The Working Families Party is taking credit for sweeping the New York Senate to the Democrats and evident by Senator Aubertine's close association with the WFP support in his career and campaigns.
She made the following comment in speaking about a possible chairmanship for one of the Gang of Three.
She accused Senator Carl Kruger of "palling around with Republican terrorists."
How is that comment?
It is extremely distasteful and demonstrates just how people like her view differing opinions and leaves no doubt they are close minded to opposing view points in governing.
Sad!
15 comments:
When I hear people like this talk, I wonder how they came to believe what they believe. Where did this person grow up? What kind of education did they and their parents have? If they didn't have such influence, it would be easy to dismiss them as the fools they are. But people like this are driving forces in NYS politics.
And we wonder how we got to this point.
"And we wonder how we got to this point."
There should not be an ounce of 'wonder'. Just listen to the ALL-DAY-HATEFEST that is Right wing radio, and you can easily see why liberals can get damn fired-up. Not an hour goes by in a day, that one of these RW wackos is taking a distasteful swing at this Country's liberal leaders.
During the fall elections, I heard DAILY references to O'Bama being or having Nazi, Fascist, Communist, or Socialist sympathizers. Or worse, much worse.
What goes around, comes around. And there is a lot coming around.
We could argue all day which came first and we can argue who is worse but bottom line is that "Right Wing Radio" is just that. It is entertainment. These Radio enthusiast are not elected by the people on the right because we understand the difference between entertainment and leaders of our party and or country.
Chnage the station if you don't like it.
Correct on the "entertainer" comment. Those on "right wing radio" are no more relvant than Clooney, Whoopi, Streisnad, Baldwin or Oprah.
I got it. When your argument doesn't add up, change the subject. The point was who was over the line on the rhetoric. Its these fools, not Limbaugh. At least that's what I thought we were talking about.
As far as who came first. That implies that both use the same terminology. They don't. Moot point.
ms. lewis' comments are deplorable, let there be no doubt. but i'd enjoy seeing some of our friends here apply the same standard to figures on the right. how short are your memories? we just got done with an election in which sarah palin accused barack obama of "palling around with terrorists" -- comments that were widely covered at the time, yet i recall no objections from piv or his/her commenters. saxby chambliss, republican senator from georgia, famously won election six years ago while running an ad that morphed his opponent's head into osama bin laden. chambliss is currently engaged in a run-off election to hold on to his seat; if you really think that kind of conduct is "extremely distasteful", then you can put your money where your mouth is and donate to his opponent jim martin here.
Well thrush, Obama did pal around with terrorists. That's different than saying Republicans are terrorists. See the difference, bro? If Chambliss did that, then he's full of crap, and that example is right on. I didn't see that, so knowing your slant, I'm inclined not to believe it. But I'll keep an open mind on that one.
You have to understand that saying "the other side does it too" is not a failsafe defense. It works with people who don't question things, but you have to resist that kneejerk response. At least I suggest that you do.
See ya around.
dear anon,
obama most certainly has not "palled around with terrorists". if you declined to click the link i provided earlier, then you probably didn't see this, so let me try my hand at a summary. first, there's only one terrorist (not terrorists) in question, bill ayers. ayers unquestionably committed acts of terrorism in the 60's and 70's -- at a time before obama hit puberty! ayers subsequently reformed his life and became active in his hyde park, chicago, community. and in doing so, he became acquainted with barack obama, but in hardly more than a perfunctory way -- nothing even remotely approaching "palling around". obama has roundly denounced ayers' past terrorist acts. what palin said is a lie. here's the wikipedia article for those who'd like to read more about it.
as for chambliss, unfortunately i can't seem to find the ad in question on the internet (it aired well before youtube came into existence). there even seems to be a contingent on the internet that denies it exists, but i saw it with my own eyes a couple years ago or so. so if you don't want to believe it exists, that's your right.
finally, i think you missed the point of my comment. i did, and still do, condemn lewis's remark, and wouldn't dream of defending her. but i also wanted to call out the hypocrisy commonly found on this blog: there's one standard applied to democrats/liberals, and quite another applied to republicans/conservatives.
Oh stop it, Hermit. It pains me so to hear a liberal cry about being treated unfairly. In this age of almost complete monopoly of "progressive" bs. Our schools, newspapers, network entertainment and news, our movie industry, music, magazine writers, any mass media, the whole banana, doesn't lean left, it falls all over itself left. And here's little Hermit, crying about unfair treatment. Yes, talk radio stands alone in many ways, but are you so insecure in your "argument" that you can't stand any opposition?
I am so sorry that you are treated differently, and are as you say, held to a different standard. It must be very tough being you.
Courage my dear little man.
dear anon 6:25,
sorry but what on earth are you talking about? where do you get the idea that i think i've been mistreated, that i take any of this personally? let me assure you that i do not. and what is this nonsense about "insecurity" or "not standing any opposition"? huh? i think it's quite plain that i've been happy to make my arguments and happy to defend them.
my original point, again, was simply to point out the continued bias and hypocrisy of this blog. if piv wants to play the game of principled outrage, then i'd suggest those principles be applied equally to figures on the right as to those on the left.
and what makes you think i'm a man?
READ slowly. You'll catch on.
Hermit is usually a guy's name, unless you're describing a lifestyle.
You're the one who whined about different standards. I'm only urging you to stop whining.
Courage, my dear little woman.
Happy Thanksgiving to You.
dear anon 11:40,
first, here's wishing you a great thanksgiving yourself.
second, sigh.
third, i'd urge you to take some of your own advice and read what i actually wrote. i plainly said nothing about myself being treated unfairly or differently -- yet, bewildering, that's precisely what you accused me of. i guess you have no objections to the rampant bias on this blog?
and finally, isn't it a bit rich for someone who is so "pained" by a couple blog comments to give advice about whining?
Rich? And a sigh? Its hard to refute that thought,whatever that thought might include.
Whining is just such an unproductive pastime. Continue if you want. Contrary to your whimpering, no one is holding you to any standards whatsoever. That's what makes our country so great.
anon,
first, i'm sorry my name has confused you.
second, i don't know what to say but duh. of course no one is holding me to "any standards whatsoever" -- and i never wrote a single thing to intimate otherwise. do you honestly consider it "whining" to point that out?
In the name of CHANGE, I'd like to see this lady be our next Senator.
But then again that really wouldn't be a change, it would be more of the same.
Post a Comment