Doug Phillips is a Tool and Vision Forum is Dead - Part 8

[Marian the Librarian]

Great job of summarizing the KISA thread, formergothardite! Here's one more reference I found there (dated October 15, 2011):

masagoroll wrote:

I have one question about the Torres kids--do you think that racism plays any part in people not marrying them? I'm a fellow Texan, and I feel like it's great here, but there are some people who still have some biases/preconceptions/weirdnesses against Hispanic people.

I don't know. It's hard to say, since racism isn't a community thing among fundies. It's a case by case basis. I know fundies who are anti-Semitic, but most are far from anti-Semitic. I know those who are prejudiced against blacks, latinos, women, asians, you name it. But by and large they're a very embracing and multicultural community. Vision Forum has a lot of blacks through Voddie's influence, and a lot of latinos by region and the easy conversion from Catholicism. There aren't a ton of asians that I can think of at the moment, and the overall majority are pasty whites.

I don't think it plays a part in the core VF community. There are a lot of great girls who are unmarried in the community, and there are a lot of great new things springing up. Lourdes may have something going on now in fact, I just haven't heard the Torres news in quite some time.

freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3942&start=600

[debrand]

On page 14 and 15 of the document, it says that Doug and his wife came to Hero's family home. Doug tried to talk to her alone but was prevented by her father. When he said that he would always be Hero's friend, his wife broke down in tears.

I know that Doug is a narcissist but the entire scenario sounds crazy. He took his wife to visit the woman that he wanted to replace her with when she died. This is just too crazy for fiction.

[Maxwell]

I

Me too!

:)

[Closed Womb]

And several of the pictures after that are from the "baby brown eyes" article (I know many of you have read it before, but, just in case . . . ), Doug praising Beall's biological mother for not aborting the pregnancy that became Beall:

operationsaveamerica.org/164.htm.html

:roll:

Makes me wonder if he uses her origin story against her, sins of the father and all. I've little sympathy for Beall, but people that are beat down sometimes make themselves feel powerful by putting others in their "place." Okay, I'm off the idle speculation bus now.

[thoughtful]

Makes me wonder if he uses her origin story against her, sins of the father and all. I've little sympathy for Beall, but people that are beat down sometimes make themselves feel powerful by putting others in their "place." Okay, I'm off the idle speculation bus now.

I thought about that, too. Seems in character for a controlling narcissistic type that she'd be the treasured proof that abortion is wrong when he wants, and the bastard child of a sinful union when it suits his purpose.

[nokidsmom]

On page 14 and 15 of the document, it says that Doug and his wife came to Hero's family home. Doug tried to talk to her alone but was prevented by her father. When he said that he would always be Hero's friend, his wife broke down in tears.

I know that Doug is a narcissist but the entire scenario sounds crazy. He took his wife to visit the woman that he wanted to replace her with when she died. This is just too crazy for fiction.

It is crazy. In what world would someone bring his wife to the home of woman he's been involved with and wants to replace her with? Oh wait, it's Dougie's world.

That's really f**ked up.

[mausi]

I'll go one step further and opine that Doug will use our little forum as an example of why it's impossible for him to get a fair break in an anti-Christian, anti- Doug world.

Jingerites: Prepare to be quoted!

I still need to read a few more pages before I am all the way caught up, so sorry if this joke has already been played, but:

Twin2, I hope DPIAT uses some of your most brilliant LOLDougs as examples of him being persecuted on the internet.

[debrand]

I still need to read a few more pages before I am all the way caught up, so sorry if this joke has already been played, but:

Twin2, I hope DPIAT uses some of your most brilliant LOLDougs as examples of him being persecuted on the internet.

Can you imagine the LOL Doug's being shown in a court of law?

[hoipolloi]

Can you imagine the LOL Doug's being shown in a court of law?

Yes - I can imagine Doug's attorney(s) showing the court a bunch of LOL Dougs & then the defendant's attorney(s) showing them Doug's actual videos, like the "Moar cellos!" one. Then the court will shake its collective head and ask which one is satire.

[cindyluvs24]

LOL I'm thinking of Christopher Walken on Saturday Night Live:

" More Cowbell!!!"

[RachelB]

I keep imagining Doug photos in the style of doge:

Wow~ So cello. Many sparkle. Amaze. Very wonder. So tool. Such Titanic. !!!

[Artemis]

Have we lost dear Westchamps?

[JellyHope]

Whew! That took me dayyyysss to finally get to the end of this thread. As an 8th grade US history teacher, I just HAVE to address WC's use of Abraham Lincoln's quote.

Westchamps said

.

But since you seem eager to take literature from authors (a British one at that) 150+ years removed from the present context of race relations in America in order to try and denigrate Doug Phillips and Vision Forum, how about we look at an actual quote from an American politician a few people have heard of and many people in America admire to this day (including black people): "....If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it...." - Abraham Lincoln, 1862

The Lincoln quote in full:

If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

Lincoln didn't feel he, as president, had the authority or powers to just abolish slavery. It was something only congress could do. Lincoln's only job/goal/desire was to preserve the Union. Later, in the middle of the Civil War, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves in ONLY Confederate states. Slavery was still legal in the 5 slave holding "border states" that had chosen not to secede. Lincoln's loophole to free slaves with the EP, was that it was an act of war, which presidents DO have the power to do in war time. The (mostly symbolic) freeing of slaves in Confederate states was to try to weaken the Southern army, since slaves were being used as free labor to aid in their war effort.

After the CW was over, slaves were officially freed by congress when they passed the 13th amendment.

Teacher tangent/rant over.

[Maxwell]

Thought this was timely...

[link=http://www.businessinsider.com/signs-youre-a-narcissist-2014-4]15 Signs You're a Narcissist[/link]

[DuggarTime]

http://www.vice.com/read/a-masturbation ... e=vicefbus

The nanny of "Biblical Patriarchy" leader Doug Phillips claims she was kept as his "personal sex slave." ~ and more

[CloakNDagger]

Whew! That took me dayyyysss to finally get to the end of this thread. As an 8th grade US history teacher, I just HAVE to address WC's use of Abraham Lincoln's quote.

Westchamps said

The Lincoln quote in full:

Lincoln didn't feel he, as president, had the authority or powers to just abolish slavery. It was something only congress could do. Lincoln's only job/goal/desire was to preserve the Union. Later, in the middle of the Civil War, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves in ONLY Confederate states. Slavery was still legal in the 5 slave holding "border states" that had chosen not to secede. Lincoln's loophole to free slaves with the EP, was that it was an act of war, which presidents DO have the power to do in war time. The (mostly symbolic) freeing of slaves in Confederate states was to try to weaken the Southern army, since slaves were being used as free labor to aid in their war effort.

After the CW was over, slaves were officially freed by congress when they passed the 13th amendment.

Teacher tangent/rant over.

Ooooh. Careful where you let that quote out. You might confuse some of those guys who are so into the whole context of Scripture (except where it is convenient for them) with a bit of context!

[uber frau]

Have we lost dear Westchamps?

Ssshh. Don't jinx it.

[Coconut Flan]

I take a weekend off to visit relatives and come back to blessed peace. :o

[Curious]

Whew! That took me dayyyysss to finally get to the end of this thread. As an 8th grade US history teacher, I just HAVE to address WC's use of Abraham Lincoln's quote.

Westchamps said

The Lincoln quote in full:

Lincoln didn't feel he, as president, had the authority or powers to just abolish slavery. It was something only congress could do. Lincoln's only job/goal/desire was to preserve the Union. Later, in the middle of the Civil War, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves in ONLY Confederate states. Slavery was still legal in the 5 slave holding "border states" that had chosen not to secede. Lincoln's loophole to free slaves with the EP, was that it was an act of war, which presidents DO have the power to do in war time. The (mostly symbolic) freeing of slaves in Confederate states was to try to weaken the Southern army, since slaves were being used as free labor to aid in their war effort.

After the CW was over, slaves were officially freed by congress when they passed the 13th amendment.

Teacher tangent/rant over.

I don't even know what to say here. These fundies come in here blustering about us mischaracterizing them and taking them out of context and then have the nerve to not only take something out of context, but not even provide the FULL SENTENCE? The mind boggles.

It's bad enough to take one sentence and divorce it from it's context, but to chop off half of a sentence to try and prove your point...I just can't. If that is the best you can do, it's better to just remain silent, because you obviously don't actually have a counter argument.

Unbelievable!

[formergothardite]

You know, for years I have heard people use that partial quote by Abraham Lincoln to prove how horrible he was and I never knew the whole sentence or the context. Changes it, doesn't it?

Didn't Westchamps claim he taught his kids the unvarnished truth? I'm thinking his "truth" is a little more varnished then he would like to think.

[Curious]

You know, for years I have heard people use that partial quote by Abraham Lincoln to prove how horrible he was and I never knew the whole sentence or the context. Changes it, doesn't it?

Didn't Westchamps claim he taught his kids the unvarnished truth? I'm thinking his "truth" is a little more varnished then he would like to think.

The varnish on his "truth" is so damn thick you can't even see the actual wood.

[debrand]

Extremists do NOT want to hear the truth. They have an emotional reason for supporting their views and are often will not even consider alternate ideas. Because they care less about the truth then winning the argument they don't mind using simplified one liners, quotes taken out of context or faulty information. Even when it is pointed out that their facts are wrong, they continue to ignore to cling to those facts.

In Westchamps case, he obviously wants to believe the Confederates weren't the bad guys. I've seen this among some southerners who, for whatever reason, feel that their ancestors actions are somehow a reflection on who they are now. So they deny that the south was in the wrong or that slavery was bad.

Other people(and I suspect Westchamp is among this group) have an ideological need to defend the south. Perhaps they dislike a strong federal government because of 'state's rights' Most of the people, I know, who are for stronger state's rights would also like the right to discriminate against other people without any repercussions.

When it came to religion, the Confederacy talked a good talk. Westchamp might feel threatened that the same people who seem to agree in certain key points with his theology were also guilty of crimes against humanity. Maybe he thinks that someone who is really saved won't commit horrible crimes so slavery couldn't have been that bad.

[debrand]

I am glad to see not only the quote in context but to learn the historical context behind the quote.

What I usually tell Confederate sympathizers is that it doesn't matter why Lincoln fought, it is the south who started the war. Lincoln could have fought a war to force all southerners to wear pink shirts emblazoned with his face and the words, "Suck my dick, you rebel mother fuckers." and it wouldn't change the fact that the south fought to preserve slavery. Not only did the south start the war but they were belligerent jerks up to the start of the war. If southerners hadn't been concerned with race and slavery then the same southerners who fought the Civil War wouldn't have enacted Jim Crow laws after the war.

[RachelB]

Extremists do NOT want to hear the truth. They have an emotional reason for supporting their views and are often will not even consider alternate ideas. Because they care less about the truth then winning the argument they don't mind using simplified one liners, quotes taken out of context or faulty information. Even when it is pointed out that their facts are wrong, they continue to ignore to cling to those facts.

In Westchamps case, he obviously wants to believe the Confederates weren't the bad guys. I've seen this among some southerners who, for whatever reason, feel that their ancestors actions are somehow a reflection on who they are now. So they deny that the south was in the wrong or that slavery was bad.

Other people(and I suspect Westchamp is among this group) have an ideological need to defend the south. Perhaps they dislike a strong federal government because of 'state's rights' Most of the people, I know, who are for stronger state's rights would also like the right to discriminate against other people without any repercussions.

When it came to religion, the Confederacy talked a good talk. Westchamp might feel threatened that the same people who seem to agree in certain key points with his theology were also guilty of crimes against humanity. Maybe he thinks that someone who is really saved won't commit horrible crimes so slavery couldn't have been that bad.

I noticed that WC stopped talking to me at the moment when I said, "If you're an apologist for slavery, then we have nothing useful to say to each other," which I think was before he ever misquoted Lincoln. I may have drawn some conclusions from that. None of them were favorable to him. /massive understatement

[Coconut Flan]

Snide one liners and deliberately misquoting people to pretend to score over someone are not signs of maturity or intelligence or any of the higher qualities WC wanted to claim. I still don't know why he was really here unless it was simply to try to pull off snappy rejoinders.