Carlson: 'Republican elites have contempt for evangelicals'


#21

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.

:loco:


#22

Define “pretty well”.


#23

PS: Tigerman, although Bodo said DE attacked me, I never said or thought that myself. It was also not that individual post that riled me, but the cumulative effect of just about every response he’s ever written upon me. That post was just the last straw.

And yes, I’ve already discussed the whole Clinton-Lewinsky issue at some length, as I recall. None of you responded to my arguments therein, so I’m certainly not going to get drawn into that whole argument again by DE’s crude comment.


#24

Why should I be impartial? You’re not. Why are you holding me to higher standard? I am biased but I also am fairly open minded.

OK, but you asked for discussion by starting this and numerous other threads, right? Or, have you started threads that several here, myself included, believe to be trolling. If it’s inadvertant trolling, fine. If not, well…

I wrote that it was ironic that you accused Dr Evil of not discussing anything, yet due to your habit of posting virilent anti-Bush rhetoric you preemptively end discussion before you begin.

If you really want to discuss something, go ahead, but when you post “BUSH IS BAD!! GOP IS BAD!!!” you get what you deserve.

Case in point, your thread about news programs that say they have the right to lie to the public. That is a good thread and will lead I believe to a good discussion.


#25

No problem.

You’re not being “gang-banged”. You’re being called on your contradictions.

There is definitely a contradiction between what you complain of in others and in what you admit to in yourself.

Sorry, but, its quite obvious.

Well, his language can be “colorful” at times. However, his one-liners are usually packed with powerful enough explosive that the need for quantity is negated.

I do not have anyone on my ignore list.

Look, perhaps you get annoyed because his statements run contrary to your own partisan politics? After all, you indicate that you do not even notice the very base and insult-filled posts of mfgr… but, mfgr is on the same side of the political fence as you. Hmmmm…

Oh, no. I think we all see the difference in posting style. But, you seem to be annoyed by the substance rather than by the style.

Well, if the acts of some Republicans undermine that party’s stance in connection with societal values, then it isn’t difficult to understand that the acts of some Democrats undermine that party’s stance in connection with their policies vis-a-vis the poor… its really quite simple. Moreover, it is a relevant criticism/observation, because it is a counter-claim against your assertion that Republicans manipulate evangelicals. I suppose that assertion is partly true. I also suppose that it is also partly true that some Democrats manipulate black voters. The issue is manipulation by a political party. If you want to throw rocks at one party, you need to be prepared when that party throws rocks back. Glass houses and all that. Sure y’all understand.

Its difficult to believe that there are no Democrats who are aware of and who understand that 60 years of liberal policies have seen the American black community suffer. Its difficult to believe that some, even many Democrats are not manipulating black voters when they tell and maintain falsehoods in connection to accusations of Republican attempts to deny blacks the vote. You don’t see any manipulation there. Sorry, y’all. But, I see it plain as day.

I’m willing to bet that your clear partisanship blinds you in this regard. That’s OK.

No. I am not offended only by what is said directly to me.

Well, I have no problem with you ignoring anyone. However, your statement above is an admission of your double standard.

That guy who lived in Bali… :laughing:

I know what my motive is. I like open political speech, as free as possible.

I’ve no doubt you believe that.

I believe that Dr. Evil has been very intelligent, if not always polite, in his arguments.


#26

I know. That’s why I replied to Bodo and not to you.


#27

Oh man, you had me Tman. I mean you HAD me…and then…you lost me. :laughing:


#28

Um, have I done that? However, thank you for acknowledging the Fox news thread was a good source of discussion. As I said before, discussion is not my only motive for posting; quite often I post articles I think are worth reading. I think generally they are interesting articles, although those that I put in this forum are generally partisan in nature.

In many cases, I don’t offer any commentary on them. Is that trolling? If it is, I apologize. I can tell you on my honor that I’ve never posted simply to rile someone.

[quote]There is definitely a contradiction between what you complain of in others and in what you admit to in yourself.

Sorry, but, its quite obvious.[/quote]

Tigerman, I am polite, and don’t drag the topic into the gutter every chance I get. He does. Please show me how there’s an “obvious” double standard here.

I hadn’t read the ones you’re referring to. Sorry, it’s as simple as that.

That wasn’t my point. My point was that obviously you would have seen what someone wrote to you, whereas you might not have seen what they’d written to me.

You missed the difference I was talking about. It was in reference to the critique I received that I would apparently allow myself to be partisan while not accepting jdsmith’s having done so in his remark. The “difference” I was referring to was that my partisanship is when discussing politics. Jdsmith’s partisanship was in discussing posting styles.

And again, it is NOT DE’s substance that annoys me. It most definitely IS his posting style. Otherwise, Cold Front or ‘that guy from Bali’ would’ve certainly annoyed me far worse. Dang, what was his name again?!?

[quote]Well, if the acts of some Republicans undermine that party’s stance in connection with societal values, then it isn’t difficult to understand that the acts of some Democrats undermine that party’s stance in connection with their policies vis-a-vis the poor… its really quite simple. Moreover, it is a relevant criticism/observation, because it is a counter-claim against your assertion that Republicans manipulate evangelicals. I suppose that assertion is partly true. I also suppose that it is also partly true that some Democrats manipulate black voters. The issue is manipulation by a political party. If you want to throw rocks at one party, you need to be prepared when that party throws rocks back. Glass houses and all that. Sure y’all understand.
[/quote]

Point taken. And I am a singular entity, thank you.

Um, and how have things been different under Republican administrations? Things really looking up for the black community under 6 years of Bush and God knows how many years of Republican congress, are they? I said it was ‘arguable’; I didn’t say it was necessarily true!

And incidentally, the veracity of that “cage list” article I posted has never been called into question, to my knowledge. That most certainly is an example of “Republican attempts to deny blacks the vote”, in my book at least.

No, it wasn’t. It was just a reflection of the very simple fact that I wouldn’t choose to ignore someone if I hadn’t noticed them being repeatedly crass and vapid. I hadn’t noticed MFGR being so because I honestly hadn’t seen the posts you were referring to. I did see some flash between you and him at the end of the Foley thread, but I didn’t see what had led up to it because I hadn’t read the preceding bits.

Quite honestly, I think the whole Foley topic is a gossip-rag issue, which is why I didn’t post it myself to begin with.

Well, I didn’t hear you protesting when whoever it was shut down the Foley thread. And Lord knows y’al would like to say that baby drop down in the listings AFAP. Regardless, I’m pretty sure that’s not the only reason for most of those who spoke up.

I used “y’al” to underscore the point that I was using ‘you plural’, as so many of you guys chose to chime in. There’s no other equivalent in English.

Your snideness seems to imply I haven’t been. Examples, please?


#29

Here is the exchange:

I don’t see any attack on Vay. I see an attack by Vay on Dr. Evil.[/quote]

TM -
First of all, what does Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky have to do with the policies of the Democrat Party toward blacks, the poor or women? NOTHING. This IS a trollish post. I do not see anything of merit in it other than to provoke.

Vay does NOT attack, Dr. E, but rather gives him the benefit of the doubt - “IRL you may be a nice person” and then goes on to point out his observations regarding Dr. E’s posting content - no personal attack going on there. Come on TM, surely you can see this? Why are you defending a defenselss position?

Bodo


#30

Define “pretty well”.[/quote]

Start another thread, and ask the question TM. I’m not interested in the argument, but maybe someone else is. This thread is about the GOP and their use of the evangelicals. and wedge issues to get votes. That’s why I got involved in this thread.

Edit: and see Vay’s answer to your question re: the Dems and the poor, women and blacks. That is pretty much how I see it too.

Bodo


#31

I was referring to your admission of clear partisanship while faulting jdsmith for his entirely partisan stance.


#32

That thread was probably locked due to the bickering that ensued after mofangongren started to deliberately misrepresent the facts and worse, other posters’ statements. I believe in allowing as much freedom in political speech as possible. However, that freedom does not include the right to deliberately misrepresent other people’s remarks. Surely you can understand why this restriction is reasonable?

First off, its “y’all”. Second, there are at least three other equivalents: You (plural), Yous (You plural in NYC speech), and Yinz or Yunz (You plural in Pittsburghese).

You misread my tone. My statement above is a statement of fact regarding my opinion. I do believe that you believe what you expressed. I am simply commenting that I believe that you are sincere in your belief, even though I disagree with your belief.


#33

It was locked because it was a blatant troll.


#34

[quote=“Vay”]
Tigerman, I am polite, and don’t drag the topic into the gutter every chance I get. [/quote]

A polite troll.

How droll.


#35

[quote=“Bodo”]
First of all, what does Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky have to do with the policies of the Democrat Party toward blacks, the poor or women?[/quote]

:roflmao:

OK! Time for me to drag out my box of [color=green]Doctor[/color] [color=orange]Evil[/color] [color=cyan]Crayolas![/color]

Bill Clinton was the [color=red]Pre[/color][color=white]sid[/color][color=blue]ent[/color] of the [color=red]U[/color][color=white]S[/color][color=blue]A[/color].

Bill Clinton was a [color=indigo]Democrat[/color].

Monica Lewinsky is a [color=violet]woman.
[/color]
Bill Clinton fucked her and both he and the Democrats smeared her…just like they do all minorities, blacks and women.

Comprende?

salon.com/books/int/1999/12/ … index.html


#36

I wonder if Bush, since it appears that he is using his evangelical base to get elected while not pushing their agenda very hard is LESS of a Christian freak than people suspect.

If so, isn’t that good news for his detractors?

BTW The Economist had a story about Bush NOT pushing the far right religious agenda years ago.


#37

JD is right with this one. Bush isn’t nearly as conservative on domestic issues as many republicans would have liked. Sure he gives the right lip service to them when he needs to, but on the whole you don’t see him really pushing the stuff that hardcore conservatives would really like to see.


#38

Yeah, like fiscal restraints for starters! :laughing:

Bodo


#39

I think that this argues well against the notion that a monolithic Republican hierarchy sits around scheming to exploit evangelical conservatives. Again, the picture is more nuanced than that… though no doubt, there’s a number of unprincipled politicos wrapping themselves in flag and standing beneath the cross.

I have no problem with religious principles informing political positions; I have several problems with either one dictating to the other.

[quote=“Gene C. Gerard”] Since taking office, the Bush administration has successfully lobbied Congress to budget $500 million for marriage education programs. Much of this money is slated to go to religious organizations, despite the fact that the First Amendment mandates separation of church and state. A recent lawsuit filed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) against the Department of Health and Human Services aims to force the Bush administration to cease violating the Constitution by funding marriage programs with an overtly religious slant. If successful, this lawsuit would have a profound impact on the ability of the Bush administration to continue funding religious organizations with taxpayer dollars.

The target of the AU lawsuit is the Northwest Marriage Institute, a Washington State organization that provides "Bible-based" marriage education and counseling services. In 2005 the Department of Health and Human Services distributed almost $100,000 to the institute. The organization describes itself as providing "faith-based education in marriage" as well as "faith-based premarital and marriage counseling." And the organization's goal is to "promote successful biblical principles for everyday life." Obviously, this is a Christian organization that espouses a very specific religious viewpoint. All of which begs the question, why does it receive taxpayer dollars?

[b]Only a month after taking office in 2001, President Bush promoted the idea of channeling taxpayer funds to faith-based organizations (FBOs). He even created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to oversee the process. [/b]In theory, FBOs provide welfare and community services without proselytizing. Under the rules of how they are required to operate, FBOs must hold religious activities at separate times or in separate locations from the community services they provide, and they must be voluntary.

But a report released this summer by the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan investigative office of Congress, found that many FBOs are failing to operate according to the requirements. [b]The report noted that FBOs don't always explain to participants that they have a right not to participate in religious activities. And FBOs "did not separate some religious activities from federally funded program services."[/b] While the White House is supposedly monitoring FBOs for compliance, the report complained that the Bush administration wasn't obtaining enough information from FBOs to know whether or not they were complying with the requirements.

[…]
Conservative groups will no doubt accuse Americans United of attacking Christianity by filing this lawsuit. But the lawsuit was actually filed on behalf of 13 residents of Washington. A number of these individuals have identified themselves as Presbyterian, Protestant, Unitarian, and Baptist. These residents obviously aren’t anti-Christian, or even anti-religion. They’re simply pro-Constitution.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution stipulates, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." By funding the Northwest Marriage Institute, and other faith-based organizations, the Bush administration is violating the law. But this should come as no surprise, given the willingness of the administration in the last five years to skirt and ignore the Constitution. If successful, this lawsuit will force the Bush administration to uphold one of our core values, something it's clearly unwilling to do on its own.[/quote]

#40

So it’s damned if they do damned if they don’t, is that it?