Ru-DY, Ru-DY
AZDuffman
against him because "he is black and blind."
If he was gay the dems would be afraid to run against him even if his
popularity fell to 1%!
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/04/06/2009-04-06_gov_paterson_gets_message_from_top_democ.html
Joe
news:20220437-fc7b-4ad6...@l1g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Just another snide, racial, and biased remark from an endangered species
Rebublicant. Your mentality, and the messages you send are why Republicants
are being shown the door at every level of government across the country.
Please keep it up...it's fun to watch you grovel.
--
Joe
AZDuffman
> "AZDuffman" <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:20220437-fc7b-4ad6...@l1g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > This is halarious. An unpopular govenor, but no Democrat can run
> > against him because "he is black and blind."
>
> > If he was gay the dems would be afraid to run against him even if his
> > popularity fell to 1%!
>
>
> Just another snide, racial, and biased remark from an endangered species
> Rebublicant. Your mentality, and the messages you send are why Republicants
> are being shown the door at every level of government across the country.
> Please keep it up...it's fun to watch you grovel.
>
> --
> Joe
What I see as funny is that after a POTUS was elected largely based on
skin color that the Dems still protect an incumbent based on the same
thing. Read the article--it says right there that a white dem
basically can't make a primary challenge.
So, dems, keep that up. It just means a weaker field for the GOP to
regain power. Obama is already on a track to be more polorizing than W
ever was.
John Passaniti
> What I see as funny is that after a POTUS was elected largely based on
> skin color that the Dems still protect an incumbent based on the same
Yes, tell yourself that. As long as you can believe that the reason
Obama won the election was because of skin color, then it absolves you
of having to admit the massive fuck-ups the Republicans made that made
them loose the election. Here's two: John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Here's a thought experiment: Let's say the Republicans ran a black man
(or woman) in the last election and they won the primary. Would you
also claim that the President was elected largely based on skin color?
As far as Rudy, I'm all for him. I think we need more cross-dressers in
government. They're fun, and so in touch with their feminine side.
AZDuffman
Oh, I freely admit to anyone McCain ran a crappy campaign. He didn't
go after Obama at all. Palin was the only smart thing he did.
McCain spent 7 years sticking his finger in the eyes of the party then
wanted theri support after the democrats and indies picked him in open
primaries (which should be banned.)
However, you cannot honestly tell me that Obama didn't get pass after
pass because the media and popular culture didn't want to appear
racist for "going after the black guy." Comedians wouldn't even joke
about him. He had less experience and preperation than Palin yet who
did they question harder? Carried the black vote by even larger
margins than they usually vote democrat. And don't even tell me there
were not more than a few "white guilt" types that thought it would be
"cool" to vote for the black.
If he wasn't black he would have gotten similar coverage and vote-
getting in the primary as Biden. And no intelligent person can doubt
that.
John Passaniti
> Oh, I freely admit to anyone McCain ran a crappy campaign. He didn't
> go after Obama at all. Palin was the only smart thing he did.
Yep, and the results in that stunning choice speak louder than words!
The choice of Palin was intended to do two things:
First, they wanted a candidate with a uterus to capture disaffected
Hillary PUMA voters. Those voters didn't care that Hillary and Sarah
were on most issues 180 degrees out of phase. What they wanted was a
woman and McCain delivered her. Unfortunately that ploy didn't work.
Every analysis I've seen says the number of people who would vote for
*any* woman were negligible-- just statistical noise.
Second, they wanted a candidate who would appeal to the red-meat
Conservative base. And that she did with her vapid recitation of the
standard buzzphrases that makes Conservatives jizz their pants whenever
they hear them. And why did they need to appeal to that base? Because
McCain needed to be propped up.
And that's why your party got spanked. Polls vary, but not by much: An
unsurprising 89% of Republicans voted for McCain/Palin and 89% of
Democrats voted for Obama/Biden. Let's ignore for the moment that there
are more Democrats than Republicans (by 7%), in large part driven by
eight years of Bush fuck-ups. Let's instead only look at percentages
within each population. When you do that, voters who identify as
Democrat or Republican effectively cancel each other out.
So who really decided the election? People like me-- the Independents
who voted for Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin by 52% to 44%. Indeed, if
you look at the total election results, it was 52.9% to 45.6% which is
damn close to the break of Independent voters.
Running Palin was a stupid move for the Republican party because she
needed to appeal not just to people like you, but to the Independents.
> However, you cannot honestly tell me that Obama didn't get pass after
> pass because the media and popular culture didn't want to appear
> racist for "going after the black guy." Comedians wouldn't even joke
> about him. He had less experience and preperation than Palin yet who
> did they question harder? Carried the black vote by even larger
> margins than they usually vote democrat. And don't even tell me there
> were not more than a few "white guilt" types that thought it would be
> "cool" to vote for the black.
This is why I love our exchanges. I ask questions that poke holes in
your fantasy world, you obviously realize how foolish your statements
were, and then you try to change the subject.
So I'll ask again, but this time adding to my question: Suppose the
Republicans had run a black candidate, and that he or she won. You
believe that Obama won largely on skin color, that you were disappointed
that comedians didn't go for racial humor, and that supposed "white
guilt" types (another fantasy you concocted) voted for the "cool"
candidate. So if it was a Republican, would be offering the same lament?
As far as experience, the "experience" Palin had was in running a state
with fewer people in it than Monroe County. Last I checked, no
candidate had experience as President.
As far as blacks voting for Obama, yep, they account for 13% of the
total vote and voted 95% for Obama. But in recent prior elections, they
voted on average 80% for Democrats. You of course see this as blacks
voting for their own, but that's because you refuse to believe that a
flip-flop McCain combined with a Conservative wet-dream Palin wasn't
somehow attractive to blacks.
It's sad how you try to spin all this as being about race. Face it--
your party screwed up.
> If he wasn't black he would have gotten similar coverage and vote-
> getting in the primary as Biden. And no intelligent person can doubt
> that.
Wow, that's a compelling argument.
And again, I'll ask you: If the black candidate was a Republican, are
you saying that the media (which is less about being partisan and more
about being infatuated with novelty) wouldn't have focused on them?
Odd, Obama wasn't the first black man to run for President. Why then
didn't the others succeed? If Obama's success was largely about race,
then couldn't you substitute just any black man and get the same results?
I'm done for now. Your turn. Feel free to do what you normally do and
try your best to change the subject and obfuscate your original claims.
AZDuffman
> Yep, and the results in that stunning choice speak louder than words!
> The choice of Palin was intended to do two things:
>
> First, they wanted a candidate with a uterus to capture disaffected
> Hillary PUMA voters. Those voters didn't care that Hillary and Sarah
> were on most issues 180 degrees out of phase. What they wanted was a
> woman and McCain delivered her. Unfortunately that ploy didn't work.
> Every analysis I've seen says the number of people who would vote for
> *any* woman were negligible-- just statistical noise.
I said many times, McCain is an idiot. He did think women would vote
for her because of that, and it didn't work in 84 either with
Ferraro. McCain would rather be liked than successful. And he was
picked by Dems and so-called indies in open primary states, not
Republicans.
> Second, they wanted a candidate who would appeal to the red-meat
> Conservative base. And that she did with her vapid recitation of the
> standard buzzphrases that makes Conservatives jizz their pants whenever
> they hear them. And why did they need to appeal to that base? Because
> McCain needed to be propped up.
See what I have said before on who picked McCain. The guy was a
problem for the party for 7 years then wanted its suppoort. No one
else gained the traction and was able to challenge him. Rudy in
particular should sue whoever ran his campaign for malpractice.
> So who really decided the election? People like me-- the Independents
> who voted for Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin by 52% to 44%. Indeed, if
> you look at the total election results, it was 52.9% to 45.6% which is
> damn close to the break of Independent voters.
I'd hardly declare you an independent, your views are clearly on the
left. Most "independents" I have run across are liberals who are
afraid to call themselves liberal or commit to a party. Limbaugh has
it right when he says if you are not a believer in conservatism you
will drift towards liberalism since it is so much easier to be liberal
than conservative.
> So I'll ask again, but this time adding to my question: Suppose the
> Republicans had run a black candidate, and that he or she won. You
> believe that Obama won largely on skin color, that you were disappointed
> that comedians didn't go for racial humor, and that supposed "white
> guilt" types (another fantasy you concocted) voted for the "cool"
> candidate. So if it was a Republican, would be offering the same lament?
Can't say that with a generic question. If Colin Powell ran as a
Republican (he is not one, but if he did) then I would say no, buecase
he has some actual accomplishments on his resume. But is a Republican
who was in the US Senate jsut 145 days before he declared, voted
"present" on so many issues in the state senate, and had no executive
experience ran, then I'd say yes, he got there based on skin color.
> As far as experience, the "experience" Palin had was in running a state
> with fewer people in it than Monroe County. Last I checked, no
> candidate had experience as President.
Still running a state whereas Obama ran nothing but campaigns. Having
experience as a govenor is certainly transferable to experience to be
POTUS. Being a Senator you just talk. Govenors actually run things.
> As far as blacks voting for Obama, yep, they account for 13% of the
> total vote and voted 95% for Obama. But in recent prior elections, they
> voted on average 80% for Democrats. You of course see this as blacks
> voting for their own, but that's because you refuse to believe that a
> flip-flop McCain combined with a Conservative wet-dream Palin wasn't
> somehow attractive to blacks.
Blacks have always votes as a group, no news there. IMHO, any GOP
candidate is wasting their time trying to appeal to them and W was
right to not show at the NAACP for so many years. But no rational
person can say that having a black at the top of the ticket did not
excite the black base to "vote for one of their own."
> > If he wasn't black he would have gotten similar coverage and vote-
> > getting in the primary as Biden. And no intelligent person can doubt
> > that.
>
> Wow, that's a compelling argument.
Well, show me anythinghe did before announcing to show he was worthy
of the extra coverage and talk about him that he got.
> Odd, Obama wasn't the first black man to run for President. Why then
> didn't the others succeed? If Obama's success was largely about race,
> then couldn't you substitute just any black man and get the same results?
No other black candidate was anything more than a novelty before
Obama.
John Passaniti
thread:
1. You believe McCain ran a "crappy campaign" and didn't go after
Obama.
2. You stated that McCain spent seven years sticking his finger in
the eyes of the party and then turned around and wanted their support.
3. You believe McCain is an idiot who cynically thought he would get
the woman vote by choosing a woman running mate.
But no matter how badly McCain fucked-up the election, you still
believe Obama was elected "largely based on skin color." Yeah, that
makes sense. You and I could sit down and talk a walk through
history, detailing every dumb move, every strategic blunder, every
missed opportunity made by McCain or Republicans in general in the
election. And there you would be, nodding your head. But in the end,
you don't want to take responsibility for your party's actions. No
matter how much admission about how badly the Republicans ran the last
election, the primary reason why the awesome brain-trust of McCain/
Palin isn't running the country now is because... of skin color.
On the notion that the only reason why McCain won the nomination was
because Democrats and independents voting in open Republican
primaries, I would like to see the statistical evidence for that. Oh,
I forgot-- you're a faith-based guy, and don't have much use for
objective reality. From Limbaugh's mouth to your ears-- that's the
only facts you need!
I guess it isn't possible that the other candidates didn't exactly
grab the hearts and minds of Americans. Let's see-- we had a squirrel-
eating rockin' preacher, a flippy/floppy Mormon with special
underwear, the physician who read too much Ayn Rand, the sleep-walking
actor who wanted to win by osmosis, and a former mayor (9/11) of New
York (9/11) with an amazing (9/11) Kreskin-like ability (9/11) to
predict ultimate (9/11) victory through (9/11) winning Florida (9/11).
Yeah, toss McCain in on top of that steaming pile, and HOW COULD THE
REPUBLICANS LOSE?!!! Oh yeah, skin color. That explain it all.
> > So who really decided the election? People like me-- the Independents
> > who voted for Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin by 52% to 44%. Indeed, if
> > you look at the total election results, it was 52.9% to 45.6% which is
> > damn close to the break of Independent voters.
>
> I'd hardly declare you an independent, your views are clearly on the
> left. Most "independents" I have run across are liberals who are
> afraid to call themselves liberal or commit to a party. Limbaugh has
> it right when he says if you are not a believer in conservatism you
> will drift towards liberalism since it is so much easier to be liberal
> than conservative.
Limbaugh? That drug-addled gas-bag? He says a lot of things and
avoids responsibility for his actions. He's on his third divorce but
talks about the sanctity of marriage. He says people who are
convicted of illegal drug crimes should be sent to jail, but gosh,
didn't seem to take his own advice (like you, he's fluid in his sense
of justice). Wow, I could go on, but you've already compartmentalized
all of Limbaugh's various excesses and found clever justifications for
them all.
Regardless, I hate to inject a reality into your fantasy land, but we
who choose not to join a party do so for a variety of reasons. In my
case, I refuse to join the Republicans until they rid themselves of
the infection of the Religious Right, and I refuse to join the
Democrats until they give more than lip-service to gay issues. I also
have a problem with the Democrats because they are a disorganized
mess.
I class myself as a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I know
that must make your head spin, because in the litmus test you
apparently apply, if you aren't 100% down with the most extreme-
Conservative rhetoric, you're equivalent to Marx.
Paul Tomblin
>talks about the sanctity of marriage. He says people who are
>convicted of illegal drug crimes should be sent to jail, but gosh,
>didn't seem to take his own advice (like you, he's fluid in his sense
No, you don't understand. He says poor black people who use drugs should
go to jail. Rich white guys get a free pass. Oh, and hispanic
housekeepers who supply the rich white guys should probably go to jail
too.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
I call these twits pseudo-literate. That is, they can read but won't.
-- Joe Zeff