Totally speechless

---

Originally Posted By: ThoughtfulI would just add something: the more significant point is the way in which republicans invariably pander to the evangelicals, because they do contribute huge amounts of money and are a big block of votes.I think pander is a strong word. It's true that evangelicals are a significant voting block for Republicans, but if you think it's as gargantuan as you and Thor are claiming, you need to look at the statistics again. Sure, most evangelicals support Republicans. Why do you have a problem with that? The truth of that matter is that there are a lot of you out there who don't want Evangelicals, or most Christians for that matter, to have any say in politics. You want us all to stay home and read our Bibles and watch James Dobson and leave politics to you more "enlightened" liberals. Sorry ain't gonna happen.Let's look at Democrats and their voting blocs. The majority of American atheists vote Democratic. So I guess I can complain now about how the Democrats pander to atheists. Or how about environmentalists...almost 100% Democrat. Or any number of groups who I can complain about trying to stuff their agenda down my through, and about how the Democratic party is pandering to them. You and Rad just aren't willing to be honest about this. You see a group of people you don't like, and who's views you don't want to be heard, and you want to shut them up. You are certainly going to like this next administration, my friend. They are right up your alley. Quote:A lot of republicans like Reagan and Bush sr., in my opinion, didn't really buy into the evangelical ideologies. Note for example that both had supported abortion rights before running for president. But they invariably pretended to support that group and took on their agendas for financial and political reasons, which just shows what sleazy, hypocrits they really were.Which just shows that you think so one-sided that you lack the ability to see the grays in the middle of the black and white. You lack the capacity to see the nuances of politics. You yourself are so sleazily hypocritical that you point fingers at Republicans for doing something that Democrats have developed into an art form. You think Democrats don't change their views or agendas for the sake of politics? How about being for a war before they're against it? Or shouting 'they have WMD's' before they shout 'Bush lied about them having WMD's'. How about you take off your blinders and check your honesty before you continue this conversation. Quote:There seems to be a sense among most republicans that they need to pander to these people to have any chance at all of winning elections. And frankly, they are probably right.And, frankly, Democrats will continue pandering to non-Christians, environmentalists, abortion rights activists, feminists, and so on and so on. So what's your point? It's called politics. Get used to it.  Quote:I'll believe it when a republican stands up and vehemently refutes the evangelicals.And why the hell should they? Just because you don't agree with them. You are having this discussion as if evangelicals are these horrible monsters who are out to eat your children an rape your grannies. Please. In your mind, that's the litmus test for rationality and sensibility, isn't it. Any president who accepts support from these guys is obviously some sort of extremist theocrat who is going to force you by gunpoint to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. Once again, your inability to think in terms more complicated than the Brady Bunch is getting in the way of a rational discussion.Or...I could say "I'll believe it when I see a Democrat vehemently refute the atheists, or the environmentalists, or the feminists, or the abortion rights activists". And we all know that will never happen. Quote:Remember in 2000 he referred to these nutsAnd you just sacrificed any last vestige of credibility you had. Nuts? Really? You pretend to make educated, intelligent statements, but you lack the simple ability to check your own prejudices. They are obvious. You can't have a real discussion about all of this until you check those prejudices and admit that 3/4 of what you are saying is simply giving voice to those prejudices and the frustrations they have created for you. Quote:Falwell specifically, as "agents of intolerance."Ironic much?  Quote:What I'm saying to Damien is this: you can make the distinction between these (mythical?) moderate republicans and the religous nuts, but what you say doesn't matter. It is up to the republican candidate to publicly refute these people and set himself/herself apart from them.According to you. You have yet to show why they should do so, other then the fact that you don't like them.  Quote:And few will do it, because that group represents such a large republican constituency that most republicans consider it political suicide to go after them. And maybe you've just answered your own question. But, beware, it's an answer that might scare you. Apparently you are acknowledging that the U.S. population contains a much larger percentage of Christians then you would like to acknowledge. And in a government by the people, for the people, the input and influence from any group of people should be proportionate to the the percentage of the population that group represents, whether you like them or not.

I don't have the time to respond to everything in this rather offensive post, so I'll just make a few brief points.1. You entirely misunderstood my criticism in regard to pandering. When you give examples of democrats supporting things like environmentalism, for one, they generally are supporting things that they believe in. That is not "pandering." That is putting forth a position based on a belief. By "pandering" I was referring to being dishonest about one's beliefs or actually trying to implement a policy (or pretending to) in order to get money or support from a constituency regardless of what one believes or what its impact might be. I know you like to think that I am some sort of super "liberal" (I've never called myself that for a lot of reasons), but if you think about it, my view on this is actually very contrary to a lot of leftists.2. The only thing I object to in extreme evangelicals is that some of them, in my view, genuinely want to turn the U.S. into a religious theocracy, and I wonder if you understand at all how revolutionary that agenda is in terms of the basic principals of the U.S. I believe in a pluralistic and tolerant society; it's just that simple for me.3. My point about a republican refuting some of these people was made in reference to something you said in an earlier post. I've heard a lot of republicans say that the prominent republicans of the last 30 years don't represent their views, or are not "real republicans"- that there is this supposed more moderate republicanism out there that is not particularly visible. There is a problem in trying to have it both ways- in trying to play to the extreme while claiming to be a moderate at the same time. I simply meant that one should "refute them" if one generally does not share their agenda. That is what McCain did in 2000.

Offensive? Really? I don't get that at all, but then again I'm not you, right. At any rate, that was certainly not my intention. I apologize if I offended you. But I'm a bit confused because I don't believe I said anything that you didn't say first. I was pointing out that you seemed to be saying some things without stopping to think if you and the Democratic party (not equating the two ) are guilty of the same thing. I am, as anyone here knows, a Christian and a Republican. As such, you were saying some things that were pretty offensive to me. But I'm used to that. Instead of griping and crying, I prefer to address the arguments you make. And one thing I love about this board is that I can have these scraps with people and then go on with the next thing. I've learned that sdp and I, or Chance and I, and others and I can beat each other over the head with this stuff, but when it's over, let it go and interact with each other in friendly and respectful terms elsewhere. I can assure you that I will treat you with the same respect. In that spirit, I'll address your points.1. You're making a distinction that, while convenient for you, does not exist. You're saying that it's pandering when Republicans do it, but it's just "acting on belief" when Democrats do it. That's not true. Do you really think Democrats don't bow at the alter of special interest and money? Consider this...pick any prominent Democratic politician. They will tell you they are Christian or Jewish. But they continue to push forth policies and ideas that are neither. They will also tell you they are "personally against abortion", but have for decades been pawns of abortion rights groups, feminists groups and whatnot. But, here's the thing, I actually believe that atheists, abortion rights activists, radical feminists, whacko environmentalists, and any other group you wanna throw in there, have the same right to have their views heard in considered as I or anyone else does. Can you say that about Evangelicals and other people of faith? (I will also throw in my caveat that I, despite what some here might think, am not a fundamentalist or an extreme conservative a-la Rush.)2. You're right, there are people in the U.S. who would love to turn the U.S. into some sort of theocracy, even though they might not recognize that's what they're asking for. But they are an extreme minority. Most evangelical don't want that at all, and to say so would be an unfair characterization. If someone actively works for pro-life policies or against state recognition of gay marriage or whatever, that's a far FAR cry from theocracy. It's like saying Obama is Communist based on his tax policies. Most Evangelicals, like you, also believe in a pluralistic and tolerant society. But you can't have pluralism and tolerance if you don't tolerate our belief systems and if you deny us our place in the political process.3. You got this one all wrong. All the talk from Republicans who say that the party no longer represents their views has nothing to do with wanting them to be more moderate. Quite the opposite, actually. Bush ran as a conservative and governed as a moderate. In fact, his domestic policies are indistinguishable from those of Democrats. The problem that a huge percentage of Republicans have with Bush and Cheney and Rice and most of the Republican national leadership over the past 12 years, and a significant factor in McCain's defeat, is that they are not conservative enough. That was a huge part of Palin's appeal for so many people, that she is a traditionally conservative Republican. As such, I can assure you she will be a significant part of the future of the party.I will also point out those in your party that do this kind of flip-flopping you're talking about. For the past several years, Obama has been one of, if not the most, liberal member of the Senate. But after he clenched the Democratic nomination and was campaigning for the general election, he started portraying himself in more moderate terms. And I wouldn't be surprised if his presidency looked considerably more moderate than his campaign, and certainly his record in the Senate. That's what politicians do. They campaign in the extreme, and then govern more moderately.

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: IneligibleUnder Hitler, the National Socialist Party was socialist only in name. He had effectively taken the party and turned it into a vehicle for his own domination.Ultimately he did this, yes. That's my point. As I said, look at the methods...not the ideaology. Every time you start with socialism, that's what happens! Hitler...Stalin...who else would you like to add to the list of totalitarian regimes that started under the banner of socialism? I'm not sure whether that was because of Socialism itself or the desire to emulate Russia, which appeared to be very strong due to how it was governed.

Originally Posted By: RadThe main difference between my arguments and yours is: I argue "this is the way I see it" and you argue "this is the way it is".I think your memory is failing you Rad. Look back on your discussion with me, or the posts you made that I responded to. Nowhere do I see any qualification that would indicate that you were just stating opinion/perception and not fact. I, on the other hand, began my original response to you with "I don't think". Care to step back and punt again? Quote:I certainly don't mind you expressing your opinion. It's you that don't want mine to be expressed, here or anyplace else.[quote]And you think that because? I don't get the impression from you at all that you mind me expressing my opinion. That's not a problem with me. But your assertion that I don't want yours expressed? I'm calling BS on that one Rad. So this is the scenario: You make statements. I express my opinion that you're wrong and state why I think so. You accuse me of not wanting your opinions expressed... Some might say such a false accusation is a subtle attempt to censor my opinion from being expressed.[quote]Why? Because you think I am wrong. I merely think your opinions are wrong for me.This statement really makes no sense to me. You're trying to split some sort of imaginary hairs. It's like you're contorting yourself to place yourself on some moral high ground because I say I think you're wrong but you think I'm only wrong for you. Get some balls, Rad. You think I'm wrong. Period. I don't have a problem with that, so why should you? That's just it, isn't it? I'm okay with you thinking I'm wrong, but you really can't stomach me thinking you're wrong. Quote:My opinion is that your era & influence is on the downswing and will shortly be so much in the minority that you will have to be a protected minority. But, that's only your shortsighted religious views, not your entire political spectrum. I confess I'm not really sure what you're saying here. If you're stating that the voice of Christians in politics will diminish over the coming years, I'm not sure I would disagree. In fact, I'm glad you admitted it might very well be the case. It's refreshing to hear a left-leaning, possibly Democratic type person admit that this upcoming administration will do whatever they can to squelch the voices of anyone who disagrees with them. You must have been paying attention to their campaigning. I also appreciate the fact that you understand that my political beliefs are not defined by my spiritual beliefs.

Thanks for attempting to respond for me, but I'd really prefer to do that myself if you don't mind. I wasn't going to say any of those things (you snarky, sniveling bitty! )  Quote:No. The new administration won't do anything to squelch voices. You mean the administration headed by the man whose campaign excoriated an anchor woman who dared ask Biden hard questions? Or who denied access to major US newspapers who supported McCain in favor of a couple glossy entertainment magazines? Or who totally went Soviet in their attempts to destroy a common man who had the audacity to ask Obama a simple, honest question? Or whose party already has plans to re-enact the Fairness Doctrine in effort to shut down the conservative voices on talk radio?No, surely this administration won't be interested in squelching anyone's voice.

Originally Posted By: RadNo. The new administration won't do anything to squelch voices.Your head is truly buried in the sand. Obama I've heard Obama's brownshirts are to be 1,000,000 strong, to the tune of $500 billion. Anybody else hear anything about it yet?

Originally Posted By: RadHow was David Duke's EURO Conference in Memphis this week end?I'm sure you enjoyed it. WTF?You are seriously stepping over a line Rad.

Replying to last poster, not specifically aimed at you.Come on guys, chill out a bit. Respect eachothers views.... and try not to let this turn into a petty flame war!

I agree. Rad, that was an offensive remark that stepped well over the line of decency.I'm locking this thread.