Attacks on Asian Americans is and has been on the rise...
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/17/978055571/anti-asian-attacks-rise-during-pandemic-read-nprs-stories-on-the-surge-in-violen
Killer targets Asian Americans (Asian, Asian-looking...) in attacks in Atlanta. Eight dead...
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/atlanta-area-shootings-03-17-21/index.html
Spit on, yelled at, attacked... Asian Americans are not feeling safe...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/us/chinese-coronavirus-racist-attacks.html
Trump and his supporters and other racists used and continue to use stereotypical hate language to inflate hatred towards Asians and Asian Americans. Words matter. It's NOT being PC to say that Trump should stop with the hate language. Just as we could predict violence over the election due to his stirring up distrust with his idiot words, so too, we could predict violence towards Asian-appearing people directly from the words he and his supporters use.
Stop it.
Asian Americans are not the enemy. Asian people are not the enemy. BLM is not the enemy. Antifa is not the enemy. Liberals, the media, LGBTQ folk, Democrats... hell, even Republicans are not the enemy.
The enemy are those who embrace hateful language and deploy dangerous attacks to demonize groups of people - especially historically oppressed groups of people. We MUST unite against such hate language and denounce it when it happens. We MUST not give a pass to such demonizations and hate.
61 comments:
And let's stop empathizing* with white male killers while calling all others "now dead thugs."
"He was pretty much fed up and kind of at the end of his rope,” Captain Baker* from Cherokee County sheriff’s office said, talking about the accused on Wednesday. “Yesterday was a really bad day for him and this is what he did,” a bad day.'
*Captain Baker is now under threat of losing his job because of his "previous Facebook post from 30 March 2020, Mr Baker promoted sales of an anti-Asian T-shirt, which echoed the rhetoric of the then incumbent president Donald Trump, referring to the coronavirus as an “imported virus from Chy-na.” “Place your order while they last,” Mr Baker wrote on the post earlier.
The latest reports suggest the Atlanta case is not one of racism.
While I don't care who's doing the anti-Asian assaults, I've seen numerous videos of black dudes doing the assaulting. We may yet see cases of white guys doing it, too. I just haven't seen any yet. I haven't been looking in any case.
Neither Trump, nor his supporters, have been using "stereotypical hate language". To truthfully state the source of Covid-19 is not at all hate language, but an accurate statement of fact. Calling it "China virus" or "Wuhan virus" has been routinely used by Trump in order to keep the truth in mind, particularly given his stellar position on China's government and their dastardly behavior. Nothing in his rhetoric can rationally and honestly be regarded as an invitation or instigation to assault Asians. If you think it would be any different if he never used the term, go ahead and try to make that case. It should be worth a few laughs. But the origination of the virus was known from the start and any who wanted to use it as an excuse to assault Asians would've done so anyway.
But you keep pretending. Your hatred of Trump burns as hellishly as ever.
In the meantime, BLM, Antifa and even LGBT activists all use hateful language regularly. By your own terms, they're enemies. I've heard quite a bit of hateful language from leftist media types for quite some time. I'll just leave that there.
Marshal’s thought process leads him to think that hating hate is the same as hate. And that abusing and killing people of color is the same as talking bad about white people.
Such is the gutter level of his mind, his conscience, and his worship of a book idol instead of the living god.
Sadly, yup.
Marshal, you will not post false, unsupported claims here, attacking people of color while defending racists. Stupidly false, unsupported claims may work for Trump and his useful idiots, but not reasonable adults.
Marshal, while it is clear to everyone else who is rational, let me explain the difference to you...
When I claim that white supremacist represent a significant terrorist threat of violence in the United States, I can support that claim because that's what the experts are saying. The FBI, homeland security and various policing agencies have all affirmed this based on their intelligence. I can cite that support. You can look it up.
On the other hand, when you attack justice organizations like blm and claim that they are responsible for deadly violence, you can't support that. There is no data out there that says blm represents a threat to us security. The FBI, homeland security, experts in the field do not identify BLM as a violent terrorist organization Unlike the white supremacists that you defend.
That is the difference between adult conversations and conspiracy theorists. If you can't cite support for your claim, you will not make it here. And that support has to be something other than another conspiracy theorist organization.
Marshal claimed, WITH NO SUPPORT BEYOND his white castle hunch...
"Neither Trump, nor his supporters, have been using "stereotypical hate language". To truthfully state the source of Covid-19 is not at all hate language..."
So, we can let all our Asian friends know that, in spite of what they've heard from Trump and what they've seen in response, that pasty white Marshal tells him they're all good... Trump didn't say anything to bother folks of Asian descent.
Marshal says.
But you have to ask yourself, white boy: Who made you an authority? Just because YOU THINK (with no support) that Trump meant no harm and caused no harm with his repeated attacks on China and his other endless xenophobic attacks does not mean you're right.
Folks of Asian descent can hear and make up their own minds.
And THEY say (with a good bit more experience on matters relating to being of Asian descent that you'll ever have) that Trump's words DO cause harm, DO promote hatefulness and xenophobia.
And you know who else recognizes Trump's words for being xenophobic and racist? RACISTS. They have been emboldened in a manner unprecedented in decades by Trump's words. THEY recognize that Trump is attacking "the Asians," "the blacks," "no good immigrants..."
So, the racists recognize Trump's racism and people of color recognize his racism and rational people recognize Trump's racism and xenophobia and they/we really don't give a damn what white Marshal has to say from his seat of white privilege.
Your opinion is nothing. No more crazy opinions without support. I'm letting that comment stand, but nothing more unless you can support it with data.
Marshal is trying to comment again, this time with links that don't support what he's saying and that come from unreliable right wing sources that are clearly partisan in their reporting and not looking at actual data.
Marshal made some claim about Biden being "rapey," with no support. And this is a BIG NO for any conservatives who support Trump. You just don't get to claim ANY concern for women until you denounce your pig president. And you sure as hell don't get to do it with no data to support your stupid partisan claim.
You all have lost ALL credibility on matters of race, immigration and concern for women. You all have solidly identified yourselves as defenders of sexual harassment, sexually predatory behavior and even rape. Until such time as you denounce your pervert president clearly and unequivocally, you just don't get to say shit, not here. Trying to do so just exposes yourself as someone who is willing to use rape as yet ANOTHER way to attack women and NO, it's not happening here, pervert.
For the record and by way of explaining the problem with Marshal's links, one of his links (to a right wing media outfit) was an opinion piece and it linked to something claiming to be "latest FBI research" but actually pointed to a twitter feed of someone. Another link was to something called "churchmilitant.com" - which does NOT bode well if you're wanting to suggest you have reliable data.
Church militant, I've learned is an extreme rightwing catholic group that called itself Real Catholic TV until the Catholic church told them, "Um, no. You ain't us and can't use our name." Be that as it may, you will not quote sources that other Catholics call racist and homophobic and pretend it's an actual news source.
You want to talk polls, cite Gallup, Pew or some place reliable. You want to talk about what the FBI or DHS are saying, cite them, not twitter.
Big fail.
To the degree that Marshal tried to cite something that was relevant at all, he mentioned that not all Asian Americans are opposed to Trump. Doesn't matter. I never said that was the case. Any more than all African Americans or LGBTQ folk are opposed to Trump.
But overwhelmingly, all these groups TEND to be opposed to Trump and tend to recognize his racist commentary for what it is.
Here's a story talking about Asian support and lack of support for Trump from an actual news source that cites actual research/data...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/asian-american-voters-support-biden-54-trump-30-numbers-don-n1240263
The report says, among other things...
"Ramakrishnan said there have been some signs of a shift rightward during Trump's presidency, particularly among Vietnamese Americans. He said a 2016 pre-election survey showed that Vietnamese Americans were least supportive of accepting Syrian refugees compared to other groups, even though the Vietnamese population in the U.S. is a heavily refugee community. Ramakrishnan said the Trump administration has played into the idea of a "good immigrant versus bad immigrant" mentality, which could have affected the already conservative segment of Vietnamese American voters.
"Trump has created a kind of 'us versus them,'" he said. "Even among certain aspects of the immigrant and refugee population, he's created divisions. He's done it."
AND...
"Along with Indian Americans, Chinese Americans had the smallest proportion of Republican Party affiliation, at 16 percent.
"His very strong anti-China rhetoric policy seems to have cooled off the 'Chinese Americans for Trump' phenomenon quite a bit," Ramakrishnan said."
If you want to try to make a case for anything, cite real data from legitimate sources. If you're citing a KKK magazine, I DON'T CARE if the magazine gets some bits of a story factually correct, you're not going to cite them here because they ARE NOT A LEGITIMATE JOURNALISTIC NEWS SOURCE. Same for "ChurchMilitant," same for "GodHatesGays" or ANY other rage rag you might find pleasing.
On his unrelated comment about Biden being "rapey," Marshal is referring to the Tara Reade case. Biden has ONE accusation against him of sexual assault. I'm bringing this up NOT because the pervert Trump defenders of the world have ANY credibility on concerns about sexual assault - they don't... they clearly just use ANY concern about sexual assault as yet another means to assault, attack and discredit women and these pretenses are just vomitous - but because we who ARE concerned about sexual assault/harassment DO take such charges seriously.
In Reade's case, ANY charge is to be taken seriously and people have looked into the matter. Unfortunately, Reade has a history of making false claims about some topics (including her education and her work history) and there is no support for the claim. Various media (and White House) investigations found the claims unsupported and unlikely...
"NPR's Asma Khalid wrote, "Some details of Reade's account have been inconsistent, and her story has changed over time", noting that in 2019 she did not mention sexual assault. Laura McGann of Vox, who conducted multiple interviews of Reade and other relevant sources, stated: "The story that both she and her corroborating witnesses are telling has changed dramatically."
Joan Walsh, writing in The Nation, said Reade's allegation of sexual assault "doesn't stand up to close scrutiny". In New York Magazine, political commentator Jonathan Chait stated that at first he found Reade's claims believable, but that the findings reported by PBS, Laura McGann in Vox, and Natasha Korecki in Politico cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations."
We MUST take all accusations seriously and consider the report closely. But if it comes down to a he said/she said and there's just no proof to support the claim, we can't penalize someone based on one such unprovable accusation, especially if holes are found.
HOWEVER, when you have multiple reports - over 20! in Trump's case - of women reporting sexual assault AND you have an overtly immoral predator whose OWN WORDS indict him as to enjoying abusing his power that lets him "grab women by their genitals" and ogle teenagers getting dressed and BOASTING AND LAUGHING about it publicly... THAT is a man who is not to be trusted and we MUST give credence to these reports. It may not be sufficient to indict him in a court of law, but it is sufficient for rational, moral people to expect such a predator to step down.
And HERE is the difference between Trump supporters and rational, moral people: IF more reports show up and IF they are as credible as even a few of Trump's accusers are and IF Biden has a tape show up of him laughing about sexual assault, YOU CAN BELIEVE that Biden WILL be gone. We'll demand he step down and it WILL happen.
Because we care about such things. Whereas you only use it for political gamemanship - which again, only serves to exploit women further, pervert - we care and ACT appropriately to such charges.
So, your deviant sexual predatory defense has been exposed and we recognize perverts like you as the rapist defenders that you are. Until such time as you apologize for defending perverts and rapists, you have zero credibility. And saying I support little old lesbian ladies getting married to their beloved and even TRYING to suggest that is somehow "perverse..." that only shows how sick in the soul you are.
Repent, admit your error, change your ways. Get on the right side of morality and reason.
"Rapey"is of course where Stan and Craig parted ways with Marshal and the fake bagpiper. Trump was too "rapey" for them. Not for Marshal. That he objects to Biden is just grossly hypocritical mendacity to try to cover his own ass.
I would not be surprised that Biden has crossed the line several times. So many men in power do. Many GOP lawmakers, virulently homo-phobic are caught in sexts or bathrooms or hotel rendezvous. Many liberal men harass women with innuendo, hostile work environments, and criminal touch. Cuomo has to go. Trump should have been absolutely rejected out of hand by the fake "family values" crowd.
But this is the cultural war we engaged in. This is the culture we - those of us moralists, Christians and otherwise - are trying to cancel: white male supremacy, both within ourselves and in those who are blind and willfully ignoring their inculcated instincts to brutality toward the Other. Marshal and Glenn bathe in white male supremacy. Craig and Stan put it on like cologne every morning.
As is almost always the case, members of the Other are so much more vociferous in arguing down bad behavior by their own because it just further damages their fight against the manufactured culture of white supremacy that has divested them of language, culture, possessions, riches, family, life.
And because the Other has needed to be aware of the dangers of white people from Day One, they know how they themselves can become believers in white supremacy. If the enemy is beating your ass, life is easier to join the enemy. Uncle Tom and "psychology of the oppressed" are century or more old phrases.
Of course. slavers knew this, too. Marshal holds up the 400 year old tradition of pitting one Other against another in order to keep them servile and benefiting whiteness. Marshal makes magic out of the Uncle Tom. He'll always need to feel benefitted by black folks one way of the other: demonizing them or using them as a cudgel.
Marshal is the picture of brutalizing white male supremacy in all its strategies.
I've no doubt that Biden has issues in his past, we know about some of them. He was way down my list of candidates for this reason.
There are three things at play here (at least three)...
1. We can have room for forgiving people who've truly changed. (and here, I'm confident that Biden at least at some level has changed his ways). As Angelou says, do the best you know how to do and, when you know better, do better. Biden has done that, it seems, or is at least trying. Trump has not.
2. On the other hand, white men - especially wealthy white men - have oppressed and been in charge for so long and women and racial and other minorities have been waiting SO long for change to come that we can excuse the historically oppressed for being tired of being patient waiting for folks and systems to change.
And we have to balance those two things, which is where I see the Democrat party and more progressive types to be. But a change has got to come and it's way past time.
3. A third concern is: With the Trump wing of "conservatism" and the GOP - perhaps some 70 million citizens! which is a large percentage of the population, even though it's a minority - there is very little recognition that a change is needed. So, those of us wanting and demanding the progress are forced to work with the party that is closest to making the change that is needed.
Again, Marshal, unsupported and obvious false claims will be given no quarter here. You want to make an allegation? Prove it, support it. Trump had 4+ years of too many people giving him a pass on stupidly false claims. Not happening here.
If you want to support a claim, it CAN'T be from a disreputable or even evil source. You can't cite Alex Jones here. You can't cite the KKK here. You can't cite something called "churchmilitant" here. You must cite actual experts and actual journalistic organizations which at least strive to operate within the bounds of ethical journalism. Your sources ain't that.
If your "source" cites the FBI and links to twitter, that's not a source.
It's not difficult at all to make comments here, for rational people willing to support their claims. Just do it.
And if you want to complain, "But all the actual journalistic organizations are too liberal for my tastes..." then blame conservatives for not engaging in actual journalism with journalistic standards. Blame conservatives for not getting themselves in places of authority and knowledge to be a credible witness. Don't blame "the media" for being "too liberal," when they're the ones reporting actual news with actual sources.
Marshal said... "blah, blah, blah, no source, false charge, no source, stupidly false claim, blah, blah."
I deleted it because he offered claims with nothing to support them. The claims were obviously false and clearly unsupported.
Marshal complained, saying that he made no claims in his post that I deleted.
In the quote that I deleted, it included this stupidly false claim...
"you dismiss her because of whom she accuses, while conversely, perversely and with a totally fake concern for women, merely choose with no solid basis to believe any and all negative charges against Trump."
1. I do NOT dismiss her. I said that we MUST consider all such charges as serious and worthy of investigation.
2. I don't care WHO she accuses, I'd want her claims taken seriously. Your false claim about my motive is stupid and false and needless to say, unsupported. It's a bearing of false witness, a violation of one of the Big Ten. But you don't appear to care.
3. Also, as we can see, your false claim that you made no claims is itself a false witness.
4. My concern for women is not fake, yet another false claim with no support.
5. I don't believe accusations against Trump with no basis. I believe they're likely because, A. There have been MORE THAN 20 WOMEN making the charges over a period of years and B. Trump has shown in his words and his actions that he's a deviant when it comes to women and C. Trump's OWN WORDS - his boasting and laughing about taking advantage of women and girls and sexually assaulting them - back up the accusations. Now, you can say that - against all odds and good common sense - you might think that I'm mistaken about Trump, but you just can't say that I believe the charges with no basis.
That is yet another stupidly false claim that you made with no support.
Are you understanding now?
IF you want to try to make your case against the tide of facts and reality working against you, I'll allow it SO LONG as you support your case with facts and so long as you don't make false charges and so long as you support your charges.
As it stands now, you've got about 20 strikes and you're way past out.
I'll give you ONE chance to comment here on this thread and if you fail to answer correctly - based on reality that I've established - you're done.
I've provided your quote, your own words where you CLEARLY made multiple charges/claims. Clearly you made claims, in the real world.
Can you admit that you were factually mistaken when you said you made no claims?
Come, act like an adult and admit your error. It's a simple yes or no question with only one correct answer and I've already given you the answer (hint: It's Yes. "Yes, I was factually mistaken. Yes, I made a claim and was wrong to say I made no claim.")
It's now or never.
"if you want to complain, 'But all the actual journalistic organizations are too liberal for my tastes...'
... then you need to wake the fuck up and take actual bearings of where you are.
Science is too liberal for you.
Math is too liberal for you.
Data is too liberal for you.
Psychology is too liberal for you.
Child Development psychology is too liberal for you.
Sociology is too liberal for you.
Philosophy is too liberal for you.
Political philosophy is too liberal for you.
Essayists are too liberal for you.
Novelists are too liberal for you.
Mass transit is too liberal for you.
Clean energy is too liberal for you.
Keeping our planetary home is too liberal for you.
The US Constitution is too liberal for you.
The needs of the American people are too liberal for you.
International studies are too liberal for you.
Civil Rights are too liberal for you.
Human Rights are too liberal for you.
Compassion is too liberal for you.
Reason and feeling are too liberal for you.
Humility is too liberal for you.
Because you are collapsing-white supremacist-era monster.
I'm an Anglican. Nothing of passionate and reasoned, guided human behavior is out-of-hand too liberal for me. Because I share a living Jesus who had a hand in creating the world, and I share god with faithful people around the world as we join together in sacraments that mediate his blessedness and send us out into the world in peace.
Stop your brutalizing mad hate, Marshal: you’re a child of god destroying yourself.
Feodor, Did you see what trump's lawyer said about the Marshals of the world?Sydney Powell, who is being sued for false claims about a stolen election, has testified to the court that only idiots would believe her stupidly false claims. And she's right.This just goes to show the contempt that Trump and his allies and those sorts of con artists have for their useful idiots.
Marshal, when even the con artists in charge of getting you to believe their stupidly false claims openly call you an idiot, do you recognize that you are being taken advantage of yet?
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/sidney-powell-dominion-lawsuit-election-fraud/index.html
No reasonable person would believe these false claims. Says the trump team
😂 I did see and almost posted the quote here. Glad you called attention to it. Trump and his agents played millions for fools.
They, like so many of us already have, need to look in the mirror and figure out what made them prone to support lies snd brutality.
...but they'll have to begin by acknowledging that they were played. Sadly, history tells us that many won't acknowledge that they've been used by scammers to promote dangerous lies and a dangerous, traitorous agenda.
Take away the vote from Americans. Keep the right to gun them down.
That’s what they’re reduced to.
He's trying, Marshall. You refuse to listen.
Marshal keeps saying "stop the hate" and complaining about me removing his comments. But I've quite politely and patiently asked you to answer some questions before you can comment further. Asking a commenter to answer questions is not "hate," it's respect. It's giving you a chance to answer reasonable questions.
I'm not blocking you (unlike you blocking others). I'm simply asking you to answer questions when asked.
You know what's fun about Georgia's new voting laws? We now get to watch white evangelicals argue why it's wrong to give someone a cup of water when they're thirsty. Hmm, gosh, those words do sound familiar. 🤔
It's true: I did break Marshal's blog.
But he gets half the credit. His enslavement to Trumper insanity has turned off Craig and Stan, too. They go there less than you do, Dan.
So, in Marshal's eyes, you're not the only one lying about Trump: his ideological friends do, too.
Your friends hardly go there anymore.
99% of the ad nauseam comments are you talking to yourself.
"I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink."
Offer not valid in Georgia.
How obtuse do you. insist on acting, Marshal. If you for the question, here's a hint:?
Dan: "Marshal complained, saying that he made no claims in his post that I deleted... "you dismiss her because of whom she accuses, while conversely, perversely and with a totally fake concern for women, merely choose with no solid basis to believe any and all negative charges against Trump."
(So, clearly you did make a claim. And then lied.)
But Dan responded: "1. I do NOT dismiss her. I said that we MUST consider all such charges as serious and worthy of investigation. 2. I don't care WHO she accuses, I'd want her claims taken seriously. Your false claim about my motive is stupid and false and needless to say, unsupported. It's a bearing of false witness, a violation of one of the Big Ten. But you don't appear to care. 3. Also, as we can see, your false claim that you made no claims is itself a false witness. 4. My concern for women is not fake, yet another false claim with no support. 5. I don't believe accusations against Trump with no basis. I believe they're likely because, A. There have been MORE THAN 20 WOMEN making the charges over a period of years and B. Trump has shown in his words and his actions that he's a deviant when it comes to women and C. Trump's OWN WORDS...
That is yet another stupidly false claim that you made with no support."
Then Dan asks a question [HINT HINT HINT MARSHAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOOK FOR THE ?]
"Are you understanding now?"
Granted, this is more rhetorical.
But then Dan follows with the question [HINT HINT HINT MARSHAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOOK FOR THE ?]
"I've provided your quote, your own words where you CLEARLY made multiple charges/claims. Clearly you made claims, in the real world.
Can you admit that you were factually mistaken when you said you made no claims?"
MARSHAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOOK AT THE ????????????????????????????????????????
And answer it.
In Craig's lates post, it is clear that he thinsk certain Americans casting a vote is a violent act against him. As violent as shooting up Asians, gays, black baptists.
Craig - and Marshal and damned people like them - want to stop them. Make it difficult for them to vote.
Because they vote against brutalizing white supremacy.
And Craig knows that's him. Him knows they are killing who he is.
By voting.
Marshal, the thing is, you made stupidly false claims. You made false claims about my motives and reasoning, saying I advocated something I did NOT say and do not believe. It's a stupidly false claim because anyone can read what I've said and see I never said that and anyone familiar with me and/or my writings knows it's not factual.
As Feodor noted, you said...
"1. you dismiss her
2. because of whom she accuses,
3. while conversely, perversely and with a totally fake concern for women,
4. merely choose with no solid basis to
5. believe any and all negative charges against Trump."
FIVE false claims in ONE SENTENCE! that you can not support because they're stupidly false.
What YOU NEED to do if you want to comment here:
You have to admit the reality that you made up these charges and you can't prove ANY of them OR
support the stupidly false charges with data, which you can't do because they're stupidly false charges.
I'm relatively sure there was more, but let's start there.
I'm just going to drop this comment here. It's something I posted (for a second time, in another version) on Craig's blog where he keeps falsely suggesting I'm not quoting him and that I'm not being clear on where he's making false claims. Craig is haphazardly posting some of my comments but not all and (whether intentionally or not) using the missing comments as "proof" that I'm not addressing questions and concerns.
From Craig's blog...
Craig... "All sorts of claims, accusations, and misrepresentation, with not one actual example."
Part of the problem is that the answers/comments are getting jumbled around from one post to the other. Another problem is that you aren't posting all my comments. Regardless, the reality is that I CITED YOUR words and showed you your literal mistake.
For instance, THIS is the false claim in question, I believe...
CRAIG (citing Dawkins): "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
CRAIG MAKING A FALSE CLAIM: This is the worldview that Dan is so zealously and blindly defending
I pointed out that it's a stupidly false claim to say I'm defending Dawkins' words and anyone can SEE it's stupidly false by the way I NEVER DEFENDED Dawkins' comment.
Now, can you admit the reality that I've NEVER defended Dawkins making these sorts of comments? I never did and it's a stupidly false and slanderous claim to say that I have.
Likewise your other stupidly false claims, like this one...
Craig... "Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness."
This active hostility to religion is perfectly fine and appropriate to Dan in scientists, but heaven forbid a Christian dares to engage in science."
I HAVE NOT advocated for scientists to be hostile to religion (and indeed, I see no data from Craig suggesting that it's a common belief.)
It's a stupidly false claim.
Likewise, OF COURSE, I'm not "heaven forbidding that Christians dare to engage in science..." My daughter's a scientist, my father was a scientist, many of my dear friends are scientists! It's a stupidly false claim. YOU HAVE NO DATA TO support that claim because it's stupidly false.
It's just a throw-away lie of the sort that has become way too common amongst Trumpian conservatives. You all are establishing yourselves as utterly corrupt and wholly unconcerned with honesty or human decency. Stop it.
Can you be an adult and admit your false claims?
Wow. You're actually whining that Dan is doing to you at his blog what you're doing to me at yours? Is that hypocritical irony or ironic hypocrisy?
Marshal commented without supporting his false claims (which of course he can't, seeing as how they are false), complaining that I was deleting him for no reason.
Look, IF you can prove your stupidly false claims, DO SO. Don't tell me that the false claims you made about my positions are false. SHOW ME. Provide data. Support it with facts, not just empty claims.
You see, after four years of your pervert hero con man roaming freely about with endless false and unsupported claims, we've had enough. You can't just make false claims. IF you're going to make a claim, support it. IF you don't, you can't comment.
What about that is hard to understand?
Marshal TRIED (and failed) to support his case. His support? "Nu uh!"
Here's what I said and he responded to...
DAN:
""1. you dismiss her
2. because of whom she accuses,
3. while conversely, perversely and with a totally fake concern for women,
4. merely choose with no solid basis to
5. believe any and all negative charges against Trump."
FIVE false claims in ONE SENTENCE!"
Marshal:
Point one can't be a lie or false, regardless of whether points 2-5 are true or false. More importantly, you dismiss her on the basis of her allegedly conflicting stories. Either that or you believe her totally despite her allegedly conflicting stories. Which is it?
I do not "dismiss" her. I take her story for what it's worth. One person's testimony about another person that we can't prove, one way or the other. That is LITERALLY NOT dismissing her. If, for instance, a second and third (or, as in the case of Trump, 22nd!) woman came up with another allegation of misconduct - even if it can't be proven and is "he said/she said..." the total becomes part of the testimony and establishes grave concerns.
That is not "dismissing" her. Your claim is false.
Marshal continued with a second failed attempt, where he DOESN'T SUPPORT his false claims, just raises questions:
Point five: Are you saying to don't believe any or all negative charges against Trump? You make them all the time. Are you lying now or were you lying each time you made or related any negative charge against him?
I literally do not/have not believed "any and all claims against Trump." At least three times that I can think of, someone has posted the meme/"news story" that said that Trump mocked conservatives as idiots back in something like 2012. The meme looked questionable (although the claim seemed credible... mocking people is Trump's thing, including mocking those he's trying to take advantage of), so I looked into it and sure enough, it was a fake news meme, the claim never happened.
Like that with some other stories that seemed questionable. I did not believe the claims just because it portrayed Trump in a negative light.
Thus, I literally do not believe any and all claims against Trump. That is a stupidly false lie, disproven yet again. And beyond that, you didn't even try to support it. This is precisely the sort of stupidly, clumsily false claims that Trump made all the time. This is what has become of much of modern conservatism... they've embraced passing on stupidly false claims and they're not even any good at it.
Marshal: Without much effort I've just proven two of your "FIVE false claims in ONE SENTENCE" are not false at all.
Nope, you literally didn't. Do you recognize that yet?
Oh, and your "you make them all the time" claim about me making false claims about Trump is, itself, yet another stupidly false and UNSUPPORTED false claim.
At the very least, you must recognize that you merely stating such a stupidly false claim is NOT offering any support, right?
So... I guess Marshal gave up the lie that he couldn't see any questions he was supposed to answer. He does nothing but lie.
Marshal said, in a now deleted comment trying unsuccessfully to support his false claim that I "dismiss" Biden's accuser...
"Yes you did and you continue to do so. When you treat allegations against conservatives (Trump, Kavanaugh, Moore) differently than you do allegations against Dumbasses (in this case, Biden), you're effectively dismissing Reade. "
1. Dismiss: "treat as unworthy of serious consideration."
2. I have indeed considered her charge and took it seriously. Thus, BY DEFINITION, I did not dismiss her.
3. With Trump, Kavanaugh and Moore...
3a. There were MULTIPLE accusers - each of which I ALSO took seriously. Biden has one accuser.
3b. In each of these cases, some of the accusers had more credibility/fewer questionable or false components of their stories than Biden's ONE accuser.
3c. IF Biden had a second (or third or, as with Trump, many handfuls of accusers) - I would take them ALL seriously (not dismiss them) and the weight of their accusations compound with each additional accuser. IF Biden had a second or third accuser, you can bet that he would be losing my support, as Bill Clinton did.
And WHY would that be? Precisely because I DO NOT DISMISS THESE WOMEN. That is a stupidly false charge and you saying "nu-uh!" is NOT support to prove your stupidly, inanely, diabolically false claim.
So, as with ALL your (and your master-pervert, Trump) stupidly false and unsupported claims, just take them to hell with you. Rational adults don't have time for this sort of childish empty-headed evil attacks on truth and facts.
You can now apologize and retract the stupidly false claim or just go to hell. I'm done with you.
So, one question that arises right away: Why does Marshal care at all about Biden's one accuser? He's already demonstrated that, even with over TWENTY accusers (in Trump's case) he doesn't give a damn about women charging leaders with sexually predatory behavior. Thus, Marshal does NOT care about accusations women make against men... Marshal is only USING this case for his own personal satisfaction. Sort of like a sexual predator, in fact.
Sigh. I'll let this one stand. For now. Actually, no. The rest of your comment is just another attack on women you don't know in favor of clear sexual predators. That, and more stupidly false claims that are unsupported.
Regardless, here's a quote that STILL doesn't support your claim (because your claim is stupidly false), but it is you explaining why you think your stupidly false claim.
I'll respond to it and give you a chance to make your case. You won't be able to because the claim is stupidly false.
Marshal... "is that if you truly cared about women accusing Trump, rather than exploiting them for the sole purpose of demonizing Trump, then you'd show equal concern for Reade."
And HOW PRECISELY did I fail to show equal concern for Reade?
++++
What it clearly is coming down to is you THINK IN YOUR LITTLE HEAD that IF I don't respond in some way that YOU THINK IN YOUR LITTLE HEAD that I should (or shouldn't respond), then YOU IN YOUR LITTLE HEAD think that it means something that it doesn't mean.
But that's just you having a crazed and unsupported thought in your head. It is NOT support for the stupidly false claim. But I'll give you one more chance.
Marshall continues to try to comment without answering the question asked of him...
And HOW PRECISELY did I fail to show equal concern for Reade?
Marshal needs to comment. He's trying to reassure himself that he's not really in hell.
Marshal... "Here's the short answer: you subjectively, based on your personal vile hatred for Trump, choose to regard her story as less credible than those of women accusing Trump of alleged sexual indiscretions. You haven't made an actual case that their stories are more credible. You just hate Trump. You need to stop the hate."
Marshal again posted and again failed to answer questions with support. Empty claims are meaningless. Prove what you're saying. That's what I'm asking for. It's a reasonable request.
I've posted Marshal's response that are unsupported and just empty claims, above.
You said that I regarded her story as less credible because of a hatred for trump. Says who? Where's your proof To support this irrational and stupidly false claim? In what specific and data supported way did I regard her story as less credible? Where is the proof for that? Because I didn't bring her charge against Biden up on my blog? But I didn't bring Trump's first charge of sexual assault/harassment Up on my blog, either. Indeed, by the time trump came out as a politician he already head handfuls of charges against him. That's a distinct difference, isn't it?
You see, what I am telling you is that it's not enough for you just to make a charge or explain your reasoning. You have to support it with data.
I don't blindly hate trump just because I hate Donald Trump. I hate his actions, his sexually predatory nature, his boasting about using and abusing his power and wealth to get away with atrocious actions, his laughing about ogling teenage girls, his boasting and laughing about sexually assaulting women. As if any of that is funny or something one should boast about.
Can you at least recognise the reality of the chasm of difference between the basic decency (flawed and couched in the patriarchy of too many of his generation... But still basically decent) of Joe Biden and the basic hedonism and perversions of Donald Trump?
Any rational person concede that period In the evidence of our own eyes is the support for that claim. Where is your support? Brainless accusations will no longer stand.
Rep Matt Gaetz (R-Fl) was part of a group of young male lawmakers in the Florida House who created a "game" to score female sexual conquests, which granted "points" for various targets such as interns, staffers or other female colleagues in the state House.
Ah, the “family values” crowd.
Marshal... "You just hate Trump."
When you say nonsense things like this, it just makes rational people wonder who blind or partisan you are.
I had no opinion at all of Trump before he came president, I barely paid attention to him. He had a book. He had some TV show that I paid no attention to. I was entirely indifferent to him, knowing just enough about him to suspect that he was another daddy-made millionaire.
Then he ran for office, LEADING with his xenophobic words attacking immigrants and specifically, immigrants of color.
Then, not long afterwards, he attacked McCain (a Republican, mind you), mocking his being captured during his service - this draft-dodging SOB said, "He's not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured..." vulgar in the extreme, especially considering the draft-dodging, silver-spoon-in-his-ass source.
By then, I was aware enough of the many vulgar and deviant sexual charges against him and I was becoming aware of the way he routinely attacked women (Megyn Kelly - "blood coming out of her whatever...")
And along with all that, I was just seeing the astoundingly STUPID and bullying manner in which he spoke. Like that Kelly example, like the way he made up childish names for his opponents, like the 3rd grade level manner in which he spoke... He just seemed especially unintelligent and entirely lacking in intellectual curiosity.
Then, the time he openly mocked a disabled person (and I KNOW there are useful idiots who will say it never happened, but we can see with our own eyes that he did just that).
I mean, I never would have voted for him in the first place, but I was entirely indifferent towards him. It was these vulgar and childish and oppressive and racist words and actions, one after the other after the other.
The point being, it's not like we hate Trump's actions without reason. They are vulgar and dangerous in the extreme. The reality that people across the political spectrum were recognizing the evil in his actions and words is evidence that this isn't simple partisan dislike. My - our - righteous indignation about this sick, deviant perverted set of actions and words are rational and unavoidable, IF you are a person of integrity.
That you can't even see that does not speak well of your moral reasoning.
Matt Gaetz is everything the Republicans were looking for in Hunter Biden.
A Twitter wag summed it up best: “Matt Gaetz is everything the Republicans were looking for in Hunter Biden.”
The Times’s report about a federal investigation into whether the Florida congressman had a sexual relationship with a minor and paid for her to travel has set off a scandal worthy of a pulp paperback, one swirling with claims of extortion, Ecstasy, an orgy, a hula hoop and sex trafficking, along with an Iranian hostage and, of course, a cameo by Roger Stone.
We are awash in sordid tales of Gaetz — the Beavis to Donald Trump’s Butt-Head — creating a point system for sexual conquests and showing nude photos of women to other (often appalled) lawmakers on the House floor.
The moment crystallizes Republican hypocrisy. Trump and Gaetz viciously beat up on Hunter Biden, undeterred by their own vices.
As it happens, Hunter begins his new memoir, “Beautiful Things,” with a scene of him watching Gaetz on TV reading a magazine excerpt about Hunter’s addiction into the record of the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing during Trump’s first impeachment.
Biden writes:
“‘I don’t want to make light of anybody’s substance abuse issues …’ Gaetz said, snickering for the cameras as he made light of my substance abuse issues.
“‘Again, I’m not … casting any judgment on any challenges someone goes through in their personal life,’ Gaetz continued, as he cast judgment on my personal life. … Trump believed that if he could destroy me, and by extension my father, he could dispatch any candidate of decency from either party — all while diverting attention from his own corrupt behavior. Where’s Hunter?
“I’m right here. I’ve faced and survived worse. … I’m not going anywhere. I’m not a curio or sideshow to a moment in history, as all the cartoonish attacks try to paint me. I’m not Billy Carter or Roger Clinton, God bless them. I am not Eric Trump or Donald Trump Jr.”
Yes, for all his messy, self-destructive behavior, this Hunter has never slaughtered and posed with wild animals or whipped up a crowd for an insurrection.
Marshal can ignore facts and truth all he wants. Peter denied Jesus 3 times. Marshal, a child of Wormwood, is going for 3,000.
“ Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaugh’s dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trump’s campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500.
It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution — federal records show it was his first ever — quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge — until Mr. Blatt’s bank account had been depleted and frozen. When his utility and rent payments bounced, he called his brother, Russell, for help.
What the Blatts soon discovered was $3,000 in withdrawals by the Trump campaign in less than 30 days. They called their bank and said they thought they were victims of fraud.
“It felt,” Russell said, “like it was a scam.”
But what the Blatts believed was duplicity was actually an intentional scheme to boost revenues by the Trump campaign and the for-profit company that processed its online donations, WinRed. Facing a cash crunch and getting badly outspent by the Democrats, the campaign had begun last September to set up recurring donations by default for online donors, for every week until the election.
Contributors had to wade through a fine-print disclaimer and manually uncheck a box to opt out.
As the election neared, the Trump team made that disclaimer increasingly opaque, an investigation by The New York Times showed. It introduced a second prechecked box, known internally as a “money bomb,” that doubled a person’s contribution. Eventually its solicitations featured lines of text in bold and capital letters that overwhelmed the opt-out language.”
Disgusting.
These people think that they are Trump's valued supporters. They're only his marks, pawns in a con.
What's amazing is that Trump has always been upfront about his corruption (honest, in his deviancy). He has always said that making money is a game for him and he'll use and abuse any system, stretch any loopholes to take money from people and to avoid paying money when he owes it to people. And when he stretches the law to far and actually breaks it, he'll stall people and make them work to actually get the money owed them and then will settle out of court when he has no other choice.
He is and has always been a con man and not very adept at it. A bumbling and unintelligent conman... but one who is adept at finding a good number of marks to take advantage of, nonetheless.
You don't have to fool all the people, only enough.
Former President Donald Trump's reelection campaign issued a staggering sum of $122.7 million in refunds to supporters in 2020, giving back nearly 11% of the money it raised, according to an investigative report published by the New York Times on Saturday based on an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings.
I guess Craig would have been just fine if the police had killed his son when he was high.
Seems like it. Because drug users are thugs. Or at least the black ones are... that appears to be the message from white evangelicals.
Maybe Craig would have expected an exception for a loved one of his if they were white?
Apparently, Dan, we have more actual compassion for Craig’s son than does Marshal. Or Craig himself.
Marshal is voting for pure Sharia law. Except, you know, slap Jesus’ name on it in red ink. That’s all it takes to make it true.
Marshal (in a now-deleted comment because it was another false charge with no support - which he couldn't support because it was, you know, false) said...
"The same guy who did time for threatening a pregnant woman with a gun to her belly while his buddies ransacked her home?"
The fact is that Floyd did not "threaten a pregnant woman with a gun to her belly..."
"In 2009, Floyd pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and served five years, however, he was not charged with kidnapping or assault, as the post claims.
According to Harris County court documents, Henriquez, a toddler and another woman were home when the incident took place. Henriquez was injured during the robbery by another man, not Floyd. There is also no evidence that Henriquez was pregnant at the time of the case."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/15/fact-check-viral-photo-doesnt-show-george-floyd-assault-victim/5415937002/
Not that he should have been involved in a robbery with (or without) a gun, but drug addictions and an impoverished background, compounded by racist interactions with the police and lack of opportunities can make people do stupid things. George Floyd had done stupid things.
Those with drug addictions will do terrible and stupid things. Hopefully, none of Marshal's loved ones will struggle with addiction and, if they do, hopefully he can be more gracious towards them than he is with Floyd.
Marshal, I don't know why you're continuing to try to comment. I've been quite clear. You can't comment until you answer questions. I'm not interested in your unsupported attacks on Floyd until you support your claims/answer these questions OR admit that you CAN'T support your claims/answer these questions...
You said that I regarded her story as less credible because of a hatred for Trump.
Says who?
Where's your proof to support this irrational and stupidly false claim?
In what specific and data-supported way did I regard her story as less credible?
Where is the proof for that?
Because I didn't bring her charge against Biden up on my blog? But I didn't bring Trump's first charge of sexual assault/harassment Up on my blog, either. Indeed, by the time Trump came out as a politician he already had handfuls of charges against him. That's a distinct difference, isn't it?
Brainless, unsupported accusations that are overtly false on the face of it will no longer stand.
"You said that I regarded her story as less credible because of a hatred for Trump.
Says who?"
Says you by the manner in which you give no regard to her story based on no evidence of your own that you should, while with far less but the accusations themselves, insist all allegations against Trump are credible. Never to do you go on and on about how Biden attacked this woman, while it's all you can think about when it comes to Trump.
"Where's your proof to support this irrational and stupidly false claim?"
In all your comments about Trump, together with your never mentioning Reade as well as in the comments of mine that you've deleted.
"In what specific and data-supported way did I regard her story as less credible?"
Both asked and answered multiple times. But hey, nice really narrowing the criteria.
"Where is the proof for that?"
In all your comments about Trump, together with your never mentioning Reade as well as in the comments of mine that you've deleted.
"Because I didn't bring her charge against Biden up on my blog? But I didn't bring Trump's first charge of sexual assault/harassment Up on my blog, either. Indeed, by the time Trump came out as a politician he already had handfuls of charges against him. That's a distinct difference, isn't it?"
No. It's not. Because it's the basis for my charge that you've disregarded Reade's very serious allegation against Biden, whereas, regardless of why you mentioned it in the first place, and continue to mention it to this day, you have no problem eagerly and happily making allegations against Trump a matter of fact despite no evidence supporting any of it.
But hey, leave it to you to pretend that when an allegation is made makes a difference regarding the fact that Biden's accused of an assault more on par with those made of Bill Clinton than any made of Trump.
"Brainless, unsupported accusations that are overtly false on the face of it will no longer stand."
You don't have the brains to make that determination. But you do have the vile hatred so common in fake Christians like yourself to choose who you will condemn according to your twisted and unChristian standards of morality and behavior. While in the meantime, you've not supported any allegation of corruption, lies or anything else of which you've accused Trump...or any other person not of your lying, corrupt kind.
God's clearly given you over to your corruption. You're lost.
Marshal said (in response to my Says who? question...)
"Says you by the manner in which you give no regard to her story based on no evidence of your own that you should, while with far less but the accusations themselves, insist all allegations against Trump are credible."
1. WHO SAYS I give her story no regard? That is literally false and unsupported. That's what I'm talking about, Marshal. That YOU READ INTO my words something that I'm not saying and that is in direct contrast to reality is not supporting the charge. It's literally something YOU dream up, in spite of reality.
The reality is, I saw her story and was concerned enough to read it. THAT itself is giving regard to her story. THEN, I saw that it was only one person making the charge (as opposed to three or five or TWENTY - there again, is the difference between Biden and Trump and a rational reason to give more weight to the Trump allegations PLUS the observable reality that Trump is a sexual deviant who boasts about sexual conquests and even assault... in contrast to "Uncle Joe's" decent but out of touch grandfatherly decent nature) and that her story had holes in it... NOT enough to discount her story - which I don't - but enough that it's just not enough to say Biden likely engaged in bad behavior/assault). There is a significant difference between the Biden accusation and the Trump accusationS.
2. You go on to say, "while with far less but the accusations themselves, insist all allegations against Trump are credible."
2a. I haven't said all allegations against Trump are credible. To be honest, there are SO MANY allegations against Trump that I'm not even familiar with all the details of all of them.
2b. The differences between Biden and Trump are listed above, but just to organize it a bit more...
more...
Dang it. Lost the rest of my comment. More later.
Post a Comment