[QUOTE=Ivorybill]
That’s not what I’m saying.
Why would I want to defend his policy positions? I’m Indy, remember? I’m just sick of political discourse that demonizes the opposition just because they’re the opposition.
[/QUOTE]
So start a different thread about that topic. Don’t ask for opinions on a politician and then say you don’t want to hear anything insulting about him.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
True, it wasn’t really an analysis, but it was a response based on policy, which is what you asked for and what you’re avoiding trying to addresss.
[/quote]
I didn’t ask for anything in this thread.
So if I call you a pandering tool that’s not namecalling?
Again, and this time I really hope you read for comprehension: I didn’t ask for anything in this thread. I provided what I hoped was general observations from first-hand experiences regarding Governor Jindal and suggested that Really Not All That Bright might get more traction going after policy positions than finding fault with his choice of name and religion.
We’ve never tangled before, DtC, but I’ve read plenty of threads where you bring your own very special form of posting to the mix. I’m done tilting at your straw men, though experience suggests that you won’t keep you from stuffing hay into your keyboard now that I’m done here.
[QUOTE=Ivorybill]
Again, it’s possible to disagree with a person’s political position without also calling them names.
[/QUOTE]
It is?
[QUOTE=dropzone]
It is?
[/QUOTE]
Little known fact, particularly around the SDMB.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I didn’t call him any names, and all my characterizations have to do with his policies, not him personally.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, you implied that he was a…
…which I’d have to agree with Ivorybill on and define as name-calling.
Ok, I forgot that I called him a tool. Still, that was based on his policy positions. My entire first post was based on nothing but policy positions. It may be possible to hold all those positions without being a tool, but I think it’s an academic point. The positions are still regugnant and therefore an impediment to achieving wide appeal.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Actually, you implied that he was a…
[/QUOTE]
Thought it was more a statement than an implication, but potayto/potahto. 
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
His ridiculously backwards, mean-spirited and uncool policy positions will never get him any kind of broad support outside of blood red states like LA.
[/QUOTE]
If Jindal is truly Reaganesque he will lead with vision and will. Coolness – what the sayers of the word ‘cool’ think that is – will have nothing to do with it. Liberals might be surprised what the vision is. Keep in mind, with your denigrating of “fundies,” liberal atheism is seriously on the wane worldwide and its agenda is already taking on a quaintly anachronistic tint.
[QUOTE=dropzone]
And they do, at least among people who study such things for a legitimate living
[/quote]
That’s swell. Meanwhile, as I’ve said (I think) three times, that’s not the definition most people, including everyone else in this thread, go by. Regardless of Jindal’s grouping according to sociologists or ethnologists, he is not what the public considers a white man. In the context of this political discussion, that’s what counts.
Are you serious? Does European ancestry go away if you get a tan? Would I look like Bobby Jindal or a black guy if I got a tan?
It makes him someone who is judged according to our culture’s silly one-drop rule. I’m not defending any of this crap as valid, dropzone, I’m saying that the sociological opinion really doesn’t matter here.
I’m one of those people, actually, because race involves a lot of things beyond the biological factors you mention. But that is another topic.
And the next time you find some guy yelling about how all the Arabs should go home (because I find they usually don’t distinguish between Arabs and southern Asians either), you can tell him they’re whiter than you are. But I don’t think it will fly.
[QUOTE=Mark Ryle]
If Jindal is truly Reaganesque he will lead with vision and will. Coolness – what the sayers of the word ‘cool’ think that is – will have nothing to do with it. Liberals might be surprised what the vision is.
[/quote]
Liberals always have and always will decide what “cool” is. It’s the one thing conservatives will never be able to appropriate.
I never knew there was such a thing as a “liberal atheist agenda.” I don’t even know what atheism has to do with anything I’ve said. You don’t have to be an atheist do disagree with a right wing religionist agenda. As far as it goes, though, peopke are slowly becoming less religious, and more people are willing to identify as atheists or agnostics. I don’t know where you’re getting this “quaintly anachronistic” characterization, but it’s not from looking around.
[QUOTE=Mark Ryle]
Keep in mind, with your denigrating of “fundies,” liberal atheism is seriously on the wane worldwide and its agenda is already taking on a quaintly anachronistic tint.
[/QUOTE]
Cite?
[QUOTE=Mark Ryle]
…liberal atheism is seriously on the wane worldwide and its agenda is already taking on a quaintly anachronistic tint.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but conservative atheism is on the rise!
[QUOTE=Algorithm]
Cite?
[/QUOTE]
Well, if you count radical Islamic fundamentalism, he probably has a point. Although, considering the circumstances, I wouldn’t be quite as smug about it as he seems to be.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Liberals always have and always will decide what “cool” is. It’s the one thing conservatives will never be able to appropriate.
[/QUOTE]
I dunno. The Nazis had some mighty cool uniforms at the same time as that old liberal devil, Roosevelt, was running this country.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I never knew there was such a thing as a “liberal atheist agenda.” I don’t even know what atheism has to do with anything I’ve said. You don’t have to be an atheist do disagree with a right wing religionist agenda. As far as it goes, though, peopke are slowly becoming less religious, and more people are willing to identify as atheists or agnostics. I don’t know where you’re getting this “quaintly anachronistic” characterization, but it’s not from looking around. [referring to Mark Ryle’s Post# 68]
[/QUOTE]
My cite is a 21-minute ‘TED talk’ I recently viewed (here it is) by Karen Armstrong, a former nun who writes on what Islam, Judaism and Christianity have in common and how they shaped world history and drive current events.
There is a transcript of the talk at that web page also. I found her statement on which I based my statement (in Post 68): Quoting Ms. Armstrong: “It’s only Western Europe that has retained its secularism, which is now beginning to look rather endearingly old-fashioned.”
I read the whole transcript of her talk just in the last few minutes, and it seems to me now that the statement I made in my Post 68 (that was challenged by Dio in Post 70 and a cite requested by Algorithm in Post 71) is, at the least, imprecise, and may not be true. I cannot defend it adequately and so would like to retract it. I also agree with Miller, in his Post 73, about my statement’s smug tone.