Govenor keeps playing race card
AZDuffman
permissible, but when you see too many success stories, then some
people get nervous,"
So, NY, how do you like having a govenor who makes such racist
comments?
Where is Rudy when you need him?
John Passaniti
> "Part of what I feel is that one very successful minority is
> permissible, but when you see too many success stories, then some
> people get nervous,"
>
> So, NY, how do you like having a govenor who makes such racist
> comments?
Here's a news flash from the real world: multiple things can be true
simultaneously. For example, the following statements are all true:
1. Gov. Paterson plays the race card, sometimes without
justification.
2. Some people want him out of office because they disagree with his
politics.
3. Some people want him out of office because he is black.
4. Some people who want him out of office because he is black claim
they are not racists.
5. Racists don't like being called out as being racists.
So putting this together, regardless of if Paterson is justified in
his opinion (and I don't believe he is):
1. That doesn't mean everyone against Paterson is a racist.
2. That doesn't mean racists don't exist.
3. That doesn't mean racists aren't trying to push him out because he
is black.
4. That doesn't mean racists don't get their undies in a bunch when
they are called out as racists.
As for if Paterson's comments are racist, well, I'm trying really
hard, but I just can't whip myself up into a froth over it. In much
the same way I don't give a shit when someone who abuses their spouse
is called a bad name, I'm finding it difficult to care if racists are
offended by Paterson's statement. Maybe you can help me here-- why
exactly should I care? Paterson's statement doesn't make him a
racist. It makes him a whiner.
> Where is Rudy when you need him?
He's too busy trying to legally change his middle name to "9/11" and
shopping for some luscious pumps he saw at Saks Fifth Avenue.
AZDuffman
I'd say it makes him a racist and a whiner. I'm just tired of the
double standard. Say a white politician anywhere said, "When there
are too few minorities in office, some people get upset." Why, He'd
be driven out of office in a week.
With Patterson, NY will just have to wait until the next election to
dump him I suppose.
> > Where is Rudy when you need him?
>
> He's too busy trying to legally change his middle name to "9/11" and
> shopping for some luscious pumps he saw at Saks Fifth Avenue.
Well, it was his own fault. The guy has a long record of acheivement
in NYC from the mafia prosecutions to cleaning it up and really
lowering crime there. Why he didn't focus on it all is beyod me. But
his campaign manager is the worst ever.
John Passaniti
> I'd say it makes him a racist and a whiner.
Of course you do. You tend to make a lot of statements without any
backing thought behind them. You and I agree he's a whiner. Now, how
about you explain what exactly in what he said makes him "racist." I
can see that he has a persecution complex. I can see that he might be
paranoid. I can see that he doesn't necessarily differentiate between
those who have legitimate political differences and those who are
racist.
But none of that makes him a racist. So please blow the dust off the
dictionary (words do matter), look up the word "racist", and provide
specifics to support your claim.
> I'm just tired of the
> double standard. Say a white politician anywhere said, "When there
> are too few minorities in office, some people get upset." Why, He'd
> be driven out of office in a week.
So your message wasn't really about Paterson, and just a way for you
to come up with excuses for your irrational white panic response?
Geez, you really need to learn how to be more direct. Think of the
time we would all save.
> With Patterson, NY will just have to wait until the next election to
> dump him I suppose.
Well, it's something to look forward to. Maybe Palin could run for
governor of New York. She's not doing anything else except echoing
lies. And New York is only like 29 times the population of Alaska.
It should be a cinch, you-betcha <wink>.
> > > Where is Rudy when you need him?
>
> > He's too busy trying to legally change his middle name to "9/11" and
> > shopping for some luscious pumps he saw at Saks Fifth Avenue.
>
> Well, it was his own fault. The guy has a long record of acheivement
> in NYC from the mafia prosecutions to cleaning it up and really
> lowering crime there. Why he didn't focus on it all is beyod me. But
> his campaign manager is the worst ever.
Yes, Rudy does have a habit of taking credit for the work of others.
Odd that you would find that an appealing character trait. Oh well,
there's no accounting for taste.
No, even though his campaign was a mess, that's not the real reason he
didn't win. The fact of the matter was that he could *never* win, and
ultimately, it's because of people like you. At least I thought you
were in the camp that believes that if Republicans are to regain
power, they need to be come more Conservative; that "big tent" ideals
should be pushed aside for ideological purity. And that's why Rudy
never had a chance. Rudy does know how to stand in front of a flag
and sprinkle the right key words ("patriot", "freedom", etc.) to make
people like you well-up. Like most right-wind politicians, he's
learned how to effectively manipulate those on the right with image
and style over substance. And you guys eat that shit up.
But Rudy's stance on abortion, gay rights, and gun control made sure
that the psycho-right power base would never let him win. Period.
Even if Rudy had run the most brilliant campaign, they would never let
him win. It's the same reason Mitt Romney could never win. He's know
how to push all the right buttons, but the fact he wears magic
underwear and is waiting to rule over his own planet in the afterlife
as a god means the Christian right would never accept him.
AZDuffman
> On Aug 24, 7:02 pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd say it makes him a racist and a whiner.
>
> Of course you do. You tend to make a lot of statements without any
> backing thought behind them. You and I agree he's a whiner. Now, how
> about you explain what exactly in what he said makes him "racist." I
> can see that he has a persecution complex. I can see that he might be
> paranoid. I can see that he doesn't necessarily differentiate between
> those who have legitimate political differences and those who are
> racist.
>
> But none of that makes him a racist. So please blow the dust off the
> dictionary (words do matter), look up the word "racist", and provide
> specifics to support your claim.
Racist: hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
So Paterson seems to hate and not tolerate white people by his
statement that white people will "not tolerate too many (minority)
success stories."
Rush Limbaugh was fired from ESPN for making a far more true and far
less racist statement.
> So your message wasn't really about Paterson, and just a way for you
> to come up with excuses for your irrational white panic response?
> Geez, you really need to learn how to be more direct. Think of the
> time we would all save.
What "irrational" response? I'd say being tired of being called a
racist because I don't support every incompotent or lefty black
politician to the bitter end is not irrational at all.
> Well, it's something to look forward to. Maybe Palin could run for
> governor of New York. She's not doing anything else except echoing
> lies. And New York is only like 29 times the population of Alaska.
> It should be a cinch, you-betcha <wink>.
Oh, I see. Palin found something in the bill that was true, got them
to change it, all based on a Facebook entry, and you still think she
is some kind of incompotent? You seem to have a case of "irrational
liberal panic." Why not be direct, it will save us a lot of time.
> Yes, Rudy does have a habit of taking credit for the work of others.
> Odd that you would find that an appealing character trait. Oh well,
> there's no accounting for taste.
So, someone else was mayor when NYC got cleaned up? Someone else
prosecuted the mafia? Someone else decided it wasn't "mean" to throw
the "squeege men" off the streets in NY? Why not just admit the guy
cleaned up NYC and the crime reduction there alone let Bill Clinton
claim a reduction in crime nationwide?
> No, even though his campaign was a mess, that's not the real reason he
> didn't win. The fact of the matter was that he could *never* win, and
> ultimately, it's because of people like you. At least I thought you
> were in the camp that believes that if Republicans are to regain
> power, they need to be come more Conservative; that "big tent" ideals
> should be pushed aside for ideological purity. And that's why Rudy
> never had a chance. Rudy does know how to stand in front of a flag
> and sprinkle the right key words ("patriot", "freedom", etc.) to make
> people like you well-up. Like most right-wind politicians, he's
> learned how to effectively manipulate those on the right with image
> and style over substance. And you guys eat that shit up.
I don't like his stance on guns, gays, or abortion. But he is an
effective leader, more than we can say for what we have in the White
Hose now. McCain is also a RINO, but not a good leader.
AZDuffman
> And not a minute too soon. Paterson (one "t", not two) is a
> sorry excuse, even for a token who was never meant to rule.
>
> Not a token black. A token blind, or "dissy" as the new
> non-PC generation has coined "disabled American" into
> a new word that will become seen as a slur, which will force
> the dissys to abandon the word "disabled" and vainly search
> for a new moniker that won't be as easily slurified.
Hadn't heard that term "dissy." Not polite, but I suppose inevitable
given how much "disabled" has been expanded in meaning over the
years. Blind, yeah, that is disabled. ADD, sorry, if you have that
and call yourself disabled you do not have my sympathies. Sorry to
digress.
> One expects tokens to underperform, but Paterson has
> been a waste of air. Too bad we're going to get the
> Old Guard's New Suit: Andy "I'm Younger Than Mario"
> Cuomo. Nothing we can do about that, unless Hill-the-beast
> drops out of State to screw up New York some more.
Well, she may drop out of State. And downstate idiots will elect her
again. One thing I do hand to Obama is that he has taken her from
having some real power and respect and turned her into Fredo
Corleone. If Paul Castellano had handled Gotti as well no one outside
Manhattan would know of Spark's Steak House.
> It wasn't the manager. Sitting out Iowa and New Hampshire
> was a plan to lose on purpose. He wanted to keep the pilot
> light burning for a possible Cabinet slot, but had no intention
> of being the Republican nominee.
>
> I don't know if it's really cross-dressing, but Rudy has something
> in his closet that he knew would explode him as a national
> candidate. Not so big to derail a confirmation hearing, whatever
> his skeleton is, but as a POTUS nominee he knew that the
> secret would become too big to stay in his ex-wife's box. Sorry
> for the mental image there.
That is kind of interesting. My take was always that he knew NH/IA
were hard to win and even overrated so he decided to try to go all-in
in FL by going after the Jewish vote of exNYers down there. You would
think as mayor of NYC anthing would have come up over 8 years. But
who knows?
John Passaniti
> > But none of that makes him a racist. So please blow the dust off the
> > dictionary (words do matter), look up the word "racist", and provide
> > specifics to support your claim.
>
> Racist: hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
>
> So Paterson seems to hate and not tolerate white people by his
> statement that white people will "not tolerate too many (minority)
> success stories."
Nope. Sorry. You haven't shown *hate* or *intolerance*. At best
you've shown what I already stated: Paterson suffers from some
combination of a persecution complex, paranoia, an unwillingness to
accept legitimate disagreement, and political savvy. But none of that
rises *hate* or *intolerance." You can make your case by pointing to
specific actions (for example, policy or position appointments) where
he discriminated against the poor downtrodden whitefolk. Oh yeah, you
can't because he hasn't.
Wow, you don't like Paterson. Well gosh, welcome to the club. And
it's a big club too, given the polling data. But while I'm more than
happy to wave bye-bye to him at the next election, you're busy trying
to whip anything he says or does into a froth. What is the next
manufactured outrage going to be? That when he visited a restaurant,
he used more black pepper than white salt, so clearly he's a racist?
> Rush Limbaugh was fired from ESPN for making a far more true and far
> less racist statement.
I'm not sure exactly how you judge "far more true" when both
Limbaugh's and Paterson's statements address abstracted people. In
the case of Limbaugh it was "the media" (although he doesn't have the
balls to call anyone out by name) and in Paterson's case, it was
genericized "some people" (that he also doesn't cite). Both men used
weasel words. Both men are making arguments against straw men.
Neither statement from either man is racist. They're just stupid.
> What "irrational" response? I'd say being tired of being called a
> racist because I don't support every incompotent or lefty black
> politician to the bitter end is not irrational at all.
Let me clear something up then. You're not a racist because you
disagree with Paterson's politics. Feel better? Your racism is for
other reasons. My guess is white panic over the demographic shifts in
America.
> Oh, I see. Palin found something in the bill that was true, got them
> to change it, all based on a Facebook entry, and you still think she
> is some kind of incompotent? You seem to have a case of "irrational
> liberal panic." Why not be direct, it will save us a lot of time.
Gosh, I thought I was direct. I wasn't aware that I was holding
anything back. I think she is incompetent and not suited for any
political office. She demonstrated that in the run-up to the last
election, when every damn thing out of her mouth was either
incomprehensible gibberish or boilerplate Conservative rhetoric. And
quitting her old job and becoming a full-time blogger doesn't seem
like a great career move given that blogging requires some ability to
string more than two words together into something comprehensible.
What's more sad is the state of Conservatism in America, when *she* is
the best they can do.
This is a woman who believes that if she was (Vice) President, she
would have been "protected" by a "Department of Law." This is a woman
who writes about "death panels" when she herself signed (as governor)
a proclamation making April 16, 2008 "Healthcare Decision Day" in
Alaska which was about the state of Alaska (you know, the government)
promoting advance directives. This is a woman who
No, she didn't find anything in the bill that was true. What she did
was what the Christians call "prooftexting." She starts with a
premise, and then searches for any phrase that validates that
premise. Doesn't matter that the supposed text on end-of-life
planning was co-sponsored by Republican Senator Johnny Isakson.
Doesn't matter that he stated that he said it was "nuts" to make the
claims Palin did.
Gosh, who has a better handle on what the end-of-life planning text in
the bill was for-- Palin who apparently has a reading comprehension
problem or one of the actual writers of the text?
> So, someone else was mayor when NYC got cleaned up? Someone else
> prosecuted the mafia? Someone else decided it wasn't "mean" to throw
> the "squeege men" off the streets in NY? Why not just admit the guy
> cleaned up NYC and the crime reduction there alone let Bill Clinton
> claim a reduction in crime nationwide?
It's unfortunate the the people who do the actual work and sometimes
risk their lives-- cops, detectives, prosecutors, social scientists,
etc.-- don't get the credit for the work they do, while the politician
does.
> I don't like his stance on guns, gays, or abortion. But he is an
> effective leader, more than we can say for what we have in the White
> Hose now. McCain is also a RINO, but not a good leader.
It really is fascinating how you can compartmentalize your views. If
a Democrat espouses pro-choice policies, you would say he supporting
the murder of babies. If a Republican espouses pro-choice policies,
then your question is if he's a good leader. If a Democrat espouses
equal civil rights for gays, he's trying to trample on traditional
values. If a Republican does the same thing, then it's okay if he's
an effective administrator.
It's amazing how often this comes up in this newsgroup. Your values
seem to be driven not by reasoned thought, but by if the individual is
a Democrat or Republican.
AZDuffman
> > So Paterson seems to hate and not tolerate white people by his
> > statement that white people will "not tolerate too many (minority)
> > success stories."
>
> Nope. Sorry. You haven't shown *hate* or *intolerance*. At best
> you've shown what I already stated: Paterson suffers from some
> combination of a persecution complex, paranoia, an unwillingness to
> accept legitimate disagreement, and political savvy. But none of that
> rises *hate* or *intolerance." You can make your case by pointing to
> specific actions (for example, policy or position appointments) where
> he discriminated against the poor downtrodden whitefolk. Oh yeah, you
> can't because he hasn't.
It sounded like a hateful statement to me. Since in this nation we
tar and feather people for telling a guy "if he had been elected maybe
things would have turned out different" (or whatever the exact
statement was) at his 100th birthday party, then I'm going to call a
racist startement against white folks a racist statement against white
folks. When Jessee Jackson, Al Sharpton, and "black leaders" line
them stop calling any slight "racist" then we can move on.
> I'm not sure exactly how you judge "far more true" when both
> Limbaugh's and Paterson's statements address abstracted people. In
> the case of Limbaugh it was "the media" (although he doesn't have the
> balls to call anyone out by name) and in Paterson's case, it was
> genericized "some people" (that he also doesn't cite). Both men used
> weasel words. Both men are making arguments against straw men.
> Neither statement from either man is racist. They're just stupid.
No, not against "straw men" but general statements, or what they felt
were general statements. Limbaugh was talking on an ESPN pregame
show, not writing a term-paper. So he said as a football fan he has
seen the media in general being desirous of black quarterbacks to
succeed. Which is a true statement. No sane person expects an
announcer to say, "This network announcer makes more positive comments
about black QBs than white ones by a proportional basis by a factor oc
'x'." I don't expect Paterson to cite who he feels is against him
because of race, ether. But I do feel if whites are going to be held
to a standard of what is a racist comment, blacks should as well.
> Gosh, I thought I was direct. I wasn't aware that I was holding
> anything back. I think she is incompetent and not suited for any
> political office. She demonstrated that in the run-up to the last
> election, when every damn thing out of her mouth was either
> incomprehensible gibberish or boilerplate Conservative rhetoric. And
> quitting her old job and becoming a full-time blogger doesn't seem
> like a great career move given that blogging requires some ability to
> string more than two words together into something comprehensible.
> What's more sad is the state of Conservatism in America, when *she* is
> the best they can do.
I could make the same comments about Obama. Go to Youtube and search
"Obama off teleprompter" or "Obama gaffes" or the like. Off the
teleprompter the guy is a train wreck. And he was never in an
executive position supervising mroe than a few hundred people before
running. And he essentially quit the Senate, never showing up. With
Obama, it is starting to show up in his approval numbers which are now
falling like a rock.
> Gosh, who has a better handle on what the end-of-life planning text in
> the bill was for-- Palin who apparently has a reading comprehension
> problem or one of the actual writers of the text?
Palin at least read the bill, more than we can say for most in
Congress.
> > So, someone else was mayor when NYC got cleaned up? Someone else
> > prosecuted the mafia? Someone else decided it wasn't "mean" to throw
> > the "squeege men" off the streets in NY? Why not just admit the guy
> > cleaned up NYC and the crime reduction there alone let Bill Clinton
> > claim a reduction in crime nationwide?
>
> It's unfortunate the the people who do the actual work and sometimes
> risk their lives-- cops, detectives, prosecutors, social scientists,
> etc.-- don't get the credit for the work they do, while the politician
> does.
Welcome to earth--the leader gets the credit. Who got credit in WWII,
General Patton or the average grunts in his command? They served
well, often gave their lives, but Patton used them in ways that got
results where others could not. Same with Rudy. He took the same
police, etc as Dinkins had but he got results.
> > I don't like his stance on guns, gays, or abortion. But he is an
> > effective leader, more than we can say for what we have in the White
> > Hose now. McCain is also a RINO, but not a good leader.
>
> It really is fascinating how you can compartmentalize your views. If
> a Democrat espouses pro-choice policies, you would say he supporting
> the murder of babies. If a Republican espouses pro-choice policies,
> then your question is if he's a good leader. If a Democrat espouses
> equal civil rights for gays, he's trying to trample on traditional
> values. If a Republican does the same thing, then it's okay if he's
> an effective administrator.
It's like this, I kined nobody really in 2008, so if we get a guy
whose views I don't like I at least want him to run things
efficiently. Right now we have a guy whose views I cannot stand and
he is making a mess of whatever he touches. I'd be less unhappy if he
was doing something effectively. Similar to if I was offered a choice
for dinner of stuffed cabbage, ham, or liver. I dislike ham the
least, but would prefer a good steak.
BTW: gays have the same civil rights as anyone else. If you mean
"marrige" you have that right, just marry someone of the oppisite sex.