Jets
Platinum Member
- Jun 29, 2019
- 4,301
- 2,597
- 940
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
― Barry Goldwater
Barry Goldwater also thought that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea. Do you think that the 1964 civil rights bill was a bad idea, because BARRY said so?
Agree with the prescience of his quote, disagree with his stance on the Civil Rights bill.
So, he's not an Authority we should defer to, just some guy that happened to agree with you on one thing.
So, why you sharing this with us?
It was an apropos quote based on the OP. You don’t agree with it. :shrug:
Some guy agrees with hte op. So? I disagree with the op. I am also some guy. We are at an impasse.
oh no, what to do.
What is this thread about, other than your anti-Christian bigotry?
Nice Straw man, please point out where I supported anti-Christian bigotry?
In your posts where you act as though being supported by a Christian group is a bad thing.
That's anti-Christian bigotry.
If some white guy just talked about the dems being supported by blacks, as though it was inherently bad, you would be able to see that that was racist.
Such things work BOTH WAYS.
I know that is an alien concept to you, but it is true.
Got it, so you got nothing but a fallacious opinion with the intent of picking a fight.
Dismissed
My, that was a quick tail-tucked retreat, even for you. And your attempt to hide that you're running was really lame.
Correll answered the question, and you responded with what was clearly a pre-chosen dismissal that had nothing to do with his post, just to try to give yourself an excuse to stop talking to someone who punctured your little balloon.
Really?
I don’t cavil with people who use straw men to create a false narrative. Posting a quote that was germane to the OP topic doesn’t translate into someone espousing “anti Christian bigotry”. That poster had nothing but a puerile insult because we were at a “impasse” (His words)
So yes, I dismiss peevish displays of hyperbole that attempt to serve as an actual argument.
THE op topic is presenting the support of the gop by white Christians as though it is inherently bad, for reasons that are not clearly presented.
That is anti-Christian bigotry.
Oh, so now it’s the topic. This back and forth started when you accused me of “anti-christian bigotry”.
Which is it?
Both, Mensa Boy. That was the OP's topic, and that was also what you said in response to the OP's topic.
Did you somehow think you couldn't both be racist religious bigots?
More puerile insults. Another one who proves my sig correct.
Bless your heart.
Being dishonest and playing dumb, as you are doing, is very rude.
Civility is something you earn by being civil to people.
You stopped doing that, when you started trolling.
Irony....
Err, no, it's not. It is just the facts.
We were discussing the topic, and your posts on teh topic, and I crushed you, and you started playing troll games.
With a strawman fallacy. You fired off an insult and kept piling on. That’s not crushing anything but a decent discussion.
Reread Post 11.
By all means keep giving yourself props...
Nope. I explained what was wrong with your post, adn then pointed out that it was a form of bigotry in the slim hope that that would bother you, since libs are supposedly so anti-ism and phobes.
It is something I do. I have done it for several decades. I have yet to find a single lib that seemed at all bothered by the fact that their actions do not match their stated principles.
I have come to the conclusion that all liberals who talk about wacism or phobias, are just pretending to care about such things, only in so far as they can use them as weapons to smear and marginalize their enemies.
And here’s where you are incorrect.
First off, I’m not liberal. And if you said it to bother me it was meant as an insult. Let’s not play games of semantics here.
Secondly, I brought up the quote because Barry Goldwater foresaw what the OP was discussing. Speaking as a Catholic, I have no issue with anyone of faith. Note where I said I agreed with the prescience of his quote. Discussing how that was germane to the discussion was my intention, not to insult Christians.
How is it relevant to the discussion that someone agreed with you?
It was relevant that he saw this back then. It was an acknowledgment of something he saw happening in the future. It was posted as part of the discussion. The topic was the religious right and and it’s influence regarding the GOP.
So, Goldwater found it hard to compromise with religious right?
How open are you modern lefties to compromise? Or is everything a "holy war" to you where anyone that opposes you is a "wacist" or a "heretic"?
I cannot speak for “modern lefties”, considering my politics are more centrist. That being said, I happen to be open to compromise and finding common ground. People can disagree with one another to their hearts content. Why label someone with silly names because they do not see eye to eye?
You have no problem speaking on Goldwater or the religious right, but suddenly you can't speak about modern lefties?
How wonderfully convenient for you.
My politics would be closer to Goldwater than a leftist, so yes.
Do you oppose the 1964 civil rights bill?
No, I support it.
Let’s be clear here. “Closer to Goldwater” doesn’t mean always agreeing with him.
Give your best example on policy, of being "closer" to Goldwater.
I supported his view that the role of the federal government should be limited to an extent. I wouldn’t go as far as him, but am closer to federalism than a massive bureaucracy.
In addition, I agreed with the appointment of conservative justices to the SC.
Last edited: