Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

My thoughts on "that video"

So, there was this guy from Chicago who created a video that depicted Dana shooting herself. He didn't just make it, he tweeted it out to Dana, and Chris Loesch, just in case Dana missed it. From there, you can guess if you don't already know, things got weird.

Dana used it as a platform to garner donations for the NRA. She became a national story off of this, she got a lot of attention from it. One has to wonder, right?

I would like to be the first to condemn the video, but I won't and here's why. It was a parody. To condemn it is to go against the first amendment. We should all be able to make snuff films of our favorite celebrities, as long as that's as far as we take it. Yeah, I just flipped the whole drawing Mohamed argument on its head.  Is that wrong?

Then, ask Trey Parker and Matt Stone what they think about it. They make this little TV show called South Park, which has been a giant celebrity snuff film for 17 years. And Dana has said she loves it, it's a barometer for culture. Should they be investigated by the FBI because they had Brittney Spears shoot herself? Or had Spielberg and George Lucas rape Harrison Ford? Or out Tom Cruise as gay? Of course not. That is what the first amendment is all about.  As long as someone's paying, they should be allowed to do it.

So the thing Dana condemned as a murder fantasy, is pretty much in line with how she feels about other things. Draw the Mohamed cartoon because they don't want us to is pretty similar in that both are first amendment rights. It happens all the time on TV, too. It's called parody. It's called satire. It's the social barometer Dana really likes, until she doesn't.

That said, I do have one other thing to say about this guy. Dana once said of me, "Creepy. Progressive male stalker that I banned from this page after he spam-hated every thread created a blog dedicated to me." But if you look at my Twitter feed @decondana, and what I have written here, the only thing true is I created a blog about her.

The guy that created that video? Look into his Twitter feed. This could be the guy she's talking about when she said that about me. He seems rather obsessed with Dana. I don't think that is cool for one second. I had a theory that he was paid by someone close to Dana to make that video since when you follow the money, Dana comes out good once again on this stunt.

When I looked at his feed, it just didn't seem to fit. He's constantly replying to things she's said. Wait... how is he doing that? I pretty much got banned immediately from her on Twitter. How can he post relies to her? Wouldn't she have banned him right away, too?

Unless she doesn't ban the creepy stalker types, because the thrives on moments like this. And you never know, when you follow the money, maybe I could be right after all. Again, it's just a theory. If I am wrong, I still believe how he's treated Dana on twitter is uncool. One does have to wonder, however.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Revisiting my first post

Fox debates and the Christian Bully

The first thing I wrote here was a story about Fox debates.  One in particular really got my attention, because in it, Dana was being a real Christian bully.  Well, today, this happened:

Dana on Facebook: Flashback to one of my favorite debates.

It's not that it's one of her favorite debates, it's the treasure trove of content in the comments that caught my eye.  She's so heavily edited any detractors out of her Facebook feed that everyone just loved it.  A few examples:
What slays me is that ONLY if you fall down and agree 100% with this nonsense are you a valid person; otherwise, you are labeled a bigot, racist, hell, choose your noun of preference - they all get spewed religiously instead of putting together a cogent argument. It's like a schoolyard playground. The bullies CANNOT put forward a legitimate, logic-based, provable argument so they resort to name-calling and make it a personal attack. How terrified they are! Keep at 'em, Dana!
So, let me get this straight,  Jessica says they are cloaking their politics in Christian beliefs, and gets called an anti-Christian bigot by Dana, and it's Jessica that's the bully?  Got it.
You cannot use logic against lefties because they are not logical. One of the ways to identify a sociopath is to see how they adjust or adapt information to support their claim. But the only way to expose them is to have the debate so those around can watch how they mis-apply data to make their point.. and sometimes can be quite funny.. but mostly looks pretty pathetic.. Well done Dana.. and I feel sorry for people so tangled up in their own self deception.. so sad. that is how people waste their life.. defending the indefensible.
And it seems Jessica is also a sociopath.
I liked this debate too, but it's kind crossing the line when Jessica was calling those brothers names a degrading them and when Dana starts calling her names and telling her to keep her mouth shut! Two wrongs don't make a right! But good job Dana!
Awww, you were doing so good until you got to that qualifying "but".  You do know that negates everything said before it, right?
This was one of the first debates I watched.. fell in love with Dana after this. She literally made that woman cry.
Something every Christian can be happy about.  I mean, WWJD, right?
I was gonna say that! The way her voice started trembling, another 30 seconds and she would have been balling! 
Jesus said: Go and cry no more.
These liberals can disparage whomever they want, but as soon as you confront them with a little logic, they crump.
Logic = name-calling.  Got it.

 Thanks, Dana!  You made my night with this post!  But hey, at least the quality of her posters has gotten better.

Sunday, September 6, 2015

A message to Stephen Crowder

So, in my readings I stumbled across this article by Stephen Crowder.  I felt it my duty to respond.  Here's what I said:
In the case of Vance Day and Kim Davis, what you have are two people who are the government.  They by definition in the constitution should not be promoting any religion on the job.  Kim Davis is on record that it is God's authority, not government's that she denied giving out marriage licenses to same sex couples. Where is the right's love of the constitution here?
I am myself a Christian.  I'm not a scholar of the Bible, but I've read it a few times.  In all cases you mention, it is my belief that the people you feel are being persecuted, are not acting very Christian.  Someone comes to you wanting a wedding cake for a same sex marriage?  Bake them two.  Same sex couple comes up to you seeking a marriage license?  Render unto the government what is the governments.  Hiding Christ's love in this manner does nothing more than put Christianity in a bad light.  
But in reality, when it comes to the governmental definition of marriage, it has very little to do with the Christian definition.  It makes marriage a contract. It gives you many benefits like tax deductions, and control of what happens to a loved one when they fall ill.  Don't believe in the new definition of marriage by the government, don't participate in it.  Get married in a church, don't make it final with a license.  Pay more in taxes.  If you really feel the government's definition is not right for you, there's your true remedy.  Don't everyone rush to get your governmental marriages revoked, now.
What I truly see this as, is another issue to further divide this country.  And whether it be left or right, it is pretty clear who these division peddlers are.  Stephen, you have a platform that can be used for good, just as others in this field do.  Are you going to do that? or just keep stoking the flames for every last dollar you can get?  Don't worry, I won't get my hopes up.
Now, whether I get approval through moderation is another thing.