I'm so surprised to find you feel that way Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. However, former mayor Ed Koch doesn't agree with you and has crossed party lines to endorse Turner: "David Weprin is making phone calls trying to scare seniors. They're nonsense. Weprin should be ashamed of himself . . . Bob Turner is running for Congress to protect your Medicare and Social Security. "If anyone tries to scare you with lies about Bob Turner, tell 'em Ed Koch told them to knock it off! Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/...il_strom_4ptdwmhilxMmZpA0PfhN3N#ixzz1VdHJpUhJ
Nor am I suprised that you are pushing this garbage yet again. Nor am I suprised that you are again using spurious right wing references. The facts are that Republicans are trying to kill Medicare, replacing it with a voucher program and shifting cost from the federal government to individuals. The whole reason the Medicare program was created is because seniors could not afford healthcare. Now decades later, they are not in any better shape to afford healthcare given healthcare costs have been rising at twice the growth in income. I tell you what Mad, when the health industry is deregulated and I can go set up shop as a physician or act as my own physician then will I support getting rid of these government entitlements. But I expect you and the healthcare industry, as it has in the past, not like that solution. You guys like the notion of restricting the makets to keep prices high. But not so keen on doing things that might introduce competition into your industry and reduce your bottom lines. ps Koch has a long habit of endorsing Republicans. This is not the first Republican he has endorsed, nor will it likely be the last. Koch has probably supported more Republcians than Democrats over the years. So Koch endorsement of a Republican is hardly news. It is a tool partisans such as yourself use to try to rally the uninformed troops - nothing more, nothing less.
Advocating a bigot is disgusting, but what else should we expect? Well, we shouldn't be surprised that you are rushing to the advocacy of a bigot like Bob Turner. That sort of vicious crap is right up his alley. Republican businessman Bob Turner released a TV ad Thursday, juxtaposing video of the burning World Trade Center with images of President Barack Obama. Turner blasted his opponent, Democrat David Weprin, for siding with the president on the issue. "It's been ten short years. Everyone remembers," the ad says, with dreary music playing over images of smoke billowing from the World Trade Center. "Some, though, want to commemorate the tragedy by building a mosque on Ground Zero." The ad then says the president "thinks it's a good idea," as a photo of a smiling Obama appears next to a photo of a mosque, as well as video of the Twin Towers on 9/11. "And so does Congressional candidate David Weprin," the ad says. (Killough) Bob Turner is just another bigot. Should we be surprised that you support him? Of course not. He's an anti-Islamic bigot. Why wouldn't you support him? He's exactly your kind of sleazy, disgusting, cheap, hatemongering, worthless sack low character you've made a point of advocating over the years. ____________________ Notes: Killough, Ashley. "'Ground Zero mosque' issue re-emerges in NY special election". Political Ticker. August 12, 2011. PoliticalTicker.Blogs.CNN.com. August 21, 2011. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...sque-issue-re-emerges-in-ny-special-election/
I don't know jack about Bob Turner other than what I read in the article I linked to. However, opposing a ground zero mosque hardly qualifies one for the Klu Klux Klan or whatever its anti-Muslim equivalent would be.
Ignorance? That's your excuse? Well, then maybe you should learn. How long do you think ignorance will excuse you? Well, a demonstrated bigot such as yourself would be expected to say something like that. I recognize that in your world the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not apply to Muslims. Oh, shit, that's right. I'm sorry. I called you a bigot, didn't I? And that's an unsupported accusation, right? Of course, if I support that accusation, you'll just call it a personal attack and delete it, like you did last time.
Well, since I'm not in the position to vote for the guy and my only interest in the story was divining some idea of the mood of US voters, I'm not going to waste any time researching the guy's history. Fuck, if he is as bad as you say, that's just more evidence of the trouble Democrats are in. I mean, if even Democrats will support a sleazy, disgusting, cheap, hatemongering, worthless sack low character bigot over a virtuous Democrat, well, we may be looking at another Republican landslide next November. More name calling. How do you expect people to take you seriously when you pepper your posts with insults like that? That is a complete non sequitur. Never have I suggested that it should be illegal to build a mosque anywhere, just that it would be in bad taste to do so at ground zero. . Oh, go ahead and insult me all you want. The shock value has worn off. You should really consider the "inflationary" effects your constant use of vitriolic rhetoric has. You say, for instance, that Mr Turner is a "sleazy, disgusting, cheap, hatemongering, worthless sack low character bigot" and it doesn't even faze me. It's like anyone else saying " There's something about that guy that I don't like". I mean, is there any distance between Mr Turner and David Duke? Do you have any stronger invective left to provide the reader some distinction between the two?
You know why I think that would be more of a worry if it wasn't an obviously true statement. No, seriously. You routinely make excuses for all sorts of bigots because it fits with your political cause to do so. You like to think of yourself as some sort of smart, decent fellow; and who knows, you probably are. Except you are addicted in political consideration to the cosmic scoreboard. The letters after people's names are just that much more important to you than what they say and do. You've performed some amazing rhetorical acrobatics over the years because of this, and at some point, people do start to take you seriously in that context. And once that happens, the patterns are pretty consistent. (chortle) You know, it's probably slightly overstated, sure, but the idea that you would call it "a complete non sequitur"? You insulted Joe in order to advocate a fearmongering bigot who would deny First Amendment rights to Muslims. A guy who made it a prominent issue in his campaign. It's not a non sequitur. Then it's a good thing it's not at ground zero. You don't want to be considered a bigot, stop using bigoted language. And don't hide behind that whole, "Never have I suggested ...." You're a willing shill running to this site with the latest GOP talking points, whether it's "Obama is Carter" or "Ground Zero Mosque", and yet you would pretend you shouldn't be held to account for your words? You support people and movements in order to insult the other side in your cosmic war between good and evil, and when it turns out that's a bad move, ignorance is your excuse. Stop supporting obvious bigots' campaigns for public office. It's not an insult if it's true. Or, perhaps, there is a point to be made here: If you find accurate descriptions of your behavior insulting, perhaps you should modify your behavior. The alternative is that we should redefine words in order to suit your needs, which is a bit impractical if you actually take a second to think about it. Accurate. There's the key word. Let's see, you supported the criminals who campaigned against a community organization because it represented too many nonwhites. You argued that racists aren't really racists, but, rather, are so incensed at Barack Obama for something they only imagine that they would throw racist rhetoric at him. You participated in the demonization of Hispanics, and when called out on it deleted as a personal attack an explanation of why that kind of behavior is considered racist. You advocate bigoted candidates, policies, and rhetoric. So if you find the idea that you are a bigot insulting, don't act like one. If you find the idea that you are an ignorant bigot insulting, don't claim ignorance as your excuse for encouraging bigotry. Oh, I'm quite certain there is. Do you recall that, during the 2008 election, at one point I asked you what was up with what I perceived to be your increasingly partisan rhetoric, and you reminded me that it was, after all, election season? No, really, do you remember that? Silly me, I took you at face value, including the implication that you would behave more sanely after the election. I mean, hey, I get it. You were right; it was election season. But that latter implication, that you would return to something a bit more sane, was clearly the incorrect one for me to derive from your words. Instead of coming back down to reality, you seem to have stayed out in wingnut orbit. These days, whenever you get all self-righteous, it reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons: Vicki: ... I once destroyed Buddy Ebson's credit rating. Lisa: (shocked) Why? Vicki: (darkly) He knows why. So can the self-righteous act, sir. You know damn well why. Either that, or ignorance really is your excuse. To the other, this part is amusing: If Mr. Turner wins, we will have an opportunity to observe a phenomenon that comes up from time to time, but we haven't seen dramatically demonstrated since 2004. In an annoying and deliberately misleading robo-call today, Republican Congressional Candidate Bob Turner purposefully misled seniors about his plan to cut Social Security and Medicare. David Weprin's campaign released the following statement in response to the calls: 'In a pathetic attempt to confuse voters, Bob Turner is lying about his plan to privatize Medicare and Social Security,' said Weprin Campaign spokesperson Elizabeth Kerr. 'Bob is telling seniors he really doesn't want to cut Social Security and Medicare, but he thinks they don't read the newspaper. Brooklyn and Queens voters already rejected Turner once, and he's giving them even more reasons to send him packing once again.' (qtd. in Katz) Weprin's response is to claim that the Turner campaign and Ed Koch are deliberately misleading voters. Now, imagine for a moment that Turner wins. And then imagine that he proves Weprin correct by arriving in Congress and supporting the Social Security and Medicare slashing brigade. What we will have seen is what it takes for a Democrat to earn the respect of conservatives. The most dramatic example of this is what we saw in 2004, when Democratic Sen. Zell Miller spoke before the GOP convention and lied to the American people in order to slander Sen. John Kerry and give Vice President Dick Cheney cover. And then, when called out on his crazy speech, he challenged Chris Matthews of MSNBC to a duel. That is what it takes for a Democrat to earn respect from conservatives. That is how low they have to sink. And with Ed Koch, we'll get a chance to see, because this is apparently about Judeosupremacism. For instance, why would New York's decimated Liberal Party back a Republican? Let's think about this for a moment. Henry Stern, former NYC parks commissioner and former state LP chairman, explains that it's all about President Obama's Israel policy -- something Stern's friend, ex-Mayor Ed Koch, has really been pushing in this election .... .... Stern argues it does -- and says it's indeed all about protesting the Obama administration, not trying to get liberals to "swallow" Turner's conservative platform... .... "It's a concern with Obama and the Middle East. The Jewish community supported him with a 78% vote in 2008 and they're major contributors to the Democraitc Party -- yet his actions and statements appear to be very hostile," said Stern, who now heads NY Civic. "Jewish Democrats have, by and large, not spoken out against Obama because he's the leader of the party... No one seems to want to offend the czar." On the matter of Israel, "if a Democratic president isn't concerned about this, who is?" asked Stern, who says if Turner wins, it sends Obama "a national signal that you can't do this, that you can't ignore this part of your base." On another note, Turner, a former TV exec who's running against Weprin, a state Assemblyman who also happens to be an Orthodox Jew, has already raised some hackles with his first TV ad. With the 10th anniverary of 9/11 rapidly approaching (and falling two days before the election), the spot revives the controversy about the possible construction of a mosque/community center near Ground Zero. The ad suggests Weprin was supportive of the idea, although a review shows he said only that he supported the right of the developers to build a mosque. This is all apparently about whether or not President Obama avidly enough supports Israel's efforts to ethnically cleanse Palestine. Koch's endorsement of Turner appears to be all about whether or not an Orthodox Jew (i.e., Weprin) is bloodthirsty enough to stand up to President Obama and demand that he give greater support to Israeli ethnic cleansing. Interesting, isn't it, what it takes for a Democrat to impress conservatives? I think it's funny, too, having once, in youth, seen a picture of someone holding a Koch = Hitler sign that Koch is now endorsing a Republican as a favor to a friend who is upset because Israel isn't slaughtering Muslims fast enough, and thinks President Obama should do something to help speed up the effort. It just slays me what it takes for Democrats to win even basic appreciation from Republicans. ____________________ Notes: Katz, Celeste. "Ed Koch Bashes David Weprin In Robocall". Daily Politics. August 19, 2011. NYDailyNews.com. August 21, 2011. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/da...-koch-bashes-david-weprin-in-robocall-updated —————. "Liberal Party To Endorse Republican Bob Turner In NY-9... But What Does It Mean?" Daily Politics. August 12, 2011. NYDailyNews.com. August 21, 2011. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/da...ican-bob-turner-in-ny-9-but-what-does-it-mean
Really? Why would it be "in bad taste" to build a temple [see: community center] near (not at) ground zero? Did those who are building the community center have some role in the attacks of 9/11? Personally, I'm more worried about all the Christian nutcases taking over my country than some Islamic community center. And, based on the evidence that some people--who HAPPENED to be of the same faith (a faith, I might add, that I find repulsive in almost every way) as the builders of the mosque--did horrific things thus prohibiting all members of said faith from doing a certain thing near said tragedy, should Christians not be allowed to build temples in--say--Northern Ireland or the Levant? If we follow the logic that when the practitioners of one identity group take it upon themselves to utilize that identity to do evil things causing us to stigmatize some activity forever, thus prohibiting others of that identity group from freely (note: I'm not talking about "laws" I'm talking about "free of idiots whining about their doings and such") carrying out their lives in whatever manner they see fit, then surely none of us would be ethically/ideologically permitted to do very much at all. Has it not occurred on any level that Islam--and all its flaws--was also hijacked on 9/11 by terrorists? And, while I wait with baited breath for Muslims in general to start rallying 'round non-violence, I can't even approach blaming, holding accountable, debasing the builders of said "community center" for deeds that are patently obvious-to-any-person-with-intelligence and wholeheartedly the responsibility of some other guys. I woulda' thunk that people would be tripping over themselves to give non-violent Muslims a great opportunity to buy a run-down old building to demonstrate that, indeed, we are not blaming all Muslims--just the bad guys. Instead, you are, on some level, blaming the builders of the community center because you've clearly placed a burden on them that you would not even imagine placing on a synagogue or a church. ~String
This is getting OT again - new thread? - but I agree with MadAnt to some degree, and the above examples that string posts aren't bad examples either. Throughout Northern Ireland? Well, probably not. At the scene of a deadly sectarian bombing with overt Catholic or Protestant overtures? (And I hesitate to speculate on exactly how disparate such overtures could be, the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism being a man in a funny hat.) Well, yes, I think so. This may seem a wide net to throw over people of the same faith, unassociated with the crime, but to the victims it might well seem like a sort of 'triumph construction', as was not uncommon for Christians and Muslims to do to the non-Christians and non-Muslims they conquered, and it would be hard not to see that angle. Personally, I consider that improper also; little can be done now, due to the antiquity of the cases. Should you be worried about Christian nutcases taking over? Sure. It could happen. Should a Christian dedication go up nearby the site of the Oklahoma bombing? Well, no, probably not, and particularly if the dedication is of dubious backing. This point will, I'm sure, be missed by some in the rush to pass judgement, but it would bear friendly discussion.
It doesn't "seem" anything. It literally IS throwing with a wide net, and harming people obviously unassociated with the actions of 9/11. In fact, the ONLY connection they have is that they happen to worship the same god. That's it. Nothing more. And, given that they worship the same god, how far away is far enough? 500'? 1000'? A mile? Or do we secretly just hope that all Muslims, everywhere, would just go away? This somehow creates the notion that the "victims" weren't also Muslim. It also has the secondary effect that the victims, regardless of faith, somehow have some metaphysical ownership over the place with such a degree of moral and cultural power over it as to allow them to deny other people a peaceful right to operate their property in any peaceful manner they see fit. No such power--legal, ideological, ethical, spiritual, cultural or otherwise--exists except in the minds of people who've taken it upon themselves to act like idiots. HORRAY! A bunch of Muslims bombed us on 9/11. . . so lets act like simpering children about every OTHER Muslim within American borders. That's a splendid idea! Indeed, but since there is no "dubious backing" in this case, one need not worry so much. ~String
Think we're getting back on the same arguments as before; in the end, it appears to come down a matter of opinion.
