Francis addresses an important point from Orwell’s 1984: The Unaddressed Question Of 1984.
Read the whole thing, it’s a very important point to understand. The motive is always power. If casting Rightists as Nazis will help them obtain power, they will do it. If casting them as people who like cats will do likewise, they will do that too. The point is to find a lever which moves you; to find something that that will get under your skin and force you to obey them. Francis references this point in a quote from the book:
‘You are ruling over us for our own good,’ he said feebly. ’You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore-’
He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O’Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five.
‘That was stupid, Winston, stupid!’ he said. ‘You should know better than to say a thing like that.’
He pulled the lever back and continued:
‘Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others ; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.
O’Brien has the virtue of honesty in this scene, at least. But then, he is in a position where the truth will actually serve better than the lie, at least for that one moment. He will lie as readily, if not more so, if the lie will serve his purpose. We are currently in a time when tyrants wish to justify their rule over us in terms of our own good. We are not wise enough, you see, to govern ourselves. More and more functions and decisions must be made by the Party.
But the time will come when the O’Briens of the world will be more truthful about it. It is about power, no more, no less. Trouble is, this will only be admitted when the usefulness of the existing weapon has expired. When saying that we are governed by our supposed betters, for our own good, no longer produces a benefit, the claim will be discarded. By the time this truth is admitted, it will likely be too late to do anything about it.
When SJWs discuss oppressive power systems, they are really lamenting the fact that they have not been able to fully impose such systems of power themselves. If and when they do, the mask will come off readily.
There have, however, been a few radical Leftists who have admitted these things semi-openly when it suited their purposes. Saul Alinsky is a great example. Reading his Rules for Radicals exposes a man for whom causes are merely weapons in the pursuit of power, not articles of genuine belief. Now, true believers do exist, of course. And one difficulty a Rightist has today is separating the true believers from the power seekers. One is to be pitied, perhaps. Not the other.
As Francis points out, however, this pity of the true believer can actually be a weapon, too. Our desire to be nice to such people is used against us by the power seekers behind them. Useful idiots form a sort of ideological human shield to protect tyrants. The practice has a long history in physical warfare. Place innocents in a target likely to be bombed, and then accuse your enemy of killing civilians. This helps a tyrant gain a moral high ground position in the eyes of the mass media. We should not be surprised that in politics, a similar tactic is used.
But it is important to understand who you are dealing with, regardless. A deceiver, or the deceived? Some folks may have noticed the arrival of new Leftist detractor in the comments section of The Declination, and might be wondering why I am permitting him to air his inconsistent spew. They come from time-to-time of course. And I continue to maintain that if you do not have enemies, you’re doing something terribly wrong. But it is interesting practice in spotting the difference between the deceiver and the deceived. It is tough to say with certainty yet, but I lean toward the former in his case.
The difference is in directing your own attacks. Don’t waste time on the deceived, that is a mistake. Find and neutralize the deceiver instead. Behind every batch of gender-confused, rainbow haired crazies ranting about the oppressiveness of eating Chinese takeout is an Alinsky-like figure (or perhaps more than one) using such idiots for his own personal gain.
No, I think he is a deceived. He gave himself away too much. The deceiver would never come here like that, he would be more like………well me, TSW, you, or any other in that vein. I have much more to blather on about this but I’m busy at the moment.
You may be right. If he is, he’ll wind up in the ignore column. I’ve no time to waste on the small fries.
One more quickie;
“Having actually BEEN something of an athlete in my younger days, with a body confirmed by medical measurement to be in superlative shape,” Teams benches are full of scrubs who keep their personal stats in their pockets to show coach so he’ll put them in. It never happens.
Also, an actual athlete would tell us what kind of athlete he was, rather than claim some sort of vague notion of medical measurement. An athlete would say “I am a football player” not “I am confirmed by medical measurement!”
I suspect that he might have once had a BMI that wasn’t in the obese category (a long time ago), and claims this as proof of athletic proficiency.
Something tells me Padraig got teased and taunted a LOT in junior high & high school. ;-).
Well he has been medically measured.
I have to disagree. The true believer is as dangerous if not more so than the deceiver. while the deceiver is dangerous in the long run, the true believer will plant the bombs or strap on the bomb vest. Occasionally the true believer will look around and leave the left as David Horowitz did. But such instances are rare and once the shooting starts you won’t have time to differentiate.
If and when the shooting starts, you are correct. There will be no time to differentiate. But until it comes to that, don’t waste your time and effort on every two-bit hack claiming burritos are examples of the racism of the white cisheteropatriarchy.
The Alinskyites must be exposed. Folks have been doing a better job of that lately, though. Much of the corruption of the Clintons was revealed, and that’s a very good start.
A little more;
I love the way these guys use words. They like great big ones preferably obscure (ie. casuistry) that they drag around in french like tumbrels wide eyed in fear of the fate that their owner/author intend for them. Remember gravitas and the chorus like use? Not to mention throwing in some early high school latin to show that yes I’m really really smart.
Status signalling is their thing. It’s like they think they are all still in high school.
A humble parable from the renowned post modern neo philosopher Jerry Clower on this subject. You will recognize our honored guest. Dystopia if this messes with your bandwidth I apologize:
https://youtu.be/r5rIvW39_Ko
Lol! I heard that many moons ago, but I didn’t realize that until I heard the end. “…I’ll have my chauffeur stand up and answer it.”
– – – or – – – notwithstanding the “1984” quote, the assertion that liberal political operatives are only interested in power is utterly bogus and merely serves as a launching pad for a discursive post about dark, Left-Wing conspiratorial machinations, which are then cited as the reason that Right-Wingers are psychopaths.
(Why look! A bunch of Right-Wingers have formed an abusive mob. [Does anyone still wonder why Charlottesville happened?])
I’m starting to think Sennacherib has the right of it. You’re a small fry.
[“meow”]
The evidence is against you. No matter what “problem” the Left is shrieking about at any given moment, the “solution” is always more government activism, more government intrusions into private enterprise, more government spending, and more government power. The sole exception is abortion—and it’s not entirely an exception, as many on the Left have demanded that governments pay for all abortions, compel even Catholic hospitals to provide them, and to remove all health-and-safety regulations from abortion clinics.
My accountant wife has a saying: “When all the errors are in the bank’s favor, you can be sure there’s more at work than sloppy arithmetic.” Similarly, when your prescription is always more government, it’s a lead pipe cinch that more government is your true agenda. Sorry, but we’re on to you, and there’s no more hiding it. Have a nice life.
Quote:
“When your prescription is always more government, it’s a lead pipe cinch that more government is your true agenda. Sorry, but we’re on to you, and there’s no more hiding it. Have a nice life.”
———————————————-
You have fallen into the fallacy of hasty generalization.
What you take for fact is mere inferential presumption.
You’re right! That’s why the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, North Korea and Maoist China were such STUNNING successes!
PWNAGE!
Then show us your counterexamples. That’s how one disproves a hypothesis founded in observation and inference. We’re waiting.
Quote:
“When your prescription is always more government, it’s a lead pipe cinch that more government is your true agenda. Sorry, but we’re on to you, and there’s no more hiding it. Have a nice life.”
———————————————-
You have fallen into the fallacy of hasty generalization.
What you take for fact is mere inferential presumption.
Quote:
Then show us your counterexamples. That’s how one disproves a hypothesis founded in observation and inference. We’re waiting.
—————————————–
—————————————–
Not only is your conclusion a product of hasty generalization, but your initial presumption begs the question. In fact, federal expenditure, as a percentage of GDP, is right where it was in 1989. So we don’t have “more government” (as least in terms of its cost), as you presume.
Also, it is incumbent upon YOU to PROVE your hypothesis, not on me to disprove it. However, as an alternative inference to your own, I would say that if government has grown it is because the citizenry want more services. Whereas initially all that they were interested in was defense against Indian attack, they now want water for their crops, electricity for their homes, transportation infrastructure (and thousands of additional benefits), all of which require more expense and more administrative personnel.
THAT inference, even if entirely wrong, is no more unproven than your own.
Trendline for government spending as percentage of GDP: https://blogs-images.forbes.com/joshbarro/files/2012/04/spending-GDP-chart1.png
We’d probably be a lot higher save for the 1994 GOP tidal wave that rendered Bill Clinton a lame duck. That was about the last time I can recall the GOP doing something really good. The Democrats haven’t since I’ve been alive.
“Also, it is incumbent upon YOU to PROVE your hypothesis, not on me to disprove it.”
You haven’t provided much in the way of evidence for your claims. Quid pro quo. You are long on demanding citations and evidence from us, and short on supplying your own.
According to the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, federal net outlays as a percentage of gross domestic product are the same today as they were in 1986. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S
The Federal Reserve is a more authoritative source than your choice of Forbes.
I posted an unsupported inference as a demonstration that Francis Porretto’s inference was identically unsupported. Had I posted support for my inference, the comparison would have been inapt.
Not a valid comparison, as you are not comparing the same metric. Total government spending as opposed to federal net outlays. This is why the Forbes graph displays much higher percentages at any given point in time (post WW2).
If you are going to demand evidence, do look at it carefully, please.
Apologies. Looking more closely at the graph, on your advice, I see now that net federal outlays as a percentage of GDP are actually the same as in 1980
You do understand that federal net outlays are not the sum total of government spending, yes? And you do understand that comparing a maximum to a minimum on a trend line is not terribly helpful, right?
Here, see if you can figure it out: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/16/lessons-from-the-decades-long-upward-march-of-government-spending/#52fc54bb2720
Also, great breakdown of several sources (and you can also break down by type of spending): https://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/total_spending_chart
See if you can spot the trend line. If you can’t, consider purchasing better glasses.
If you dislike the Federal Reserve’s choice of the relevant measurement of federal spending to compare against GDP, complain to IT. Notwithstanding your preference, the resultant percentage by its calculations has been flat for thirty-seven years, putting the lie to Francis Porretto’s presumption of government growth.
I neither like or dislike the Federal Reserve’s metric. I question its suitability for the argument you are making. The Federal Reserve’s metric does not take into account state and local spending, nor properly balances federal subsidies to the states. That is not its function. The metrics supplied (and carefully researched) by https://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/total_spending_chart and by Forbes does incorporate those in addition to to your metric.
This is also not the argument Francis was making, though I suspect you know this and are being deliberately obtuse. Observe: “The evidence is against you. No matter what “problem” the Left is shrieking about at any given moment, the “solution” is always more government activism, more government intrusions into private enterprise, more government spending, and more government power. The sole exception is abortion—and it’s not entirely an exception, as many on the Left have demanded that governments pay for all abortions, compel even Catholic hospitals to provide them, and to remove all health-and-safety regulations from abortion clinics.”
Francis is telling you that the solutions offered by your side almost invariably government solutions, which leads to the conclusion that what you really desire is more government.
Ironically, your very argument is supportive of this. Indeed, it’s more supportive of it than even I would be.
Your claim is that government growth has been relatively flatlined since the 80s and Reagan revolution. Furthermore, the biggest dip in the graph in recent times comes from the 1994 Contract with America (the last time Republicans really did anything ballsy and useful about spending, IMHO). The biggest jump – the one that renormalizes to the long term trendline of growth present since 1900 occurred after the emerging Democrat majorities in the House, and then was rapidly followed by the election of Obama.
I say the long term trendline is for growth, and never stopped, but merely experienced a cluster of minimums (not unlike the cluster of maximums we see during the world wars, but less extreme). You argue that it DID stop, and moreover did so during the rule of prominent Republicans.
What you haven’t argued – and cannot – is that the left would reduce spending, because you are desirous of increased spending.
In either event, Francis is correct. To prove him wrong, the left would have to advocate for reduced spending and less government control over the economy, and then actually achieve it. Were that the case, they would cease being what we account as the left. By definition (in America, at least – it is somewhat different in Europe), they are for big government. One beef Francis and I have with the Republicans is that they are generally failing to hold to this principle of late, indicating to us that they may be sliding left. We shall see what the tenure of Trump brings in that department.
But you know all this. Just as you know what the graphs say. But your devotion to leftism is such that any lie that would serve must be used. As Francis explained, we see through you. You are not fooling us. You are not the side of fiscal responsibility and conservatism, no matter how much you would like to pretend otherwise to fool some gullible idiots. In your mind, leftism must be imposed regardless of the cost in blood and treasure. Leftism is all.
“Viewed from a GDP perspective, total government spending was steady at about 33 percent GDP in the mid 2000s and then jumped, in the Great Recession, to 41 percent GDP. But in the subsequent economic recovery total government spending has steadily declined as a percent of GDP down to about 34 percent GDP in 2015.”
This quote, taken from the selfsame reference that you posted, shows that TOTAL government spending has remained flat for the past ten years, indicating the “trending” to which you refer has ended.
Government spending has been flat for a decade. Ergo, mirroring Francis Porretto’s inference, if there hasn’t been any “more government” for ten years, then there is currently no agenda for “more government”.
“Ergo, mirroring Francis Porretto’s inference, if there hasn’t been any “more government” for ten years, then there is currently no agenda for “more government”.”
Fallacy. Even if we accept your premise of no government growth (which I do not), it does not follow that there is no leftist agenda for government growth.
Granted.
Francis Porretto’s inference, and my own, are equally unsupported.
Son, I hate to be the one to break the news to ya, but:
Both the giant mob of antifa & BLM supporters on one side and the pathetically tiny group of confederacy supporters and neo-KKK types on the other were BOTH spawns of YOUR ideology/theology.
Game.
Set.
Match.
Note to everyone:
Pádraig (Irish: [ˈpˠaːd̪ˠɾˠəɟ]),[citation needed] Pádraic (Irish: [ˈpˠaːd̪ˠɾˠəc])[citation needed] or Páraic (Irish: [ˈpˠaːɾˠəc])[citation needed] is an Irish male name deriving from the Latin Patricius, meaning “of the patrician class”
We’re dealing with a ‘top shelf’ progressive here, someone who needs validation more than the rest of us need oxygen. LOL!
Liberals deplore both white supremacists and Antifa, both of whom violate the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens when it suits them.
BLM is another matter, being a peaceful, non-violent civil rights movement that has been relentlessly smeared by the Right-Wing.
Oh, really?
Here’s WaPo, one of the leading sirens of Progressives, defending Antifa and their tactics:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/08/16/who-are-the-antifa/?utm_term=.43fab669f989
Brian Fallon of CNN praising antifa:
https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/897666629735264256/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsisypheannews.com%2F2017%2F08%2F18%2Fmedia-praises-antifa-as-more-statues-are-torn-down%2F
MSNBC says antifa is on the side of angels (yes, angels – those mystical sky fairies from a religion that progressive poomp all over for their ignorant followers:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV15dpzmerk
And, of course, we all remember BLM demonstrating their ‘peacefulness’ and ‘supporting the advancement of the community’ by burning down the Ferguson, Missouri business disctrict:
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ferguson-protest-oakland-750×400.jpg
BLM demonstrated more of their ‘civic virtue’ in Dallas:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/police-officers-killed-dallas-shooting
Look, Padraig:
You hate America. You hate Western Civilization. We got it.
You feel morally and intellectually superior and suppress the feelings of guilt and inadequacy your tormentors in JH and High School instilled in you when you lash out against the West with your highly contrived arguments and inconsistent/contradictory data. We got it.
But when you troll, put some effort into it. Otherwise it’s just dull.
Here Endeth the Lesson.
You are despicable:
Without a shred of justification, you label Heather Heyer, the woman murdered by a Right-Wing fanatic in Charlottesville, and who, by all accounts, was a sweet, innocent girl, as an Antifa member, and then claim that a newswoman who referred to her as being “on the side of the angels”, was referring to Antifa. Words fail any attempt to describe your baseness.
As for the rest of your junk references:
The Washington Post article presents Antifa’s history and the reasoning behind its behavior, NOT the author’s opinion NOR his approbation.
The Brian Fallon tweet you reference does NOT mention Antifa.
You accuse BLM of burning down the business district of Ferguson and then as evidence post a link to a photo of an anonymous man holding a Black Lives Matter poster sitting in front of a fire somewhere (which, judging from the url, was NOT taken in Ferguson.)
Your link allegedly showing BLM culpability in the Dallas police shootings connects to an article in which the shooter DENIES that he is a member of BLM.
Your citations are all as bad as your character.
PERFECT!
Dear Padraig the self-styled Irish Patrician,
When you say I’m despicable, it’s clear you were looking in a mirror.
1. Poser! Your faux outrage regarding leftist activist Heather Heyer’s tragic death at the hands of a complete loser DOES NOT counterbalance your unapologetic support of BLM burning down Ferguson’s business district, the many incidents where Antifa attacked unarmed people with clubs, knives and pepper spray, including a bystander at Berkeley who suffered permanent neurological damage when struck on the skull from behind with a bicycle lock, or a BLM supporter assassinating 5 Dallas cops. PWNED!
2. By ‘junk’ references, you mean verifiable evidence, actual data and recognized facts. We know. That’s how you leftists operate – reject factual truth because it deflates all your myths in favor of ‘narrative truth.’ We got it.
3. The Brian Fallon tweet is part of a string of tweets where he supports antifa, comparing them to the Allies at the Normandy beaches on D-Day. That’s called ‘support’ and ‘adulation’, honey.
4. BLM set fire to the Ferguson biz district. TRY and prove me wrong, honey. BTW: by burning down those businesses, the people who worked there lost their jobs, and the people who frequented those businesses now have to travel significant distances to access the same products and services. So much for BLM ‘supporting the advancement of the community.’
5. The shooter was an outspoken BLM supporter, and BLM sang his praises before being advised to reverse position.
Padraig, you have no character. That glance in the mirror revealed someone staring back at you who is the poster child of self-deception, malice and corruption. THAT’S WHY YOU’RE UPSET.
Come back for more if you’re a masochist, sweetie.
LOLROFLMAO!!!
(God, this is fun! LOL!)
I think the following vid is fitting:
Everything – – – literally E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G – – – in your post is a lie or irrelevant. I invite you to prove even ONE allegation with reference to fact or to authoritative opinion. Characteristic of a true believer, you ignore my refutation of the lies in your penultimate post and simply repeat and embellish them.
1. I have never defended Antifa. It IS violent. As I stated ab initio, “Liberals deplore both white supremacists and Antifa, both of whom violate the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens when it suits them.” You have wasted a lot of time proving a fact that was not in contention. (It is also NOT BLM.)
2. Breitbart presents a compendium of violent acts, presumably committed by blacks, which it then implies, without evidence, were committed by BLM members. Being black and being a member of BLM are not synonymous.
3. Micah Johnson, the murderer of the Dallas police officers, WAS NOT A MEMBER OF BLM.
Same old same old.
Ooooh, this is DELICIOUS!
My dear, beloved, Padraig,
1. You choose to not believe me about antifa? You might want to ask Homeland Security about them, since they’ve been classifying them as instigators of DOMESTIC TERRORISM since early 2016 (source: POLITICO:)
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235
There are MANY reports of Antifa doing the exact things against unarmed civilians. If you can’t find at least a half dozen individual reports, it’s because you’re deliberately not looking.
Here’s a few, including antifa ganging up on people, beating someone lying unconscious with stomps and clubs, and all sorts of other stuff you obviously support. There are both written reports and VIDEOS documenting the events:
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/29/al-letson-rescued-man-beaten-antifa-sunday/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PYjkq-U_Kc
https://bluelivesmatter.blue/videos-violence-uc-berkeley-riot/
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/05/24/berkeley-college-professor-arrested-as-assault-suspect/
And Brian Fallon’s most infamous defense of Antifa:
https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/897666629735264256
2. BLM and the burning of Ferguson’s biz district:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/03/vox-riots-arson-and-shootings-aside-black-lives-matter-is-pretty-peaceful/
3. The dallas shooter who killed 5 cops:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3680988/Pictured-Micah-Xavier-Johnson-25-year-old-shot-12-cops-Dallas-Black-Lives-Matter-protest-killing-five-saying-wanted-kill-white-people-especially-white-officers.html
Note that it happened at a BLM protest. But he wasn’t a sympathizer, according to you. ROFL!
You will reject all of this evidence, even when half of it comes from leftist news sources, because it’s factual evidence that contradicts your narrative. Don’t worry, we know.
Please continue to clown yourself, Padraig. It’s HILARIOUS Fun!
Gosh, this is so enjoyable, it makes me want to DANCE!
Come on, everybody! Let’s put on our dancin’ shoes!
(Warning: The following vid will permanently lower your IQ by 25%:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G8lPg7pGH8
(p.s. The original is actually a jazz number that’s quite enjoyable.) 🙂
2nd Note to Everyone:
I stand by my post of a week ago that asserted there was no future for Progressivism and that they will be a distant memory just a decade from now.
Though the reality-rejecting psychosis of their proclamations & actions and fundamentally anti-life precepts of their ideology/theology are disconcerting to those of us who believe in logic, reason, fact & evidence-based decision making and the primary sanctity of life & freedom of the individual, the movement is ultimately sterile. One can see the evidence of this starkly even in today’s socio-political discourse, as the backlash against their maoist behaviors grows inexorably and the various groups that form the left, finding themselves continually losing ground, begin to turn on each other, rending with tooth and claw to prove their superior ideological/theological ‘purity.’
The future will darken the most just before the dawn, and that dawn is coming. In my mind, it’s going to look and feel a lot like this (and I am dating myself by posting this:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHOrpFeXUao
🙂
N.B. My post beginning, “1. I have never defended Antifa. … “, is in response to Triple Sphinctered Wombat’s post beginning, “Ooooh, this is DELICIOUS!”, which it erroneously PRECEDES on the blog.
Apologies.
HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!
You really ARE a masochist!
1. You claimed liberals hate Antifa. Then you subtly defended it by positing falsely that the WaPo article on antifa does not whitewash the Maoist organization and that Brian Fallon’s tweet was not a defense of Antifa (a spectacularly ludicrous claim on your part.)
I then presented TONS of evidence – including from traditionally leftist sources – that antifa consistently and frequently has committed HEINOUS acts.
And you are now backpedalling madly, trying to escape the spotlight of Truth which burns you like sunlight does a vampire. LOLOL!
2. Brietbart presented a compendium of violent acts committed by people who were ORGANIZED BY BLM. They had a very strong and obvious presence at the series of riots in Ferguson. It was all over ALL of the networks and the rest of the MSM. Are we to presume that you covered your eyes when the news broadcasts showed protestors carrying “Black Lives Matter!” signs and that you covered your ears when they chanted same? ROFL!
3. Your attempts to exonerate BLM in Dallas are also quite amusing. He showed up at the Dallas rally because he was a BLM sympathizer. Your attempt to defend BLM by proclaiming he was not an actual card-carrying, dues-paying member of the group is rather infantile. LMAO!
Soooooooo, dearest Padraig:
Now that you’re cornered like a rat and have nowhere to run or hide, why don’t you answer some of OUR questions now?
For instance:
1. Why are progressives so interested in repealing the 1st amendment? What is it that you have to hide that you fear free speech guarantees will expose?
2. Why is it that you claim women in America are horrifically oppressed when they have all the same rights as men, superior rights when it comes to divorce proceedings, and actually make slightly more money than men for the same work, while when the subject of women’s status and rights in the Dar Al Islam comes up you become mute?
3. Why do progressives believe that first amendment protections for freedom of religion do NOT apply to the Catholic Church, but DO apply with extra vigor and support to Islam?
I’m sure quite a few other folks on this blog have a wide range of other questions for you as well!
But let me guess: you’re going to try to dance away from all of them in order to contrive a typically artificial set of circumstances that protect and favor you and your amusingly doctrinaire marxist anti-western viewpoints, aren’t you?
Very well, then – feel free to try it. I’m sure it will be highly entertaining.
Come then, Padraig! DANCE for me, Puppet! DANCE, I SAY!
The severity of your disability becomes more apparent with your every post.
Everything that you say in the first trio of numbered paragraphs is STILL a lie or irrelevant. You have posted no references to validate your extremist beliefs for the simple reason that none exist.
The second trio raises up a straw man who holds beliefs that I do not and then condemns him.
Either take a course in logic and reasoning or have an MRI of your brain. Something’s wrong.
(Here’s a link to a report by an objective, fact-checking organization that refutes a bunch of the bogus, anti-BLM, Right-Wing propaganda in which you believe [ignorantly or determinedly]:
“Chants Encounter: A perpetually recirculating video of Black Lives Matter protesters chanting for “dead cops” dates to December 2014 and is unrelated to BLM protest events occurring in July 2016.”* – Snopes)
* http://www.snopes.com/black-lives-matter-protesters-chant-for-dead-cops-now-in-baton-rouge/
I KNEW IT! You AGAIN try to evade culpability for your positions!
Son: are you really trying to convince us that the Snopes video of BLM celebrating the death of NY police officers in 2014 is all of a sudden illegitimate in 2016? SERIOUSLY?
Our conversations have now fallen into a pattern. To wit:
1. You claim Antifa and BLM are saintly, either directly or thru insinuation.
2. I post half a dozen or so links that definitively prove you wrong.
3. You chant “NANAAAA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” and then:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Bury_your_head_in_the_sand.jpg
The Spotlight Of Truth has you firmly outlined, son. You can’t evade or escape. It’s burning blare has captured you.
So: let’s now get to more INTERESTING questions as we continue to examine and dissect your ideology/theology. I’ll repeat the outstanding questions and add two more to the interrogation:
1. Why are progressives so interested in repealing the 1st amendment? What is it that you have to hide that you fear free speech guarantees will expose?
2. Why is it that you claim women in America are horrifically oppressed when they have all the same rights as men, superior rights when it comes to divorce proceedings, and actually make slightly more money than men for the same work, while when the subject of women’s status and rights in the Dar Al Islam comes up you become mute?
3. Why do progressives believe that first amendment protections for freedom of religion do NOT apply to the Catholic Church, but DO apply with extra vigor and support to Islam?
Now the latest ones:
4. Tell us, Padraig – what are your views on the growing NFL player protest to the National Anthem? If you believe they are simply exercising their 1st amendment rights, then why do you support James Damore being fired from Google? Also, why do you support Antifa attacking and wounding dozens of free speech protestors at numerous rallies around the country?
5. Here’s a REALLY good one:
What are your views on CalExit?
Twist and turn until you’ve tied yourself up like a pretzel, son. There is NO ESCAPE.
[“sigh”] Talking to you is like having a conversation with a fish.
The “dead cops” chant, regardless of whether it happened in 2014 or 2016, WASN’T BLM.
Quote:
“You claim Antifa and BLM are saintly, … ”
————————–
? ? ?
The references that you posted are non-responsive. Pick out your favorite and we can discuss it.
Ask the straw man you have raised up to answer your enumerated questions 1, 2, 3. They’re HIS opinions, not mine.
Is there a point in your asking my opinions about #s 4 & 5? You will continue to believe your preconceptions – – – as you have throughout this discussion – – – regardless of my reply.
When you have that MRI, make sure that they check you for dysexecutive syndrome,
Beloved Padraig,
Talking to YOU is like discussing shakespeare with a ZOMBIE.
You say BLM hasn’t called for the murder of cops? Looks like Reality tells us something different:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVkBV_uunoI
Even CNN says you’re lying, son. CNN!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaybrpQ2vxk
You say the snopes video proves it wasn’t BLM who called for the murder of cops? ‘Scuse me, but your link proves nothing of the sort. Prove that nobody in the vid was from BLM. Prove that the march wasn’t organized or supported by BLM. Prove that nobody there was a BLM sympathizer.
We’ll wait. ROFL!
You came here to preen, pose and posture at us Deplorables and Iredeemables so you could virtue signal your exploits to your SJW-like comrades. But things didn’t turn out so well as you thought they would, did they?
Go ahead and skip questions 1-5, honey. You’ve demonstrated that you can’t take the heat anyway and would just get crushed. Your excuses, evasions and compensatory pretensions to intellectual and moral superiority have worn thin and become dull.
I think this vid describes your situation well:
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9a8_1409666796
LULZ!
Buy hey – if you really want to get crushed some more, keep comin’ back. 😉
I am stunned. You actually posted a responsive reference. That would be the brief segment in the first video that shows blacks marching behind a BLM banner and chanting, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” It is, in fact, the only documentary evidence of violent rhetoric that can be ascribed to BLM. It is also 30 seconds of spontaneous, unsanctioned behavior cherry-picked from over two hours of an otherwise unremarkable demonstration.
I am minded of the Trump supporter who threatened violent revolution if Trump wasn’t elected. (Wow! That must mean that all Trump supporters are treasonous!)
Unfortunately, after this momentary blip of relevance, the rest of that video, and your subsequent one, are a reversion your s.o.p. of posting videos showing blacks doing violent things and making stupid comments and implying, without substance, that they are BLM members.
Quote:
“You say the snopes video proves it wasn’t BLM who called for the murder of cops? ‘Scuse me, but your link proves nothing of the sort. Prove that nobody in the vid was from BLM. Prove that the march wasn’t organized or supported by BLM. Prove that nobody there was a BLM sympathizer.”
——————————————–
Is it possible that your are actually unaware of how stupid that is? In the infamous camp film, “Plan 9 From Outer Space”, after ninety minutes of hilariously bad science fiction, a narrator appears on the screen claiming that everything that preceded his appearance is true, and challenges the audience, “Can you prove it didn’t happen?”
– – – That’s YOU.
By again sticking your head in the sand, Padraig, you admit utter defeat.
Every time I substantively put the lie to your posturing and proclamations with actual evidence, while you have only been able to reply with snide and pretentious poses of intellectual superiority and repetitions of your disproven claims.
That’s the equivalent of a college football team saying “it doesn’t matter that they outscored us 105-0. We won a great moral victory!”
HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Ya feel that stinging sensation on your face, Padraig? When you look in the mirror, do you see that hot, burning area appear red on your skin and in the shape of a hand?
Ya done been bitchslapped, sweetcakes.
LOLROFLMAO!
You are a legend in your own mind, Triple Sphinctered Wombat, only there (if, indeed, there IS any THERE, there.)