Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Enough Is Enough

"With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost." ~ William Lloyd Garrison

I have been putting off writing this entry for some time now, because I know what the reaction will be. But sooner or later, if the issue isn't addressed it will only become a bigger issue and thus, make it that much more difficult to deal with in a single post.

There is a few commenters on my blog posts that have made some pretty outrageous and offensive statements in my comment section that I have basically just ignored, and I am guessing they know why, although the reason they say I am ignoring them is quite different from the reason they know.

A commenter who calls himself Dan Trabue in particular has been badgering me to answer certain questions of which the true answer, quite frankly, I am sure he already knows. He apparently thinks I will fall into his little trap and answer him as he seems to think I am so ignorant that he can destroy my argument with his clever little Liberal talking points and misinformation that the Liberals are so fond of disseminating among the non-thinking public.

I am not going to go over all the arguments he has attempted to start, but I do want to address a couple, but mostly as a way of presenting evidence that this man is not above twisting and spinning facts to advance his radical conspiracy theories and lunatic Liberal ideals.

I do not respond mostly because it will do no good. He has made his mind up. He will not listen. He will not be persuaded that I am right and he is wrong. There is no point.

It would only be casting pearls before swine.

He doesn't want an answer to his questions. They are only rhetorical questions he wants me to offer answers to so he can misinterpret and then twist my words to try to make me appear to be a fool.

For instance when I wrote a blog entry that shamelessly promoted my friend Sheila's new blog, I added a statement that I believe abortion is wrong. I said, speaking of abortion:

"In my opinion, there is never an excuse to kill babies."

To which Dan responded:

"And so you will come out in opposition to the Iraq War because we've killed babies there?"


By this stupid, inane, apples-to-oranges comparison he thinks he has made a fool of me. Instead, he has made a fool of himself.

Later, he continued to badger me with this and other questions to which he already knows the answer.

On the wrong posts.

Completely off topic.

I haven't responded to these inane questions for a reason. He is only asking them in hopes I will spout off some Republican talking point in ignorance of what he considers "the facts". Then, he believes he can systematically destroy my arguments with his superior intellect and logic.

He knows what I said, and what I said, I mean.

Intentionally murdering babies still in the womb just because the mother wants to continue a decadent promiscuous lifestyle without the "inconvenience" of having to take care of a baby or because of a crime committed, either by a criminal or a family member, is a far cry from a baby being killed accidentally during a firefight in the middle of a war.

A far, far cry.

And Dan, you very well know the difference. If you don't, you are stuck on stupid.

And don't even attempt to use that false argument that you don't believe in abortion but support a woman's right to choose. That is simply Liberal code words for supporting the wanton, intentional murder of innocent unborn babies. Either you are for abortion or you aren't. You cannot justify support of this wholesale slaughter of innocents in this country by recusing yourself from the argument by using the "right to choose" excuse. You cannot divorce yourself from complicity in this outrage by insisting you have no part in the choice to kill.

In every case where a woman chooses to abort her child, the baby still ends up dead.

Dead.

And you support that.

You don't care about babies being murdered in the womb. You don't care about babies dying in war. You don't care about soldiers dying in war. You care only about advancing your own diabolical political agenda. If you can use divisive issues to further your political agenda, you are only too happy to oblige.

As I have stated many times, I do not like war. I don't want war. I am a pacifist.

But I have also stated that sometimes there is no alternative. No means of negotiation left unexplored. These bleeding heart sob sister Liberals who keep insisting war is not the answer still have failed to come up with a better alternative.

They whine that negotiations can stop this war, and that if we only talk to the terrorists, and understand them, and find out why they hate Americans so much, we can reach a level of understanding with them, and we can reach an agreement whereby the terrorists will lay down their guns and bombs, and live in some kind of utopian, idyllic, co-existence with the rest of the Muslims and non-Muslims in the world.

Here's a news flash for you, Dan:

Terrorists do not want to negotiate. They do not want to talk. They do not care to be understood. They do not care if we understand why they hate America. They want to kill. They want to murder.

And if they ever get their hands on you, you will be be-headed just as efficiently and as dispassionately as they be-headed Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg. More in fact. History has proven that the first to be eliminated after fascista victory in war are the ones that supported the enemy.

How many UN resolutions did Saddam ignore? How many innocent civilians will have to be be-headed, how many IED's going off beside the road, how many suicide bombers blowing themselves and hundreds of others up in crowded marketplaces will it take to make you finally understand that there is no negotiation with these animals?

War is an unfortunate necessity that will not go away just because we civilized people deem it obscene. They have to be fought whether we want to or not.

Why?

Because some people are not civilized.

Duh!

We did not bring this fight to them. They brought it to us. If you really, truly believe for one minute that if we hadn't gone to Iraq, the terrorists attacks against America would have stopped, then again, you must be stuck on stupid.

The loss of an innocent baby is never a good thing. Not in war, and not in peace. Especially not in peace.

The difference is that 1.5 million innocent unborn babies a year are wantonly, callously, intentionally murdered in this country everyday by what Dan considers to be "civilized" people, so that the mother can indulge in whatever destructive lifestyle she prefers, seemingly with the apparent blessing of Dan, and ER, and other "Christians ".

Is killing innocent unborn babies (who, by the way, have no choice) a "Christian" act? Do you suppose Jesus would kill babies so that a "Christian" mother could live her life as she wants? Do you really think Jesus would say a woman has the right to choose to destroy His own creation? If you believe that, again, you are stuck on stupid.

I say again. There is never a valid reason to kill babies. Especially not the flimsy reason that a woman deserves a "choice".

Christians defending the murder of millions of innocent babies every year while at the same time, decrying the deaths of a relatively few (by comparison) terrorists, who's main objective is the eradication of Christianity and Judaism and all who do not follow their own peculiar brand of jihadist fascist Muslim perversion of Islam, under the guise of pretending they don't believe in war.

What's wrong with this picture?

And Dan? What's wrong with you?

You also have demanded over and over ad nauseum that I produce lists of the Democrat politicians that are corrupt, apparently to refute my assertion that Democrat politicians are more corrupt than Republican politicians. I don't have to do that. You know Democrats are more corrupt.

The reason there is so much more press about the few Republican politicians being corrupt (ie, "culture of Corruption") than Democrats is explained very simply. The majority of the news media is Liberal, and therefore, they are themselves Democratic party apologists. It isn't hard to find overwhelming evidence of that truth.

And the list of Republican politicians that you used to present your side of the argument is replete with unproven, unsubstantiated indictments, many brought by Democrat prosecutors with a political agenda of their own, such as democratic corrupt politician Ronnie Earle, who went grand jury shopping to find a jury sympathetic enough to Democrats to return a very questionable indictment against Tom Delay. After 3 previous attempts to get an indictment he finally was able to drudge up enough Democratic party supporters to bring an indictment, which will eventually be thrown out of court for being baseless.

All the while the allegations of corruption against Democratic politicians are substantiated and generally accepted by the majority of the thinking public as fact. The only reason so many Democrats are not already in jail is because of the left leaning media, which suppresses all stories of Democratic corruption while magnifying the slightest indiscretion from the right side of the aisle.

Can you say Ted Kennedy (murderer) Gary Conyers (murderer) Bill and Hillary Clinton (murderers) etc. etc. etc.?

Once upon a time, you made respectful comments on my posts, and they were appreciated. I welcome dissenting views and support the free and open exchange of ideas in this space. But you have become increasingly more disrespectful and mean spirited. If you can manage to return to being respectful and logical, as you once were, your comments will be, as always, welcome.

But, Dan. If you ever accuse me of lying, or of being a liar, or suggest that I have lied, or imply in any way, that I might have intentionally told an untruth again, your comments will not be published on this blog.

15 comments:

The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

Excellent post Mark. Though you said it well Dan will never understand what you are talking about because he does not wish to. Like many far left liberals he desires only to use liberal talking points in anger voicing, "freedom of speech, " which in the liberal mind applies only to a point of view that agrees with them. Your views do not need defending for they are honest and truthful based on your core beliefs as a Christian and a conservative. Attack through anger and false accusation is the liberal way. The Democratic Underground web site has a dedicated page to my site in order to scew my web poll results and this hatred of anything that disagrees with their view is very evident on the page at Undergrounds site. For the left to disagree with me and to attack is what I consider an accomplishment for it means that the truth that we state is more than they can stand and angered attacks are their only answer. Keep up the great work my friend!

Ken

Ms.Green said...

Unfortunately, there's no reasoning with pro-death advocates. With so many people believing the lie of evolution, why should killing a baby human be any different than going squirrel hunting? Just personal preference, right? We're just a little higher life form on the evolutionary chart - nothing really special about us.
I've found, oddly enough, that people who are for abortion are generally against the death penalty as being "cruel and unusual punishment". Don't have any "official" polls to that effect - just my personal observations.

Good post.

Lone Ranger said...

What a co-inky-dink. I just made a short post about liberal stupidity on my blog. You can't blame them. They're suffering from a mental disorder -- a total lack of common sense.

ELAshley said...

Hear, Hear! It's idiocy on parade everyday in the gestalt liberal mind! Great post, great comments.

Marie's Two Cents said...

The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

I wouldnt stress out over this Mark, it's a well known fact Liberals are unhinged.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Whoa...looks like I've missed some posts around here.


You don't care about babies being murdered in the womb. You don't care about babies dying in war. You don't care about soldiers dying in war.

Well...that sounds a bit harsh. I think Dan does care about human life; but in the Michael Berg sense of it, where the answer to confronting violence is to overwhelm evil-doers with love and kindness and compassion, and understanding, and humanity. Essentially, to be sheep in a world filled with wolves, and to blame sheepdogs for incurring more violence from the wolves.

As far as saying Dan doesn't care about babies in the womb...I am guessing that the problem lies in his perception of whether or not what is living and breathing in the womb can yet be considered a "human life" with full human rights, equal to that of the mother.

Interesting that they still refer to the woman as "the mother" when they won't acknowledge "it" as "a baby".

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

One last thing: Dan has always been civil and respectful toward me.

I just have a difficult time accepting his ideological outlook.

And then it becomes difficult to debate on certain things, when we can't even agree on what the facts are (not Dan specifically, but liberals and conservatives in general over current events).

Dan Trabue said...

"I don't have to do that. You know Democrats are more corrupt."

I don't have time to really deal with everything but Mark, I truly don't understand this point. You think it's okay to make an accusation and not back it up? I know that's the way of many ill-mannered and unethical people, but I didn't think you were one of those.

I mean, I can make all sorts of accusations. I think there's a good bit of evidence that Bush staged a coup d'etat in Haiti, that he tried to do so in other South American countries. I think Bush's team committed treason in outing spies at Bush's request.

I don't think Bush gives a rat's ass about saving babies except to dupe "pro-life" people into voting for him.

I think all manner of things and can make accusations but with no evidence, it means nothing. HOW do I know that Dems are more corrupt unless you provide some evidence? Mark, that's beneath you. And refusing to answer is beneath you as well.

Post or don't, it's your blog. I'm just saying I'm expecting more of you.

Mark said...

Dan, I enumersated the reasons that I didn't answer your rhetorical questions. First and foremost, you have no interest is getting answers. You would not accept them if you got them.

Second, You would only twist my words to try to make a fool out of me.

Third, I have neither the time nor the inclination to pore over pages and pages of documents that prove the truth that Democrats are on the whole more corrupt and more seriously corrupt than Republicans.

If you really want the answer to that question. I mean really want it, and can accept the findings, you obviously have acess to a computer and the internet. Do the research yourself. After all, only by doing your own research will you ever be convinced in the first place.

I don't have the time, and frankly, I already know the answer. You are the one that seems confused. I am not.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Well...here's something for starters, for whatever it's worth:

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of imprisonments: 14
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pled the 5th Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 124
- As of June 2000, the Justice Department listed 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals.
- According to the House Committee on Government Reform in September 2000, 79 House and Senate witnesses asserted the Fifth Amendment in the course of investigations into Gore's last fundraising campaign. [These figures are included in the larger figures elsewhere].
-James Riady entered a plea agreement to pay an $8.5 million fine for campaign finance crimes. This was a record under campaign finance laws.
Number of actual convictions of Clinton associates:
Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery(4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts(1), illegal campaign contributions(5), money laundering (6).

Erudite Redneck said...

You need help, Mark.

Dan Trabue said...

"If you really want the answer to that question. I mean really want it, and can accept the findings, you obviously have acess to a computer and the internet."

I did the search and didn't turn up much in the way of Democratic convictions. My questions weren't rhetorical, they were addressing YOUR claim that the Dems were obviously more corrupt than the Reps. I merely called you on your assertion.

If you want to make that sort of blanket statement, don't you think it reasonable to have some facts to back them up?

I apologize for calling you a liar, what you made was a totally unsubstantiated claim, not a lie, technically. I reckon I'd have to know that YOU know different for it to be a lie and I don't.

What I DO know is that your claim was unsupported. I was merely asking for support for your statement.

As to Wordsmith's facts (and thanks for the vote of confidence, W), you are likely correct that those numbers are right, but the key point is that there are that number of people associated with Clinton who had convictions. I was trying to compare apples to apples - the number of convictions in the Reagan Whitehouse (32 + a war crime conviction by the World Court) vs the number of convictions in the Clinton Whitehouse (3, I believe - none over anything as treasonous as Reagan's war crimes).

If we'd like to expand the convictions to people associated with Reagan/Bush, the number would expand but I don't know offhand how they'd compare.

The bottom line, Mark, is it is unfair and just plain wrong to make unsubstantiated statements such as you made. The Bible is consistently clear about this ("You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor" - recall that one?). Further, as I already stated, this sort of chicanery is undoing the US political system and I'm not making that statement lightly.

I think the slander and spreading of unsubstantiated rumors for political reasons is a worse treason than any accusations some make about pacifists. It is simply wrong and I'd kindly ask you to reconsider making statements such as that which can't be backed up by facts.

I apologize again for the liar-accusation.

Dan Trabue said...

Oh, and by the way, for all those who've made all manner of unsubstantiated statements about me, I'm pro-life - opposed to abortions whether they're in US wombs or foreign.

It's just that I don't want the gov't to make medical decisions for people - it's that whole anti-BIG gov't conservative in me.

Dan Trabue said...

"Can you say Ted Kennedy (murderer) Gary Conyers (murderer) Bill and Hillary Clinton (murderers) etc. etc. etc.?"

Ted Kennedy (and you should know that as a bicycling advocate and car opponent, I have no patience for those who kill with their cars) was involved in an auto wreck and, unless you want to call all those who kill with their cars "murderers" (and I'm willing to consider that), then you might want to rephrase this (Laura Bush, you know, killed her boyfriend in a car wreck in 1963).

Gary Conyers, I don't know.

Bill and Hillary are murderers? Where's the news report on that?! Liberal media or no, if Bill Clinton killed someone, it'd make the news.

This is what I'm talking about when I'm saying you're making wild and unsubstantiated claims. You don't like Clinton, fine. Neither do I. But you can't call someone a murderer and suggest a whole party is corrupt on baseless claims.

As I stated, I could make all sort of unsubstantiated claims about Bush and I'd bet there's a chance I'd be right. I mean, at least with Bush, I'd have a reason for thinking him capable of murder and war crimes (he's said he's willing to lie and do all manner of nasty stuff if he thinks the cause is just).

But I'd also be in conspiracy land in so doing. I'd suggest that you must stick to provable facts if you don't want to sound like a lunatic.

Dan Trabue said...

Gary CONDIT, that's who you meant, right? The Democratic representative who was implicated in the death of Chandra Levy.

Never convicted.

Again, I kept an open mind (remember, I'm no fan of the Dems, either. It's just that I think they're less destructive than the Reps). I looked online and could find few convictions listed. Lots of accusations and implied guilt, just as there is with the Republicans.

So it comes down to this: You suspect - have a hunch - that the Dems are more corrupt than the Republicans, but you've no proof of it. In fact, if we compare the last two complete regimes (Clinton/Gore and Reagan/Bush) we have 32 convictions vs. 3.

That seems an apt, apples-to-apples comparison based on reality not guesses and rumors.