opebo vs. Gully Foyle

[Јas]

Gully/Gully

Yet to see any evidence (except, of course, your usual hear'say and conjecture) that Gully's a:

religious right loving prude.

[Јas]

OK, I'll bite just to see where this goes and how it leads to being a "religious right loving prude".
First though let's look at the evidence, instead of your statement which is of course more hear'say and conjecture.

Gully defended Ralph Nader's alliance with James Dobson

I don't know anything about this alliance or Gully's defence thereof, so:
1. More details on this alliance please;
and 2. Quote Gully's defence of it.

and has condemned drinking culture.

Quote please.

[Јas]

You honestly except that he will write a coherent reply to that?

Maybe, maybe not...
I think it's worthwhile pointing out to him that there are some of us on this forum who don't take his constant flow wild accusations at face value.

If he doesn't reply, he implicitly accepts that there is no evidence to back up his claim and that he was in fact full of it.
If he does, the evidence will be there for all to see and people can make there own conclusions - as I suspect that normal people require a different standard of evidence to conclude that someone is a "religious right loving prude", than BRTD - for whom the following diagram is usually appropriate to bear in mind.



It's sort of win/win.

[Јas]

Nader and Dobson: http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/culture/gambling/nader-dobson-ask-whether-democrats-want-to-be-the-party-of-the-gambling-industry

Let's see if I've got this straight.

Nader and Dobson co-signed a letter in which they sought clarification on the Democratic Party's position on gambling; expressed concern at the apparant links between the Democratic Party and the gambling industry; and condemned the gambling industry as promoting a social ill, listing a number of examples as to how this is the case (which as far as I can see are not innaccurate).

I think it's fair to say that you've overstated this as an 'alliance'. They didn't call for any action, they simply requested a clarification of the Democratic Party position and expressed the opinion that gambling does a lot of harm.

Gully defends it:

Nader forged an alliance with Dobson to attack the Democrats over ties to the gambling industry:

http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/culture/gambling/nader-dobson-ask-whether-democrats-want-to-be-the-party-of-the-gambling-industry

Wait a minute, So Nader and Dobson happened to agree on one thing and wrote a letter together comdemning one of the world's most famous vices, which destroys communities and lives every year and questioned a corrupt political system where this parasatic industry can flourish and often gain access to the highest levels of political power and can have a serious say on actual policy... AND this is a bad thing?

Straha is right for once, you're a total hypocrite - your politics is all about protecting your vices under the name of liberalism.

So, are you saying that because Gully suggests that:

• there should be more transparancy as to any links between the gambling industry and the Democrtaic Party; and
• that gambling can cause harm in society

he is a "religious right loving prude"?

If so, you'll have to explain the connection betweenthese beliefs and being a "religious right loving prude".

Gully attacks the alcohol industry throughout this thread and says people should drink less: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=62357.0

Well, he obviously disapproves of certain practices of the alcohol industry and of binge drinking - but that's hardly something confined to the "religious right loving prudes", is it?