Well, gee, who should I answer first. If I get a name wrong, beg pardon. I don’t feel like going back and forth between the original post and my response.
There was no conflict between my posts being partisan and criticizing jdsmith’s remark as partisan. My posts are expressions of my political standpoint, which quite obviously is partisan – LIKE JUST ABOUT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU BY WHOM I AM CURRENTLY BEING GANG-BANGED.
However, the criticism in question was a personal complaint regarding Doctor Evil’s posting style. He uses base and often insulting one-liners with very little if any actual content. If he wants to do so, that’s fine. I just find I get annoyed every time I read them, and so exercised my right to ignore him – just as you can do to my posts if you feel the same about them. By jumping on me for making such an “ironic” criticism, jdsmith was showing that he could not be impartial even in a personal dispute such as posting style on this forum. I think there’s a rather clear distinction…sorry if y’al don’t see it.
Tigerman, my comment about hypocrisy with regards to Foley which apparently riled you was a generalization based on an individual example, I’ll admit. (That’s what you were talking about, right?) However, when you’ve got a Party always complaining about how liberal persmissiveness has led to the downfall of our society’s values and such, and then you have SO MANY instances of, well, immoral acts by rather prominent members of that party, it seems to undermine that party’s stance in claiming to stand for family values and the like. However, I don’t see what that has to do with Democrats and their policies vis-a-vis the poor – and quite frankly I still don’t hear anyone responding to the original topic, which was Republicans and their manipulation of evangelicals.
If you want to hear what I really think about the Democrats and the poor, well yes, I think it is arguable that some policies favored by the Democratic party may ultimately be harmful to the poor. I do not, however, believe that Democrats actually desire to keep the “victims” of these policies dependent by maintaining the policies. They simply don’t buy into the argument that those policies are harmful. That’s rather distinct from intentionally pretending you support the issues of religious groups so you can get their votes (since your actual base – rich people – constitutes too small a percentage of the population to supply enough votes to keep you in power).
Also to Tigerman, I honestly don’t remember having read whatever MFGR said that you consider so offensive. I don’t follow all of the threads and have missed plenty of stuff. Also, keep in mind that whatever he said was said in response to you, whereas what DE said was in response to me. I have not attempted to bring any sort of group action or recrimination against DE; I’m just sick of his tone and content, and have personally chosen to ignore him. If MFGR had ever replied to me in similar manner, of course I’d have done the same – it’s just that he won’t, because he’s “on my side” and so would have no reason to. However, my motive in switching DE off rather than MFGR is style, not politics.
If you still don’t get it, keep in mind that in spite of numerous flat-out insults from Cold Front, Fred Smith and that guy who lived in Bali (can’t remember his handle), I’ve never chosen to ignore anyone before. I really think you guys should examine your motives for jumping on me like this; I honestly believe that with the exception of that “spank” comment (and that Factchecker article really WAS a decisive piece of evidence – sorry I got over-excited about it, TCB) I have always been polite and reasonably intelligent in my posting. If you wish to argue that Doctor Evil has done the same, be my guest.