Nowhere does your OP state that someone, anyone, thinks “Republicans are bad people”, or provide evidence of such, yet you claim that your intent was to highlight this supposed behavior by, well, whoever it was that supposedly did it. Since numerous other posters apparently “mis-read” the intent of your OP as well, perhaps, just suggesting here, perhaps you may want to examine your posts a little more carefully to determine whether you are making your premise clear to most readers.
OK, so the source of the misquote was the article you quoted. I take it you now withdraw the premise of your OP.
If you don’t believe that “many, most or all Democrats are ‘closet homophobes’”, or alternatively that many, most or all Democrats will pose as homophobic when it serves their interests in an election campaign, then why have you tried to use this as a premise in two recent GD threads?
Answer or not, as you wish. I’ve said all I’m going to say about your evasions in this thread.
This is a damned lie. Your OP was a leading question which implied that Alex Sanders’ actions were supported by Democrats, especially “Democratic apologists” on this board. You did the exact same thing in the thread about the Montana campaign. It was a damned lie in both cases. The world does not run on your stereotypes. It is pathetic that you seem to continually run up against this fact and be utterly incapable of understanding it.
All you’ve managed to do is show yet another example of your useless contributions to the fight against ignorance.
There is a rule against posts accusing people of trollery, so I need to stress that the main text of this post is intended as ironic, not an intentional accusation, but…
Has it occurred to anyone else but me that the sorts of half-baked arguments in support of extremist Republican positions and strongly condemning any peccadillos attributable to Democrats, coupled with the sort of innuendo and slams-by-implication that turn most thoughtful people off, are actually among the strongest vehicles the Democratic Party could have in turning people against Republicans? Which would imply that December’s avowed liberal past is actually not merely in the past, but that he has found a technique for advancing Democratic politics by creating mockeries of Republican stances that will cause thoughtful people to look with favor on the Democratic Party and its candidates?
Kind of like how Gus Hall used to endorse the candidates he hated back in the 50s, knowing that a Communist endorsement would cause people to vote against them?
Haven’t y’all figured it out yet? december is working on his thesis: High School Debating Society Tactics: Practical Applications. His posts here are just field research. Discovering the truth, or even convincing others, is not the object: simply scoring “points” is.
Good for you, Polycarp. At least you noticed that the comment had some degree of offensiveness.
Now that I’ve praised Polycarp, his/her reputation on this Board is shot!
For the record, I’m a democrat (moderate liberal), and everybody else in my family is republican (moderate conservative). Do I think they’re bad people? No. (Although my sister has a quite a temper) Do they think I’m a bad person? No. We disagree on some issues and agree on others. Just like virtually everybody else in the world.
Myth about dems and reps? Of course it’s a myth. Why does it even come up around here? Perhaps because specific people in both parties have done stupid, offensive, irritating things? Well, fine. Maybe we can keep the arguments specific and not engage in the same sort of broad sweeping condemnations that are often found on some of the unsavory message boards.
Besides everybody knows that moderates are the only good people in the world.
I agree that the posters here on this Board do not repeat the Republicans are evil myth. That’s to your credit. However, the myth does get reiterated fairly often in the outside world. E.g., see this thread.
Since I was so vociferous in the other thread in saying that Baucus displayed no homophobia, I want to chime in here and say, of course Sanders is using homophobic tactics to smear his opponent. No doubt.
December, if you’re trying to use this to prove that some Democrats are bigots, bravo! Excellent proof! I wonder if you’d be so kind as to prove that some Web sites begin with http:// , or if you’d be willing to prove that some dogs like to eat cat poop.
A writing professor in college once told me that a paper’s thesis should follow two rules:
Don’t be stupid. (e.g., “A flyer showing a blue woman wearing a pink boa is clearly a sign that the flyer’s creator is a homophobe.”)
Don’t be obvious. (e.g., “Some Democrats are bigots.”)
You might consider following these rules in your OPs.
The context, even in the article, still was not complete. I will readily admit that the statement might have been an appeal to South Carolina homophobia, but with only the quoted section and not the full context, I think that it is possible that Sanders was pointing out how Graham’s actions do not match his words.
BUT- this thread actually ended when december said:
The norm was reversed. I couldn’t have said it better.
JDM
The context, even in the article, still was not complete. I will readily admit that the statement might have been an appeal to South Carolina homophobia, but with only the quoted section and not the full context, I think that it is possible that Sanders was pointing out how Graham’s actions do not match his words.
BUT- this thread actually ended when december said:
The norm was reversed. I couldn’t have said it better.
JDM
Aside from Stoid(whom, with respect, I don’t think should be considered representative of the SDMB as a whole) I’ve not seen that. The closest I’ve seen is people saying that it’s dirty politics, as per the status quo. Putting it in context isn’t the same as refusing to acknowledge it. It was part of a string of slurs intended to evoke many of the prejudices of the voter against Sanders’ opponent. Simply because they didn’t address it as specifically as you did, and instead condemmed the entire statement as mud-slinging, that means they are ignoring/endorsing it the piece of it which was homophobic?
I’m also hurt that you buddy up with DanielWithrow when he acknowledges the homophobic nature of the comment but I said the exact same thing “This seems to be a clear case of Democratic gay-bashing. I think it’s slimy and I would gleefully vote “none of the above” were I a citizen of South Carolina.” and I get ignored. What’s he got that I don’t?
