Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Festivito

(13,452 posts)
64. Let's see: "You.., You.., ..you.., Your post.." as subjects. Hmm.
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:27 PM
Jan 2013

At least the last sentence was to the post.

Am I paranoid that bankers or a MIC create wars for profit, that the rich support think-tanks, Republicans and wedge issues for power, power that begets more money? Oh dear. You find that paranoid. Oh well. Whatever.

If someone surmises that the "war on Christmas," which is an expression that has taken some print such that it does exist in print, exists as a wedge issue, perhaps funded (i.e. given time or money) by the rich and their sycophants as a wedge issue, even supplying both sides of the argumentation in order to keep the appearance of there being what a hyperbolic expression "war" would imply, it is not necessary that such a someone would actually believe in a war on Christmas, rather than simply believing that the perception of such a war would exist, nor should thinking that such funding from one side going to both sides be construed as an attack on the side not allegedly funding the two sides. IOW your logic fails. But, again, proceed!

K&R. Excellent article, bookmarking. Thanks! n/t ms liberty Jan 2013 #1
Same here. It will be useful to circulate to others. Warpy Jan 2013 #55
I would agree that there is a preponderance of homophobic bigots, but delusional cbayer Jan 2013 #2
Well, look at what skepticscott Jan 2013 #4
The delusion is that they think they are under attack muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #7
Those are opinions, not irrefutable proof. cbayer Jan 2013 #9
Is it an "opinion" skepticscott Jan 2013 #16
Agreed. That's over-stated. & It's not in the research itself. nt patrice Jan 2013 #8
Sociopathy, please review the definition or do some study DryRain Jan 2013 #19
Lol, I just love it when you school my on all things psychiatric. cbayer Jan 2013 #20
While it may not be precise, a comment in Fred Clark's blog point to Antisocial Personality Disorder muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #41
It's really inappropriate for people to make psychiatric diagnoses on cbayer Jan 2013 #42
And a pretty acurate description of virtually ANYONE... TheMadMonk Jan 2013 #27
Maybe there's a reason for that. truebluegreen Jan 2013 #56
Perhaps this is what Wall Street reteachinwi Jan 2013 #30
I think Fred Clark has earned the right to use harsh language starroute Jan 2013 #23
We actually have a number of evangelicals who post here. cbayer Jan 2013 #24
Clark also considers himself an evangelical -- or did until recently starroute Jan 2013 #25
And the distinction is "the majority" muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #36
Actually they are persecuted. They're no longer being allowed... TheMadMonk Jan 2013 #28
Chicken, egg, or a little of both? NoOneMan Jan 2013 #3
The egg Lordquinton Jan 2013 #31
You can leave off skepticscott Jan 2013 #5
Lowest on "No one set of values should dominate" + Highest on "Judeo-Christian values should be patrice Jan 2013 #6
Interesting because it shows that they are guilty of what they accuse others of. nt patrice Jan 2013 #10
Excellent point. Now this is a time when a psychiatric term might be appropriate - cbayer Jan 2013 #12
Yes, projection fits pretty well, driven by guilt over something that isn't what they claim it patrice Jan 2013 #14
kicked and recommended.... mike_c Jan 2013 #11
From the Barna Group? rug Jan 2013 #13
perhaps despite of themselves... mike_c Jan 2013 #15
It does seem to go against confirmation bias. rug Jan 2013 #17
not mine.... mike_c Jan 2013 #18
But they're southern/midwestern rural gun owners, so we can't show our bigotry toward them MightyMopar Jan 2013 #21
Hmm tama Jan 2013 #40
The category of "notional Christian" is very bizarre. kwassa Jan 2013 #22
The sort you'll only catch in church at weddings and funerals. /nt TheMadMonk Jan 2013 #29
I'm not sure - I think mainline denoms are more likely "non-(evangelical born again) Christians" muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #37
Mainline Protestants don't identify as born again. kwassa Jan 2013 #52
I gotta ask about the 9% quakerboy Jan 2013 #26
Could be a 'don't know' option to mop up the difference (nt) muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #38
What I find odd is truebluegreen Jan 2013 #57
Does anyone have that article from back in the Bush years - with the high percentage of evangelicals freshwest Jan 2013 #32
I love questions 3 and 6 they makes obvious reverend_tim Jan 2013 #33
Does this OP tama Jan 2013 #34
I wouldn't expect to find anyone here who thinks Christian values should be given preference muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #35
"if they point out the double standard" tama Jan 2013 #39
I've never quite gotten the "attack on religion" meme in our country other than it seems a political pinto Jan 2013 #43
This is kind of silly. 1. No such proof is given. Festivito Jan 2013 #44
Wedge issues tama Jan 2013 #45
'Wedge issue'? Drawing attention to scapegoating of LGBT people is a 'wedge issue'? muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #47
By and large tama Jan 2013 #48
God, guns, gays, ... all have simple answers. Festivito Jan 2013 #50
1: the article points to the Barna Group report muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #46
..and the Barna Group report does NOT SAY PROOF at all. Festivito Jan 2013 #49
I'm glad you're annoyed at bankers from 200 years ago, but what has that to do with 21st LWers? muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #51
History repeats itself -- oft in rhymes. Festivito Jan 2013 #59
"well funded little cartoons"? WTF? muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #60
Ah, the pull-out-a-single-line attack. Complete with ad hominem. Festivito Jan 2013 #61
Let's be clear: your entire thesis is paranoid. It also attacks the left wing muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #62
LOL A HERETIC I AM Jan 2013 #63
Oh! Oh dear! Why am I LOL. Festivito Jan 2013 #65
Let's see: "You.., You.., ..you.., Your post.." as subjects. Hmm. Festivito Jan 2013 #64
Hmm tama Jan 2013 #53
Since the poll didn't ask about those, you'll have to sort that out yourself muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #54
Nope, that's something to sort out together tama Jan 2013 #58
Very interesting but not surprising. Raffi Ella Jan 2013 #66
Pretty much confirms what we already knew SpartanDem Jan 2013 #67
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Quantifiable proof that a...»Reply #64