Posted on 07/05/2008 7:23:57 PM PDT by FocusNexus
By their own words shall you know them. PSYCHO-FREEP wrote:
"I used to listen to Prager on the West Coast occasionally. He is a moderate New Yorker/Jew..."
The fact that Dennis Prager is Jewish has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed on that thread. Psycho was dismissing the use of a quote from Prager by another FReeper in these terms: "He is a moderate New Yorker/Jew..."
If you wish to extrapolate my reply to Psycho regarding his/her apparent bigotry, and apply it to all anti-McCain FReepers, that's your business.
As for the poll you cite, I don't see it anywhere, so am unable to read the entire question posed, or to see the date on that poll. I even went to my account to doublecheck that I have the poll block activated. I do.
Nevertheless, 2,989 FR votes (not necessarily that many individuals, by the way) merely shows just what a narrow, miniscule slice of the American electorate dominates FR. Take that 2,989, even add in the 247 "for" to get 3,236, and compare that to the approximately 120,000,000 who will vote in the real election this November. You do the math and figure out your relevance in the overall scheme of things.
Perhaps you should revisit your post and correct it then. You were not describing what you thought of Psycho, alone. You painted a good many freepers as racists and bigots with your broad brush and references to "crowd" and comments like "Psycho inadvertently revealed who most of these people really are."
BTW, I don't think that Psycho's total comment was bigoted, despite your selective excerpting of partial quotes.
"He is a moderate New Yorker/Jew who is more Libertarian/Populist than he is Conservative. "
Would I be a bigot if I called Huckabee a Southern Evangelical with socialist tendencies?
I don't care if that land is smack dab in the middle of NYC,or in the middle of Disney world either! We need that oil, we've been needing that oil, and the only reason we don't have that oil now, is because our wonderful leftist leaders in this country (like McCain) have stood in the way of getting that oil, so they could gain the support of some special interest group..
If we had been allowed to drill in our own country for the past 20 or so years, it's safe to say, that we most likely would not be in our current situation with fuel prices through the frickin roof, and our economy going into the toilet.
Our national interest was compromised by these same leftist politicians, and for no other reason than political pandering to leftist special interest groups; And now we're expected to support the most notorious of those men who stood in the way drilling in the USA for president?
Well some here have fooled themselves thinking he's better than a bona fide leftist, but I don't think so! In my opinion he's worse!
Let there be no doubt that if I could single handedly end McCain’s campaign today I would do so. I will continue to undermine his campaign by reminding everyone that he killed the GOP majority and consorted with the GOP opponents.
I will continue to mock you for your support of a man who treats you like something he stepped in.
Find another candidate.
It isn’t too late.
Obama is weak and vulnerable.
He is all form and no substance. He can be beaten.
But McCain isn’t the one that you should support for the job.
And your logic is terribly flawed.
Lack of support or negative support for one candidate does not equal support for another no matter how many times you claim it to be so...yeah, repeat the lie as often as you wish, it isn’t true and it isn’t fact.
You complain that there may be a Dem majority, but conveniently forget that McCain actively opposed and subverted the GOP majority and then enabled the current Dem majority.
You accuse me of doing what your candidate already did!
And I’m against your opponent which actually makes you more supportive of a Democrat majority than I.
But with you we see the classic tactics of those who cannot justify their votes based on positives but have to rely on fear mongering and name calling instead of genuine persuasion.
We all know that you know that you have to swallow a lot of GOP crap to vote for McCain and that is your choice.
And that you are sicker than a woman who begs to sleep with the man who slaps her and cheats on her and mocks her in public.
But that, too, is your choice.
When you're crafting propaganda it is common to selectively leave some things out and gloss over things that you can't.
It would be lovely if we did have the ability to edit our posts on FR.
In any case, it would serve us both well if you used my exact sentence:
In his comment I quoted above, I think Psycho inadvertently revealed who most of these people really are.
The operative phrase is "I think," as in "I believe" or "I perceive." That's an expression of what I saw in Psycho's off-handed, totally unnecessary "Jew" comment. It is not a declarative statement, which you converted it into by dropping, "In his comment I quoted above, I think..."
BTW, I don't think that Psycho's total comment was bigoted, despite your selective excerpting of partial quotes.
Well, at least you admit it is "partially" bigoted. Too bad you don't appear to fully recognize why. The answer? His/her second part of the sentence in no way explains or excuses the "New Yorker/Jew" comment:
"He is a moderate New Yorker/Jew who is more Libertarian/Populist than he is Conservative."
In the context of the conversation underway at the time on that thread, the sentence would have made more sense if written this way: "He is a moderate who is more Libertarian/Populist than he is a Conservative." The gratuitous use of "New Yorker/Jew" is quite stark.
Lastly, if you don't want to be "painted" in the same way as Psycho paints him/herself, don't rush to defend the indefensible.
There you go again with your broad brush, without answering my question.
One more time:
Would I be a bigot if I called Huckabee a Southern Evangelical with socialist tendencies?
How is that different than psycho saying the following:
"He [Prager] is a moderate New Yorker/Jew who is more Libertarian/Populist than he is Conservative."
How about this one:
"So-and-so is a San Francisco atheist who champions liberal causes.
Are all of these bigoted comments in your book?
Ummmm...something directed at you, alone, is not painting with a broad brush.
As for your question, and your churlish "one more time," I didn't answer it the firs time because I credited you with more intelligence than to mean it literally. I credited you with the ability to be rhetorical.
However, since such is not the case, here's your answer:
Would I [calcowgirl] be a bigot if I called Huckabee a Southern Evangelical with socialist tendencies?
You wrote the above before subsequently admitting that the "New Yorker/Jew" comment we've been discussing is, in your words, partially bigoted. Thus, even though you recognized the bigotry, you clearly made an attempt with the above pseudo-question to excuse and deflect attention away from what you knew to be wrong.
Therefore, it's obvious to me that you know quite well no moral equivalence exists between calling Huckabee a "Southern Evangelical with socialist tendencies" and the gratuitous use of one's religious or ethnic background in a way calculated to inflame passions solely on that basis.
Wrong. I didn't say that. I used the word "partial" to describe your selective excerpting in an attempt to make psycho's post appear bigoted.
Thus, even though you recognized the bigotry, you clearly made an attempt with the above pseudo-question to excuse and deflect attention away from what you knew to be wrong.
Wrong again. It was a simple yes/no question and had nothing to do with deflection.
Therefore, it's obvious to me that you know quite well no moral equivalence exists between calling Huckabee a "Southern Evangelical with socialist tendencies" and the gratuitous use of one's religious or ethnic background in a way calculated to inflame passions solely on that basis.
NewYork vs. Southern. Jewish vs. Evangelical. Why do you contend there is no equivalence? Why do you contend that one "inflames passions" while the other would not?
"How a Liberal, New York, Ivy League Jew became a Conservative"
Since Prager uses some of the same terms to describe himself as psycho did, is Prager also a bigot?
Come on, calcowgirl, at least take ownership of your own words:
BTW, I don't think that Psycho's total comment was bigoted, despite your selective excerpting of partial quotes.
Meaning you do think some of his comment was bigoted.
Why do you contend there is no equivalence? Why do you contend that one "inflames passions" while the other would not?
If you genuinely don't know the answers, there's nothing I can do or say that will make any difference.
Oh, please. Don't embarrass yourself further.
The case for McCain is not encouraging, but it’s compelling, just the same.
I guess we got the same troll updates from DU, huh? /s
Prager is proud of the fact that he is Jewish and wears it like a badge of honor. He is strongly convicted to his traditional ties which in no way are ethnic. Where did I degrade Mr. Prager or use an ethnic slur against him? Since when did using the word Jew to describe another person’s background become a derogatory insult?
You can take what I said out of context all you like to try and rile everyone up. But being a demagogue won’t score you any points in the debate. You are simply a cynical sociopath who has to use what ever nasty tactic you can to get the upper hand when you have been out classed.
From this point on, don’t bother to contact me about anything. You will be promptly ignored.
He has every right. Unless you're Jewish yourself, you don't. Inserting his religion/ethnicity into the discussion we were having was clearly meant in only one way.
Go hide behind your rage, as expressed in your last post to me. Your own words have called you out, not mine.
No. That isn't what I meant, no matter how you want to twist the meaning of my post.
If you genuinely don't know the answers, there's nothing I can do or say that will make any difference.
Why won't you just answer the question?
No embarrassment on this side, whatsoever. Your failed attempt at slandering freepers should embarrass you, however.
I have. You just don't like my answer, and you're clearly fishing for something else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.