Comments are moderated on this blog because there are not available resources to actively moderate comments in live-action time as they’re submitted — I prefer publishing all comments and not moderating much of anything except the exceptionally offensive and Spam laden, but, after trying that option a while ago, what resulted is a rash of infectious hate-comments by the reliably hateful Liberals among us and I had to resort to moderating all comments a while ago for these reasons.
These hate-comments are highly motivated, in my experience, in harassing Conservative, Republican bloggers and appear to devote more negative emotional intensity (and their negative time) to dropping off hate-bombs via a commenting section than do people with basic difference of opinion as to issues. There’s a difference in animosity from the Liberals/Democrats that sets them apart from others: they contain exaggerations, accusations, deploy name-calling and use of language that really is intended to hurt, to wound, to harm.
About the very worst of these comments, I’ve saved as text files (and tracked accordingly in site logs) for the primary reason that I keep a record of I.P.A.s from whence the hate-comments originate, and then compare them to future or ongoing access attempts. It’s useful when some of the comments are particularly aggressive, and some of them, unfortunately, have been. Thus, for security concerns, I maintain a record of comments made on this blog that are submitted here but which I don’t publish due to their problematic content.
So far, all the hate-comments contain pejoratives about me of a personal nature (various, predictably nasty adjectives — I’m “nuts” and they go down the drain from there); and, they’re all from Liberals/Democrats who try the flame-effect: call me a name, write elaborate, hysterical accusations, then accuse me of being a radical suppressor of their otherwise-freedom-laden existence or that of some hypothetical other person or type of person who these hate-commentors allege I’ve “victimized” by being alive with opinions other than theirs and/or by maintaining my blog — meaning, my existence really bothers these intolerant hate-comments).
If Liberals/Democrats could/would actually discuss an issue in their comments here, I’d publish those comments willingly. But they all follow the same disturbed mentality and/or corrupt morality (take your pick): they loiter lower or lowest along a stagnant water table of hate. In other words, they make no contribution nor point except that they can and do hate (this site, any issues I write about, what I write about, Conservatives, Republicans, God, Christ, human life, you name it, it’s been left here by various Liberals in their wretched comments — one I even found to be a “Democrat activist” in Montana who prided himself on being “active” in fundraising in his state using the same I.D. and email on Daily Kos, and a few more that are locatable by IPA, who was particularly sarcastic — moreso than many Liberals — so I devoted a few extra minutes to look into his IPA moreso than usual).
Today’s Liberal commentor writes that I’m “nuts” and a “so-called Christian” who she says is “spreading hate” (because I am pro-life, imagine that — to the Left, when and if a Conservative is Pro-Life, that means, to the Left, that we’re “spreading hate”). She alleges I’m somehow to blame or to be held responsible for children who are “raped” or “impregnated against their will” and similar wretched miseries from her comments — culminating in her “bet” that I’m “voting for pro-abortion Rudy” (reason I’m not supporting Giuliani is his position on this issue, however, in addition to his pro-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens positions).
Commentor then continues that a “raped” “twelve-year-old” would be sent into a life of suffering if she COULD NOT obtain an abortion, with no thoughtfulness (about that or otherwise) about the negative impact of abortion itself upon those who undergo them, nor thought of the life of the unborn child (hypothetically or otherwise).
This Liberal commentor (unfortunately, like so many like her) is quite emotional about their defense and promotion of abortion and uses very miserable but irrational accusations to attempt to inflict harm on me — just because I don’t support the “right” of abortion on-demand. I have no idea how and why any person becomes quite this sick, but sick they are, whoever they are. It remains interesting to me to read the denigration of us Christians about pro-life positions by people who so clearly are not Christians. Yet, they fancy themselves our accusers (sounds familiar, unfortunately).
My conclusion is that there is little point in publishing these hate-comments, not so much because of their “Liberal/Democrat” clearly identifiable affiliation/s, but because of their really offensive negativity.
If the point by people who use the internet thus is to harm others randomly wherever they think they can find a vulnerability or assumed access as to someone else’s person which they can then exploit for purposes of sadism, lack of empathy, inability to extend some degree of civility with another, they do so here in the comments section.
I doubt as a Conservative with a blog that I am alone in this experience. Most blogs today have to moderate comments — certainly do have to moderate Trackbacks — but it’s disappointing that it’s necessary, I’m just saying. Worse, it’s quite disappointing that this happens at all, that people are like this. But, they are, and that’s the scope of things today as to about 99.9% of the comments I receive from Liberals/Democrats (as also as I read all over the internet from same).
I feel hesitant in even writing about these comments because their content (and intent) are so debased.
However, I thought I’d use this unfortunate opportunity not to lend any publicity to the Liberal imbalance as I experience it here in their comments on this blog, but as to the issue of abortion in reference to us voting Conservatives.
I wrote a few days ago about the Democratic Party and Nancy Pelosi in their enabling of abortion — which, therefore, assigns responsibility for the deaths of vast millions of unborn human beings to Democrats, as to their efforts in that regard.
It’s not news to and about Conservatives that the issue of abortion is a primary motivating issue as to who we vote for and why: we’re pro-life, we do not support taking the life of an unborn human being.
So, continuing as to this one hateful commentor from earlier today, referring to me as an “idiot,” the commentor then alleges about me in as ugly an allegation as I’ve read that I am harming a (hypothetical – theirs) “twelve-year-old” who is “impregnated by rape” and which hate-comments then continue on to accuse me (as an “idiot”) of “forcing” this hypothetical child to bear the hypothetical unborn child she is carrying afterward.
I know of no twelve-year-old child, specifically, who has fallen victim to such a monstrous situation, but, granted, I agree that these terrible events in our human population have and will occur. I’ve just never written about any specific person in such a circumstance, nor have plans to do so. I also have never “accused” Nancy Pelosi nor Democrats of “forcing” them not to assist this hypothetical child (as so the hate-comments allege), nor do I by rote allege that this hypothetical twelve-year-old suffering such terrible events should be “forced” to determine one way or the other what her options are — that’d be the responsibility of her parents, and if not her parents if they were responsible for such a terrible situation, then her physician/s and an available religious counselor.
Let me say this, for starters: the hypothetical unborn child in such a hypothetical pregnancy did not create the damaging, terrible act that allowed that child to have life. Neither did the hypothetical, non-consenting, non-responsible twelve-year-old. But the hypothetical child remains an innocent human being despite the circumstances. It would be, hypothetically, the responsibility of professionals — not to exclude religious professioals — to work with this hypothetical child to determine her options. There is always the possibility of adoption for her hypothetical child once born, if the hypothetical twelve-year-old could manage reasonably to bear the child (though I would not expect her to, nor be eager to presume that she was well placed to do so).
My empathy and concerns would be for both the hypothetical twelve-year-old, then, AND the hypothetical unborn human child. I would not advocate for abortion, however, but would maintain an open mind with hopes for the best outcome for all involved (life and well being for all involved).
That is, I would presume no preconcluded assumption with which to impress that hypothetical child — such a hypothetical situation would require that the full set of circumstances and conditons be taken into account: the hypothetical twelve-year-old child’s life and health, the hypoethical unborn child’s life and health, and then to arrive at what was best for everyone, with the hypothetical twelve-year-old child as foremost concern.
However, this would not negate nor diminish my concerns and good intents for the life of the hypothetical unborn human being. That hypothetical unborn person would be blameless in my view, did not create any situation about which that hypothetical human being merited being put to death. It is the life of the unborn that pro-abortionists, so to speak (awkward word), are so eager to overlook, as if an “unwanted” human life in the womb is responsible for the situation, and about which they, then, must lose their life. In other words, the unborn human child is not responsible for whatever the circumstances of the living may be, certainly not to any degree that would require that their life be ended in the womb.
In the case of “pro-abortion” Liberals/Democrats, there is the assumption, the foregone conclusion , that the hypothetical twelve-year-old “must have” or “should have” an abortion, that the hypothetical unborn human being she carried would not have any rights to life, nor be of consideration in the moral, religious and medical concerns.
They demand abortion and assume anyone suggesting otherwise is somehow doing something to this hypothetical child (or pregnant female, of whatever hypothetical age otherwise) that should not be done — the very idea that the hypothetical unborn child should live it’s life seems to missing from their concerns.
Abortion (“on demand”) is a key voting issue for most of us Conservatives as it is also as to human life otherwise. We vote accordingly, we don’t vote accordingly, depending upon which poliical candidate supports or does not support taking the life of the unborn. There are tragic, terrible situations that occur, yes, socially, morally and medically, but the assumption that an unborn human being can be taken simply by “choice” by a pregnant woman is not an option for most Conservatives, if not all of us, on religious grounds: respect for the life of the unborn, a defenseless human being devoid of responsibility for whatever conditions beset the mother (and therefore, not to be harmed in any punitive fashion even if the mother choses to do so).
Unless the life of the mother is at stake, then abortion is out of the question in the realm of respect for unborn human life. Or, even if the life of the mother is at stake, there are some situations in which the life of the mother is at risk but she and her mate opt to birth the child anyway, despite the risks, giving precedence to the life of the child — also their “right,” which pro-abortionists very often both overlook and disparage in their efforts to advise on behalf of abortions, even when a pregnant female may feel marginally or conflicted about it
As to voting, this issue is a deal-breaker for most Conservatives in all elected office — Congress and the Presidency, especially. A President cannot determine abortion on-demand to be legal or not, but he can (and does) appoint Supreme Court judges who can and do make this determination, and, same goes for members Congress, and both accept or decline influence from both perspectives, accordingly. So it’s important a voting issue for Conservatives.
And, thus, most of us Conservatives cannot vote for pro-abortion candidates and since the Democratic Party in it’s platform states it’s commitment to abortion on-demand (“a woman’s right to chose” without regard for how those many women are advocated and advised), that then means:
— the Democratic Party is “pro-abortion” and it’s party leaders are, too (and therefore, rejectable by Conservatives for this reason, often, this reason alone); and,
— Democrats are “pro-abortion” if and as they vote to elect pro-abortion candidates.
And, thus, to repeat, the DNC is responsible for the “deaths of the unborn” as I earlier wrote. They represent an organization that advocates and efforts to enable that lives of unborn human being to be put to death, defenseless human beings who are killed without “representation” as to their wishes (for life or for death) and, therefore, their deaths represent murder by those who end their lives.
Hypotheticals and getting angry and nasty about hypotheticals is a waste of time. It’s also unappreciated by this blog; those who leave their nasty hate-comments rife with hypotheticals on this blog are never going to be published here. Nor voted for as to my support otherwise.