Carlson: 'Republican elites have contempt for evangelicals'


#1

I’ve been saying this for ages, as anyone who’s argued with me on this website can attest. But when it comes out of the mouth of conservative media personality Tucker Carlson it means a little more:

[quote]Here’s what Tucker Carlson had to say on this weekend’s Chris Matthews Show:

CARLSON: …It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power. Everybody in…

MATTHEWS: How do you know that? How do you know that?

CARLSON: Because I know them. Because I grew up with them. Because I live with them. They live on my street. Because I live in Washington, and I know that everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals. And the evangelicals know that, and they’re beginning to learn that their own leaders sort of look askance at them and don’t share their values.

MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?

CARLSON: That’s exactly right. It’s pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out[/quote]


#2

This is the same hypocrisy that I was speaking of in my post in the “Fox-Clinton Smack down” thread. A number of GOP leaders don’t give a fig about same-sex marriage, but they are happy to use it to mobilise their Evangelical constituency to vote to keep them in office. It’s despicable.

Bodo


#3

Is that why the GOP sends homosexual emails to their pages on the hill?
As a sick and twisted joke to their evangelical base when they are caught.

“Ah ha suckers, I do little boys like a Catholic Priest. Thanks for the votes.”


#4

[quote=“Bodo”]This is the same hypocrisy that I was speaking of in my post in the “Fox-Clinton Smack down” thread. A number of GOP leaders don’t give a fig about same-sex marriage, but they are happy to use it to mobilise their Evangelical constituency to vote to keep them in office. It’s despicable.

Bodo[/quote]

Sort of the same as Democrats pandering to blacks and women and the poor and then bending them over a table.


#5

That would be a good comeback if there were any truth to it. Blacks, women and the poor generally DO do fairly well by the Democrats.


#6

I wonder if Monica Lewinski had been black Bill would have let her on top?


#7

That would be a good comeback if there were any truth to it. Blacks, women and the poor generally DO do fairly well by the Democrats.[/quote]

This is a little dated, but I dont think much has changed:

[quote]
Democrats have tried to pin this rap on Republicans since the 1960s, portraying Republicans as selfish and unfeeling and themselves as saviors of the poor. In fact, many of the Democrats favorite anti-poverty programs have done more to perpetuate poverty than alleviate it. Traditional welfare programs encouraged dependency and turned what should have been a temporary helping hand into a permanent crutch. Yet for decades, Democrats opposed even modest attempts to reform welfare programs. Even Bill Clinton, who promised to “end welfare as we know it,” did nothing to reform welfare until Republicans took control of Congress and forced his hand. Then, President Clinton twice vetoed welfare reform legislation before signing it just in time to campaign on the issue during his 1996 re-election bid.[/quote]

townhall.com/columnists/Lind … _democrats


#8

[quote=“Dr. Evil”]I wonder if Monica Lewinski had been black Bill would have let her on top?
[/quote]

In real life you may be a nice person, but on this forum your remarks seem intended only to annoy and provoke, rather than to promote serious discussion. You are discredit to the fictional character whose name you bear. I am hereby giving you the official IGNORE. How I long for the days of Cold Front!

[Aside to jdsmith]:

That topic is a huge can of worms and there’s a huge volly of evidence to be fired on both sides. However, as a simple response, I will say that with the exclusion of the Carter presidency (the only one the Republicans ever mention), the economy has done fabulously well under ever Democratic president since WWII, and in and of itself that should be evidence of how the Democratic party helps the poor. Also, I see no mention of women or blacks in your response. Are you intending to tell me how we have given both groups ‘victim complexes’ by encouraging them in their respective battles for equality?


#9

Who do you think the poor are?

And I find your comment to Dr Evil to be ironic beyond description. What you normally post would be much better received on the Daily Kos I imagine.

[quote]
the economy has done fabulously well under every Democratic president since WWII, and in and of itself that should be evidence of how the Democratic party helps the poor[/quote]

Isn’t this the same economy that makes the rich richer and poor poorer? :laughing:


#10

This remark demonstrates your bias. Every single comment out of that guy’s mouth is obnoxious. I don’t care what particular view someone represents, but they can do it with being base. Please find a single example where I have been rude or obnoxious in this forum, and then you will have the right to criticize my posts.

PS - if you desire to use the post I made about Muslims hijacking a plane to protest the Pope’s criticism as evidence, please note that I fully admitted my error later in that thread.

Like most of your kind, you conveniently confuse New Deal Democrats with Communists. Despite everything you’ve been taught, we like capitalism and WANT the economy to be better – that’s why we make it so whenever the American people wake up and allow us to do so!


#11

[quote=“Vay”]
In real life you may be a nice person, but on this forum your remarks seem intended only to annoy and provoke,[/quote]

Boo-fucking-hoo. You get what you deserve.

Coming from you that’s rich. On the first page of the IP Forum how many threads have you started? Simply looks like trolling to me.


#12

I completely agree with you.

[quote]
Like most of your kind,[/quote]

My kind? I’m talking about YOU. Spook and Jaboney among others can discuss topics that put them on opposite sides of the fence as me. I don’t classify people into groups.

I think you troll IP like no other save toe tag. But please… It’s a free country, however, don’t be suprised when you have absolutely no credibility (the liberal silence in your threads isn’t support)…but since when is credibility important in an online discussion? :raspberry:


#13

It obviously [b]is[/b] that which is commonly known as “trolling” on chat forums.

Heck, even a cursory glance the number and title of the threads shows which side the bread is buttered on.


#14

I’m not sure what your guys’ beef is. I think you are missing the distinction between partisan, which I clearly am, and obnoxious, which I am not.The only rude remark I can ever recall making was saying I had ‘spanked’ someone. It was obviously totally figurative, and in my defense I had just been quite rankled by Fred Smith’s one line, glib response to a fairly involved post I had written (I’m sure Fred wouldn’t mind at all hearing he had managed to rankle me!)

As far as “trolling”, well, I post more than I argue these days if that’s what you mean. I don’t do it to offend or annoy anyone. If you don’t like the articles I post, don’t read them. I make no bones about the fact that I’m hostile to the current manifestation of the Republican party - wasn’t always the case - regardless, my intension in posting the stories I do is certainly not to annoy anyone. I post to get the word out about all the crap that’s going on. Undeniably, my posts raise a lot of discussion; sometimes I get involved in it, but sometimes I don’t have time to. The point is I don’t just make inane and tasteless remarks.

If you look back at my record, you’ll see I’ve done plenty of heavy-duty arguing in my time – just haven’t got the time these days. And yes, jdsmith, I said ‘your kind’ because your response to my taking umbrage at Doctor Evil’s comments was entirely partisan, showing you to be more interested in my particular political bent than in my actual complaint.

And by the way, I have absolutely no idea what that the Daily Kos is.

Doctor Evil, as for your boo-f’ing-hoo, right back to ya baby. In I can’t remember how many years, I’ve never ignored anyone on this forum. To me, you sound like the rhetorical equivalent of a schoolyard bully. No offense to you personally. You just rub me the wrong way.


#15

So, its OK, fine and dandy for you to be “clearly” partisan, but when jdsmith is “entirely” partisan, its a foul?

Do I have that correct?

Perhaps you can explain the distinction between “clearly” partisan and “entirely” partisan… I’m a bit fuzzy on that… :s

Would it be OK had jdsmith been “clearly”, but, not “entirely”, partisan? If yes, where does one draw the line between “clearly” and not “clearly”?


#16

That would be a good comeback if there were any truth to it.[/quote]

Its an excellent comeback, as there certainly is some truth to it. It is every bit as valid a statement as is a statement claiming that some Republicans oppose homosexual rights while engaging in homosexual sex.


#17

[quote=“Dr. Evil”]I wonder if Monica Lewinski had been black Bill would have let her on top?
[/quote]

Why does Dr. E’s comment annoy or provoke? Are you annoyed or provoked by any of the crap posted by Toe Tag or mofangongren… or does their clear partisanship earn them a free pass in your opinion?


#18

But the fact that you are posting from such a well defined position on this board, and THEN wanting to have any sort of discussion seems silly to me.

I mentioned the Daily Kos not in jest. It is a liberal/bush hating website where your posts would be met with much less bile.

I suggest that if you truly want discussion, and not ranting and flaming, tone it down a bit.


#19

[quote=“ac_dropout”]Is that why the GOP sends homosexual emails to their pages on the hill?
As a sick and twisted joke to their evangelical base when they are caught.

“Ah ha suckers, I do little boys like a Catholic Priest. Thanks for the votes.”[/quote]

No. I didn’t say that. You did.

What I said was that many in the GOP do not have a problem one way or another about homosexuals, their lives, or their civil rights. They simply don’t care. But, they are not above fucking around with the civil rights of gays in order to score political points with their Evangelical base. Except that the Evangelicals are getting wise to the GOP tactics, and this may be a factor in any change of power in favor of the Dems.

BTW, I didn’t know that the GOP sent homosexual emails to their pages on the Hill. :unamused: Did anyone else? I just thought it was a few sick people like Rep. Foley who is accused of sending pedophilic messages to his pages on the Hill, and the GOP leadership covering it up so they can avoid a scandal - and retain power.

JD - as Vay said, blacks, women and the poor have done pretty well with the Dems. So, I disagree with your assertion to the contrary.

To TC, JD, and TM - I think Vay has a point. He is attacking Bush and the GOP policies as he disagrees with them. However, Dr. Evil is attacking Vay and anyone who shares his/her point of view. I have Dr. E on IGNORE also, because I too, believe that his posts are not attempts to argue for any particular point of view (partisan), but rather to inflame, provoke and troll. That’s my observations, and opinion - so I don’t think that Vay is imagining things or making things up.

Bodo


#20

Here is the exchange:

I don’t see any attack on Vay. I see an attack by Vay on Dr. Evil.