« prev   random   next »

4
3

White candidate pretends to be black to win election

By zzyzzx follow zzyzzx   2013 Nov 11, 3:07am 21,986 views   80 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


http://news.yahoo.com/white-guy-pretends-to-be-black-to-win-election-212328015.html

Dave Wilson is white. But to win a seat on the Houston Community College Board of Trustees in a district that is predominantly composed of African-American voters, Wilson, a conservative Republican, led voters to believe he was black.

According to CBS affiliate KHOU-TV, Wilson's direct mail campaign included a flier with smiling black faces he says he found on the Internet. "Please vote for our friend and neighbor Dave Wilson," the accompanying text read.

In another flier, the text said he had been endorsed by Ron Wilson, a popular black former state representative. But the Ron Wilson who endorsed him was Dave's cousin Ron, not the ex-lawmaker.

"He's a nice cousin," Wilson told the network, chuckling. "We played baseball in high school together."

Nevermind his cousin lives in Bloomfield, Iowa, about 940 miles from Houston.

On Tuesday, Wilson defeated Bruce Austin, the 24-year incumbent, by a margin of just 26 votes.

Austin, who is African-American, called Wilson's tactics "disgusting."

"I don't think it's good for both democracy and the whole concept of fair play," he said.

"He never put out to voters that he was white," Austin said in a statement to the Houston Chronicle. "This is one of the few times a white guy has pretended to be a black guy and fooled black people."

But Wilson, who won a six-year term on the nine-member board, is unapologetic.

"Every time a politician talks, he's out there deceiving voters," Wilson said.

Austin said he would seek a recount, but Bob Stein, a political scientist at Rice University, believes the vote will stand.

"I suspect it's more than just race," Stein said. "The Houston Community College was under some criticism for bad performance. And others on the board also had very serious challenges."

#politics

« First    « Previous    Comments 41 - 80 of 80    Last »

41   dublin hillz   ignore (0)   2013 Nov 13, 3:14am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says

lostand confused says



All politicians pretend to be something they are not-to get elected. What's the big deal-dude is a good politiican.


Democrats feel entitled to ownership of the black vote. It really ruffles their feathers when someone steals a page out of their book

I would argue that the reps feel entitled to rule america in all branches of government. Not only that, but they have been hell bent on ideological purge of their own party. Imagine what would they do to the "Rinos" if they lived in a stalinist world!

42   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2013 Nov 13, 4:07am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

Your numerous posts taught me how to identify and call out a douchebag.

Thanks for the lesson!

Uh, nice try, but I do not call people names in lieu of argument. You are an uber right wing troll who has never had an original thought in his life. You certainly never learned anything from me.

43   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2013 Nov 13, 4:11am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

What's funny is the sight of the racist liberal, handcuffed by the 11th clintonian commandment: "Thou must be PC at all times" , unable to determine what a 'lie' is, and in a hissyfit project their racism across the pixels of your monitor...

The problem here is that you seem to think you "won" the argument by clinging to your ridiculous assertion that using the endorsement of your cousin, who happens to have the same name as a well known politician, is not "technically" a lie, and therefore is o.k.

You didn't win the argument. I simply lost interest in debating with anyone who would say something so patently ridiculous.

44   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 13, 4:23am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Your right. You just call people names because you are a liberal racist.

Homeboy says: "O.K., you've convinced me. I sure hate those god damn niggers. They are so stupid and lazy"
http://patrick.net/?p=1231884&c=1023832#comment-1023832

Homeboy says

SoftShell says

Your numerous posts taught me how to identify and call out a douchebag.


Thanks for the lesson!

Uh, nice try, but I do not call people names in lieu of argument.

45   leo707   ignore (1)   2013 Nov 13, 4:24am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

epitaph says

It can't be proven that the votes for him were only made because people thought he was black. Why it's this bring treated like it's a fact?

That was my first thought as well. His lie of omission about a prestigious endorsement could have been what pushed him over the top.

46   leo707   ignore (1)   2013 Nov 13, 4:26am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

That's not a lie douchebag.

Homeboy says

He used the name of a well know politician as an endorsement when that politician did not endorse him.

It is called a lie of omission, and yes it is still a lie.

47   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 13, 4:27am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Yes, I did win the argument, and you ran away from defeat pissing your panties, your face a crimson red with shame....

Homeboy says

SoftShell says

What's funny is the sight of the racist liberal, handcuffed by the 11th clintonian commandment: "Thou must be PC at all times" , unable to determine what a 'lie' is, and in a hissyfit project their racism across the pixels of your monitor...

The problem here is that you seem to think you "won" the argument by clinging to your ridiculous assertion that using the endorsement of your cousin, who happens to have the same name as a well known politician, is not "technically" a lie, and therefore is o.k.

You didn't win the argument. I simply lost interest in debating with anyone who would say something so patently ridiculous.

48   HydroCabron   ignore (1)   2013 Nov 13, 4:27am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I don't understand the shock value here.

We have had two houses of Congress and dozens of presidents pretending to be Christian for generations to get elected.

49   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 13, 4:31am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

It is not the classical definition of a "lie".

However, I grant you it is a "lie of omission", as long as the long descriptor is used.

Having said that, what politician exists who has not told a "lie of omission"?? I think that is an impossibility. So all the hubbub over the OP is just a 'same old same old' situation, not worthy of discussion.

leo707 says

SoftShell says

That's not a lie douchebag.


Homeboy says

He used the name of a well know politician as an endorsement when that politician did not endorse him.

It is called a lie of omission, and yes it is still a lie

50   leo707   ignore (1)   2013 Nov 13, 4:33am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

Yes, I did win the argument,

The argument about the lie told concerning the endorsement? If being completely incorrect = a win, then yes you "won."

I realize that as a "conservative," your moral and ethical compass has been completely fucked up by prostrating yourself before the right-wing lies and the lying liars that tell them.

However, that does not change the fact that a lie by omission is still a lie. If you can't see that, then...well...then I am not surprised.

51   leo707   ignore (1)   2013 Nov 13, 4:37am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

It is not the classical definition of a "lie".

? WTF are you talking about? of course it is part of the "classical" definition of a "lie."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie?s=t
lie
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth.

A lie of omission is indeed made with the deliberate intent to deceive. Anyone who thinks that publishing his cousins' "endorsement" was not an intentional attempt at deception is bat-shit crazy.

52   leo707   ignore (1)   2013 Nov 13, 4:38am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

Having said that, what politician exists who has not told a "lie of omission"??

Hmmmm...my guess at that number would be zero. Well...perhaps there are some, but they never win elections so do they really count as politicians?

53   leo707   ignore (1)   2013 Nov 13, 4:41am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

So all the hubbub over the OP is just a 'same old same old' situation, not worthy of discussion.

Well...all lies are not created equal, but yeah in the grand scheme of things is this really worth national discussion? I don't know. I doubt he wins his next election.

Personally I think that fraudulently claiming an endorsement is the worse lie.

54   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2013 Nov 13, 4:53am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

Homeboy says: "O.K., you've convinced me. I sure hate those god damn niggers. They are so stupid and lazy"

It's called sarcasm, genius.

55   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2013 Nov 13, 4:58am     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

I think the Rushbots' take on this is:

A: Everybody lies, so what's the big deal?
B: He fooled a bunch of racist niggers, so who cares?

I find neither to be a valid argument, and I think if the races and political parties were reversed, there would be heaps and heaps of outrage from the right.

56   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 13, 5:00am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

It was not a false statement. THat is required in your definitions below.
Therefore it was not a lie.

leo707 says

SoftShell says

It is not the classical definition of a "lie".

? WTF are you talking about? of course it is part of the "classical" definition of a "lie."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie?s=t

lie

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth.

57   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 13, 5:01am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Agreed.
Glad I did not make any statements supporting what you've written below.

leo707 says

A lie of omission is indeed made with the deliberate intent to deceive. Anyone who thinks that publishing his cousins' "endorsement" was not an intentional attempt at deception is bat-shit crazy.

58   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2013 Nov 13, 5:03am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Since everyone ignored my question, I'll repeat it: Why is it front page news worthy of every right-wing hack on this forum screaming about it incessantly for weeks when Obama somewhat exaggerates a claim that you can keep your insurance, but when a republican lies, it's "no big deal"?

59   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 13, 5:04am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The pol did not tell a lie. Everything he said was factually correct.
He did mislead.
The bigger question is why the other pol whose name is the same as the cousin, did not step up and correct this?

leo707 says

SoftShell says

So all the hubbub over the OP is just a 'same old same old' situation, not worthy of discussion.

Well...all lies are not created equal, but yeah in the grand scheme of things is this really worth national discussion? I don't know. I doubt he wins his next election.

Personally I think that fraudulently claiming an endorsement is the worse lie.

60   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2013 Nov 13, 5:04am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

It was not a false statement. THat is required in your definitions below.

Therefore it was not a lie.

Wow, you're really gonna die on that hill, huh?

61   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 13, 5:05am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

No one likes debating a racist.

Homeboy says

Since everyone ignored my question, I'll repeat it

62   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2013 Nov 13, 5:06am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

The bigger question is why the other pol whose name is the same as the cousin, did not step up and correct this?

Maybe he didn't know. I would assume the jackass Dave Wilson didn't send a mailer to the guy his cousin was impersonating.

63   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2013 Nov 13, 5:07am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

No one likes debating a racist.

Ah yes, more name-calling in lieu of argument. Keep digging that hole.

64   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 13, 5:10am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Simply put,
What Dave Wilson said was factually true.
What Obama said, staring into your eyes, 29 times, was factually false.

The difference is apparent to everyone but the most rabid leftest.

Homeboy says

Why is it front page news worthy of every right-wing hack on this forum screaming about it incessantly for weeks when Obama somewhat exaggerates a claim that you can keep your insurance, but when a republican lies, it's "no big deal"

65   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 13, 5:11am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Not name calling.
Just a labeling of those who use the "N" word frivolously.

Homeboy says

SoftShell says

No one likes debating a racist.

Ah yes, more name-calling in lieu of argument. Keep digging that hole.

66   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 13, 5:14am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Well, this is a pretty big lie of omission.
If he did not know, it sure sounds like he is not well informed and the electorate is probably lucky this guy did not make it onto the board.

Homeboy says

SoftShell says

The bigger question is why the other pol whose name is the same as the cousin, did not step up and correct this?

Maybe he didn't know. I would assume the jackass Dave Wilson didn't send a mailer to the guy his cousin was impersonating.

67   leo707   ignore (1)   2013 Nov 13, 5:47am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

It was not a false statement. THat is required in your definitions below.

Therefore it was not a lie.

Oh, good god...

...don't worry you are not the first person I have encountered on Pnet that does not understand how to interpret a dictionary definition. Yes, it always seems to be a right-winger that does not want to face whatever morally repugnant position they have come to hold dear, and they seek to redefine it with truthiness rather than what is commonly accepted by all rational thinking English speakers.

Let me give you two basic tips:

1. A single synonym is not equal to the word in which it is used to define. So, while "falsehood" and "falsification" are used to help us understand the word "lie" they do not equal "lie", and are not "required" to be in the definition (more on that in #2).

Some even say that even while there are synonyms each word is unique in definition.

2. A semicolon has been known as "the most feared punctuation on earth", but what is important for you to know is that it is used to separate two independent clauses.

"6.54 Use of the semicolon

In regular prose, a semicolon is most commonly used between two independent clauses not joined by a conjunction to signal a closer connection between them than a period would.

She spent much of her free time immersed in the ocean; no mere water-resistant watch would do.

[A poor] writer, [SoftShell] has never bothered to master the semicolon; he insists that half a colon is no colon at all.
"
-The Chicago Manual of Style Online

As you can see from the examples in the Chicago Manual statements separated by a semicolon are -- while closely related -- independent of each other, and that each statement can stand alone and still be true.

If you are still having difficulty understanding the very basics of how a semicolon operates this should help dumb things down a bit:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon

EXERCISE:
Read the definition and each time you get to a semicolon stop! reading. Think to yourself what I just read stands alone as true.

Soooooo..., when a definition starts...

"1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive" then there is a semicolon ----> ; that means that the following statement(s) are not "required" for the first statement to be true.

Yes, Dave Wilson's intent was to deliberately deceive voters into thinking that Ron Wilson the former state representative was who was endorsing him, and not his cousin.

For whatever reason you seem to desperately want to believe that this was not a lie -- even to the point of making yourself appear foolish and ignorant to how the English language works --, but anyone who has a basic grasp of the English language understands it as a lie.

One, question...are you smarter than a fifth-grader?

68   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 13, 6:10am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Depends on the 5th grader....

There is a reason that the phrase "Lie of omission" exists. If it was equal to a "lie", there would be no need for the phrase. It is used to distinguish a specific action that is very similar to a lie, but not a lie.

In general, the main definition of ‘lie’ in any dictionary is, in essence: a false statement made knowingly and deliberately. A lie is something you say, not something you don’t say.

A "lie of omission" something you don't say that may affect how another person perceives the situation.

They are different. They have different definitions. They are different groupings of words.

Wilson is not guilty of the main definition of "lie".
Wilson is guilty of a "lie of omission", just like 99.9% of all politicians......YAWN!!

leo707 says

One, question...are you smarter than a fifth-grader?

69   MAGA   ignore (1)   2013 Nov 13, 6:12am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

It doesn't matter if he is black or white....does it?

70   Iranian_Oil_Burse   ignore (6)   2013 Nov 13, 6:24am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

jvolstad says

It doesn't matter if he is black or white....does it?

Per Homeboy, if it doesn't matter to you - you're racist.

71   leo707   ignore (1)   2013 Nov 13, 6:44am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

There is a reason that the phrase "Lie of omission" exists. If it was equal to a "lie", there would be no need for the phrase. It is used to distinguish a specific action that is very similar to a lie, but not a lie.

No, "of omission" is a descriptor identifying the type of lie. You know, like a "little white" is another type of lie descriptor.

Not all lies are "of omission", but all "lies of omission" are lies. Kind of like not all whiskey is a bourbon, but all bourbons are whiskey.

72   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 13, 7:32am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Let's be real about this.
Wilson actually told a "white lie". His opponent, Austin, had been on the board for 24 years...a typical political lifer....The board was under heavy criticism for bad performance. It was time for him to move on for the good of society, and if it took a little white lie by Wilson to achieve it, so be it. The people will benefit from new blood.

So we now agree, Wilson told a "white" lie....??

leo707 says

SoftShell says

There is a reason that the phrase "Lie of omission" exists. If it was equal to a "lie", there would be no need for the phrase. It is used to distinguish a specific action that is very similar to a lie, but not a lie.

No, "of omission" is a descriptor identifying the type of lie. You know, like a "little white" is another type of lie descriptor.

Not all lies are "of omission", but all "lies of omission" are lies. Kind of like not all whiskey is a bourbon, but all bourbons are whiskey.

73   leo707   ignore (1)   2013 Nov 13, 7:55am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

So we now agree, Wilson told a "white" lie....??

Even assuming that the ends justifies the means, that does not change the nature of the ends.

Lying about an endorsement is not equivalent as saying, "No, honey those pants don't make you look fat."

I really don't know -- or really care much -- about Mr. Wilson or his predecessor. However, if he needed to be sleazy and lie in order to win it makes me wonder if he is any better than the person he is replacing. Sure Wilson's bullshit tricks to get elected are not a bad as Gavin Newsom's or Arnold Schwarzenegger's lies and deception, but it would be enough to put Wilson on my "never vote for" list.

One would hope that Mr. Wilson's smug arrogance on the matter would be enough to ensure his political death, but when the likes of Gavin Newsom seem to be doing fine...

74   mmmarvel   ignore (0)   2013 Nov 13, 9:55am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

epitaph says

It can't be proven that the votes for him were only made because people thought he was black. Why it's this bring treated like it's a fact?

Well beyond that - lets say that IS the case. Then it would show exactly how lame and out-of-touch with reality the voters really are. Is that the case? Well, he didn't say "By the way, I'm a cracker" but he's not required to. By the same token he never said, "I'm black" either. Do I think a lot of voters thought he was black, yes. Did he make an issue out of his race, no.

75   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2013 Nov 13, 1:33pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

So in your estimate then obama is no better than bush. ( considering he lied to get aca passed )
leo707 says

However, if he needed to be sleazy and lie in order to win it makes me wonder if he is any better than the person he is replacing.

76   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2013 Nov 13, 1:58pm     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Straw Man says

Per Homeboy, if it doesn't matter to you - you're racist.

Nice strawman.

77   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2013 Nov 13, 2:09pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

SoftShell says

Simply put,

What Dave Wilson said was factually true.

What Obama said, staring into your eyes, 29 times, was factually false.

The difference is apparent to everyone but the most rabid leftest.

Bullshit. You are playing a game of semantics while ignoring the substance of what was done. If I wanted to play such a game, I could say that what Obama said was "factually true". He said, "If you like your plan, you can keep it." That is technically true. Any plan that didn't change was grandfathered in. The people who received "cancellation notices" received them because the insurance company made some change to the policy. As soon as the policy is changed, it is no longer grandfathered in. Therefore, people didn't lose their plan due to ACA - it was changed, and therefore became a different plan.

See? I can play your silly game too. You know why I don't? Because there's no point in pretending you "won" an argument when you resorted to ridiculous wordplay. A lie is a lie. If you have some self-rationalization that makes you think it's not, it's still being deceptive. which is the point. You don't care about the point because you are just an argumentative little troll.

78   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (43)   2013 Nov 13, 6:31pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I just saw Michelle Obama swallow a bus full of nuns with her vagina.

Thanks, Obamacare!

79   upisdown   ignore (0)   2013 Nov 13, 10:08pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Only in Texas.

I guess in the big picture of it all, at least nobody was drug behind a truck until death came to them, and change is incremental and slow.

Texas, please secede.

80   Iranian_Oil_Burse   ignore (6)   2013 Nov 14, 2:25am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Homeboy says

Nice strawman.

Thanks.

« First    « Previous    Comments 41 - 80 of 80    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions