples of sexual immorality. In terms of ranking examples in terms of worst forms, these two would be at the top (I'd make bestiality the worst, with homosexuality second worst because they are furthest from God's ideal for human sexuality).

As to simply criminalizing homosexuality without regard to class (felony vs. misdemeanor I mean), I'm not necessarily supportive of doing so, but I also wouldn't find great fault in it. At this point in time, I'd be satisfied if recent court rulings were disregarded as the unconstitutional crap they are and the one man/one woman definition be restored to its legitimate state.

Finally, those who support the traditional and REAL definition of marriage are not the perverts in the debate. That would be those who pervert God's will for human sexuality in order to defend, celebrate, promote and enable perversity, like Justice Kennedy for example.

Dan Trabue said...

And your problem, Bubba, is that you are defending literal idiots (i.e., Trump and Moore are just not emotionally or intellectually fit for office... they display profound ignorance about important American ideals and facts).

If someone displays some basic ignorance and lack of intelligence on important matters and that person is being considered for an important office, it is not name-calling to say, "Damn, that's stupid of him." It's just pointing out reality.

If someone is a bigot (and Moore and Trump are at least acting like bigots, in a variety of areas) it is not name-calling to say, "Damn, what a bigoted thing to say!" It's just pointing out reality.

If someone wants to criminalize sexual behavior between two consenting adults, it's not name-calling to say, "What a pervert, butting into people's sex lives as if he has a thing to say on the matter! How un-American!" It's just point out reality.

But I get it. You two are not embarrassed by the likes of Moore and Trump. Their elections (if Moore is elected) are on you. Their hatred and bigotry and anti-liberty actions are on you, and people like you.

Shame on you.

I mean, look at this fucking regurgitated shit from Marshall's pen!

As to simply criminalizing homosexuality without regard to class (felony vs. misdemeanor I mean), I'm not necessarily supportive of doing so, but I also wouldn't find great fault in it.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Shame, shame on you.


Bubba said...

I forgot, it's not name-calling if you do it. My bad.

Anyway, keep it up. And while you're at it, keep calling down shame and throwing out obscenities, like some foul-mouthed Pharisee (just pointing out reality).

You're doing great.

Anonymous said...

The Pharisees were not known to have foul mouths. They were known for their virtue. Now, Jesus, he had quite the foul mouth on him, when he confronted the religious zealots of his day.

So, I don't mind the company.

Ironically, I never used to cuss. Ever. It started with the crimes and bad policies of Bush II, and has only gotten worse as the racists, Nazis and Pharisees have taken a larger and larger hold of the GOP.


Bubba said...

Yes, a foul-mouthed Pharisee would be a contradiction in terms. That was my point, you were combining the best of both worlds, the elitist's sanctimony AND the ignorant man's lack of class.

Like every good Christian, you're quick to tell others how much you're just like Jesus, but perhaps you sell yourself short. Jesus was harsh but precise, lacking your flair for excess. He didn't rant the way you do.

"Leaven" or "fucking regurgitated shit," there's really no comparison.

But maybe that was just how the Gospels portrayed Jesus, limited as they were for space. We know those books are flawed in other ways, like attributing to Jesus some pretty dire warnings about judgment and hellfire, but since we're assured that God is always with all of humanity, you're quite right to ignore those parts and cite only those bits that fit what we know must be true.

At any rate, the similarities far outweigh the differences. People marveled at how Jesus spoke with authority, and you educate us all on the facts of reality, and we appreciate that.

And just as Jesus was more foul-mouthed as the religious leaders got worse in their enmity -- shocking how much Jesus ranted during the trial and from the cross -- you've gotten worse in your language as the gap has widened between you and your political opponents.

But, believe me, I can understand.

The way we have been so very provocative in how we have expressed ourselves, you just couldn't help yourself, and we should admit that we had this coming.

We deserve your verbal abuse, and you're entirely right to blame us for your behavior, to lay the responsibility of your words on the objects of your derision.

Craig said...

It's "white washed tombs" that equals "fucking regurgitated shit".

What does it say about ones ability to express political disagreement if it is the impetus for expletive laden rants.

But, it's the GOP's fault you started cussing like a sailor.

Marshal Art said...

Let's not get too carried away. I cuss like a truck driver, given that I am one. Not proud of it and indeed am ashamed for that, as I admitted in a post over seven years ago. But as I said to my niece lo those many years ago, there's a stark difference between obscenity flying out one's mouth versus purposely typing it out in an internet discussion. The latter is done intentionally, the former merely a bad habit and thus more of a reflexive response.

As to this:

As to simply criminalizing homosexuality without regard to class (felony vs. misdemeanor I mean), I'm not necessarily supportive of doing so, but I also wouldn't find great fault in it.

What makes it problematic exactly? That's rhetorical. I know the answer that you won't admit. It's not completely and unequivocally celebratory and supportive of the form of sexual immorality you so strongly show unChristian favor. You'd pretend that it's about infringing upon the rights of others with regard to their personal lives, but I've never seen you post the same passion for hookers and their johns, the polyamorous, or the incestuous so it's all about homosexuality for you. They're absolute angels from heaven to you.

Dan Trabue said...

Vulgar attitudes, behaviors and words (from the likes of Trump, Moore and their supporters) result in vulgar responses. Is that surprising?

Why did Jesus "go blue" when he confronted the vulgarity of the Pharisees?

And Marshall, do you think being purposefully vulgar (using strong language by design and with intent) is worse than using it casually and without thought? I'd disagree.

Marshal Art said...

Once the habit of profane speech is ingrained, it is indeed worse to type it out than to speak it due to the opportunity the written word has over face-to-face discourse. Indeed, in those situations, I'm far more tolerant of profane speech of others if it means their thoughts are expressed truthfully. It is more difficult to express one's self extemporaneously when also having to censor yourself. Not impossible, mind you. More difficult than simply speaking freely.

The written word, however, is much different. Even when passions run high there is no excuse for profanity and obscenity as one has the time to formulate effective and articulate expressions of opinion without resorting to such language at all. Orally, often doesn't realize how frequent the use of profanity is (in the same way one doesn't realize how often one might use words and utterances such as "ya know?" and "um"---sidebar: a woman at work held a meeting to discuss some issues and during the roughly thirty minute period she must have said, "this, that and the other" at least a dozen times. I don't think that would have been the case had she sent a memo out with all the same points addressed therein).

So yeah, it's definitely worse to purposely use such language as opposed to using it as a bad habit, in much the same way as purposely pushing you into the wall is worse than doing so accidentally. That's not to say that the habit is OK to tolerate in one's self. I constantly struggle with trying to break the habit in myself because I know it's wrong for one who claims to be Christian to use foul language. Plus, it's just not classy and men of character don't. Thus:

"Vulgar attitudes, behaviors and words (from the likes of Trump, Moore and their supporters) result in vulgar responses." a pathetic excuse. It's not surprising you'd use it.

Craig said...

So you’re not responsible for your own behavior, it’s Trumps fault. You’re really suggesting that the most appropriate, grace filled, Christ like way for you to respond to vulgarity by Trump, is to unleash vulgar, expletive filled, vitriol at us.

That makes total sense.

Dan Trabue said...

Are you daft?

I didn't say I was not responsible for my behavior. I am quite clearly CHOOSING MYSELF to type these words, deliberately.

I'm meeting vulgar with vulgar.

Vulgar Trump idiocy. Vulgar Moore idiocy. And vulgar defenders of these idiots.

Craig said...

To be perfectly accurate, you’re not meeting Trump vulgarity at all. You’re aiming your vulgarity at us, and blaming Trump.

“Vulgar attitudes and words...result in vulgar responses”.

First, your premise is demonstrably false since the vast majority of people aren’t compelled to respond to vulgarity with vulgarity. Most of the time we don’t respond to your vulgarity with vulgarity.

Second, if you were aiming your vulgarity at the people who provoke you into it your point might have more validity. But, you a it st us, them blame others.

I’m truly sorry that your own words have placed you in this predicament.

But, people are responsible for their actions.

Craig said...

Sorry, should be Trump’s not Trump

Bubba said...

Let's set aside other public but politically contentious activities -- like carrying water for Ayers and Wright, or celebrating that Obama won "so that all our children could fly" while ignoring his full-throated support of the murder of children by the millions, both in the womb AND in the maternity-ward broom closet.

I don't think people should be profligate in their use of obscenities, not in impromptu words they speak and certainly not in the more carefully considered words that they type and publish in public venues online. People shouldn't be proud of their trash talk and even try to defend it, much less should they invoke Jesus to try to justify their behavior.

People who do such things are hardly in any position to stand in judgment about how other people should be embarrassed about their choices and ashamed of themselves.

Anonymous said...

And I am not profligate in my use of obscenities. I reserve it exclusively for dickweeds who would defend oppression or contribute to the defense of rapists by victim shaming women.

There are some things in life worth getting upset over. Victim shaming is one of them.

Or these idiots, Moore and Trump, for instance, supported by so many on the conservative side of things. Now, I am entirely sympathetic towards people of limited intellect and those with mental disorders. To a point. But, when they start getting elected to office, when they start enacting oppressive, harmful and just plain embarrassingly stupid policies, supported by embarrassingly stupid lies and demonization of innocent, decent people, that is worth getting upset about.

And getting upset with the people who defend their oppressive, atrocious, pussy-grabbing, racist actions/policies/lies is something worth getting upset about. Their actions are vulgar (Trump/Moore's, and the people who prop them up).

So, seriously, Bubba, I don't give a rat's ass what you think about good behavior. You are defending fucking liars who oppress, lie and steal. To hell with that sort of behavior.

Shame on you and get the fuck out of here, you pervert-defender. No more of your shit-mouthed defense of the indefensible.


Anonymous said...

The thing is, gentleman, I do not believe you all understand the scope of disgust that people are having towards conservatives or what passes for conservatism these days.

No of course I realize that conservatives don't think that (although some do, like Kasich) but huge swaths of people find current conservative so-called values to be perverse, immoral, irrational and loathesome.

Thus, the strong reactions.


Craig said...

I don’t think you understand that your inability to express disgust without resorting to expletives, then blaming it on others seriously undermined your credibility.

Of course your completely rational conclusion that anyone who doesn’t parrot your vociferous vitriol, therefore supports whatever’s got you in a tizzy makes complete sense.

Bubba said...

And that does it, I think.

"So, seriously, Bubba, I don't give a rat's ass what you think about good behavior. You are defending fucking liars who oppress, lie and steal. To hell with that sort of behavior.

"Shame on you and get the fuck out of here, you pervert-defender. No more of your shit-mouthed defense of the indefensible.

A dishonest but superficially civil individual might (arguably) be worth engaging, if only to refute the bad arguments and repudiate the outright lies, for the sake of third parties who might be following along.

But I will not tolerate deliberate verbal abuse.

Craig said...

But Bubba, Trumk verbally abuses people so Dan is compelled to verbally abuse you. He’s not responsible.

Dan Trabue said...

"But I will not tolerate deliberate verbal abuse..."

You're fine with dishing it out, but don't want to take it, at least if it involves "naughty words..."?

Well, there's one stroke in favor of cussing, then.

Craig, you still do not understand my position.

And seriously fellas, I will ask again: If you can't read and understand my words written in the same language, time and culture that you live in, perhaps you should be more humble in claiming to "know" what God says because you "know" what the Bible is teaching. (IF that's what you're saying...)

Craig said...

I just take what you write at face value, it’s not challenging.

Marshal Art said...

Just so there's no confusion, Dan, you're a liar, but not a Christian. I don't mean a poor example of a Christian as I am. I mean you're not a Christian at all. Your cheap rationalizing isn't fooling anyone. Cussing people out for that which is wrong really in your fevered imaginings alone is returning evil for evil...something you've pretended to oppose in the past.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, do you have anything to post on topic, or are you just engaging in ad hom attacks?

Craig, you do not take what I've said for literally what I've said. You take what I've said, THINK "HMMM, DAN MUST BE SAYING..." and start talking about what you think I've said, which is not the same as what I've said and is often the opposite of what I believe.

You do this repeatedly.

So, apparently it is challenging for you.

Anonymous said...

And Craig, just to illuminate (although I'm guessing you won't understand and admit the mistake), here's an example.

You just said,

"Trumk verbally abuses people so Dan is compelled to verbally abuse you. He’s not responsible."

I've literally never said that. Those are not my words. That is not what I've said. It's not what I believe.

Do you understand that?

In fact, I stated quite clearly that I WAS RESPONSIBLE for choosing to type in curse words and that I did it in response to those, like you, who defend (even if it's by your silence) Trump's irrational, irresponsible, malicious lying and perverse and racist behaviors, NOT solely in response to Trump.

Here's what I said:

I didn't say I was not responsible for my behavior.
I am quite clearly CHOOSING MYSELF to type these words, deliberately.

If I MYSELF am the one choosing to type the words, then who am I saying is responsible? ME, MYSELF. Was that not clear to you?

You have misunderstood my actual points, because what you said I do/think is not what I've said. It's the OPPOSITE of what I've said (at least the last comment).


Marshal Art said...


Your position and behavior is the target of my attacks. "Liar" and "not a Christian" areappropriate conclusions. A cheap rationalization used to explain the use of foul language is the lie. (The truth is that you just want to attack everyone towards whom you used foul language). Purposely and willfully choosing to use foul language to attack others is what demonstrates you're no Christian.
The lying doesn’t help, either. Indeed, you've transgressed a number of Biblical "truths" by doing this...most of which you've used to accuse us many times.

As to the topic, my comments are relevant in that they stand as objections and criticisms of the point of the post.

Anonymous said...

You are welcome to your ill opinions of me.

I hold an increasingly ill opinion of GOP supporters.


Marshal Art said...

From someone who votes for candidates BECAUSE those candidates openly support infanticide, sexual immorality and other horrible positions, your focus on the GOP makes little sense...particularly if you insist on posing as a Christian.

Craig said...

"Vulgar attitudes, behaviors and words (from the likes of Trump, Moore and their supporters) result in vulgar responses. Is that surprising?"

"I'm meeting vulgar with vulgar."

"Vulgar Trump idiocy. Vulgar Moore idiocy. And vulgar defenders of these idiots."

Oh, look. Your exact words.

1. While trump does have moments of vulgarity, he is not constantly vulgar.
2. Whoever this guy in AL is, you certainly haven't demonstrated that he regularly engages in vulgarity.
3. Even if both of them were as vulgar as you claim, you're not "meeting vulgar with vulgar", you're using their vulgarity as an excuse to be vulgar to third parties.
4. Your history of vulgar expletive laden attacks on me goes back long before Trump was running for office, so clearly it's not all Trump.
5. Neither myself, or Bubba have initiated referring to you in vulgar, expletive laden terms. When we have, it's most often been simply quoting what you say about us back to you.
6. As much as you'd like to have the excuse, Bubba, Art and I have all spoken negatively, been critical, and actively not defended him. (Art, voted for him but has been pretty public about his reasons why.) So to claim that we support him through silence is just simply false. To unleash your vulgar, expletive laden rants st us because of this falsehood, just makes it worse.

So, while you didn't use the exact words I did, (and it's a pretty safe bet that you relish being able to uses these sorts of semantic dodges), your own words are pretty emphatic and speak for themselves.

Bubba said...


In the past, you have accused me of gossip simply for posting comments that were critical about you in forums other than your own -- public forums which you have been known to visit, where I had every expectation that my comments would not be hidden from you or unavailable to you.

You have accused me of bearing false witness for drawing negative conclusions from your words, even though you have done the very same thing with others' words, including my own: your position has been that it's horribly wrong for me to infer from your words a deficiency in honesty on your part, while you infer from my words a deficiency in humility and (even now) you infer from Trump's words a deficiency in mental health.

In one of your worst moments, you accused me of conducting a "digital lynching" against Jeremiah Wright, merely for criticizing a race-essentialist, demagogic conspiracy mongerer who happens to be black.

Just this week, you've continued to accuse me of arrogantly presuming to speak for God merely for believing that a text's message is sometimes -- SOMETIMES -- clear beyond any reasonable, good-faith disagreement.

In this thread, the accusation is that I'm shameless for being insufficiently appalled at a politician whose views of sex and law have been in the historical mainstream.

And I'm somewhat surprised that you haven't recently dredged up your favorite accusation, that those who disagree with you are lacking in grace.

But in the face **ALL** of these accusations, I've been more than willing to explain at length why I object. I've been more than willing to argue my cause AND to argue why I have ultimately reached such negative conclusions about you.

It is simply untrue -- and I believe it's fair to characterize it as a lie -- to say that I'm unwilling to endure the sort of harsh criticism that I "dish out."

What I will not tolerate isn't harsh criticism -- fair or unfair, argued or merely asserted -- it's deliberately abusive and offensive attacks, with OR without "naughty words."

I could certainly respond in kind, but doing so is even less justifiable than wasting my time arguing with you: it's a kind of contest that there's no point in winning, with no appreciable benefits and a lot of cost to one's character.

As much as you've tended to focus on the former and avoid the latter, I can't imagine you really cannot distinguish between negative criticism and verbal abuse.

But if you think that people should put up with both when it comes from you, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Dan Trabue said...

We'll have to agree to disagree on the suggestion that you have anything like reasonable data to make a "He's dishonest" claim about me. The facts are, I have never lied to you, nor tried in anyway to be dishonest. Been snarky? Been rude? Not understood? Sure, anyone can read my words and find that, at times (although, in the balance, probably not so much as has been directed my way). But "dishonest?" Well, it's just a dishonest claim.

That you all don't understand my points, that you read into it things I have not said and did not intend, at some point, it's no longer on me.

Thus, while you may think your words towards me have been reasonable and kind, I don't think a reasonable person, free of conservative bias, would reach that same conclusion.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the point.

Craig, you still misunderstand. You read my words, then reach conclusions that just aren't there, even when you think you're citing them.

And please, bitch, get serious. Trump isn't constantly vulgar? I'll give you that he sleeps sometimes, and we don't hear every word from him every day, but he is consistently vulgar and has been for well over a year.

And seriously? Suggesting that gay folk should be criminalized? That their "behavior" is comparable to bestiality?

And what about the constant flow of lies and stupid lies from these two and people like them?

The thing is, these two guys are perversely vulgar and have been so consistently, and to a dangerous degree - at least for world leaders (well, if Moore were elected, he'd be a leader in the world). That you all can't see it is part of the problem with the conservative brand.