« First « Previous Comments 26 - 65 of 79 Next » Last » Search these comments
Racism claims that arise during elections are purely made up fiction just to get poor low information voters out to the polls. Otherwise they won't go out to vote.
It's usual manipulation for personal gain by politicians. Nothing new, most people buy into the scam every election.
Whatever your reasoning, one thing it ain't is a lie.
Wow, the right wing extremists or Jim Crow wanna-bes think that it's funny or that a redneck posed as a black(which is the real funny part considering the hate for blacks by rednecks) to highlight the fact that blacks would prefer to vote for blacks over whites.
As if Obama's skin color didn't have anything to do with the handful of votes that he recieved for prez TWICE, in the south.
AND the rednecks don't know WHY. Gee, what could be the reason?
Whatever your reasoning, one thing it ain't is a lie.
Never said or implied that it was, and try and contain your glee there, Jim Crow. We get it, you don't like blacks. Should everybody be glad that you aren't advocating lynching someone?
If you weren't so f-n dense, you would have pulled the right wing extremist dumb routine out when I mentioned that blacks don't like to vote for whites, but then you would have to acknowledge the truth of THAT.
If that's what you get from my post, then you are actually the dipshit that you appear to be.
We get it, you don't like blacks.
All politicians pretend to be something they are not-to get elected. What's the big deal-dude is a good politiican.
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...
All politicians pretend to be something they are not-to get elected. What's the big deal-dude is a good politiican.
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
If that's what you get from my post, then you are actually the dipshit that
you appear to be.
LOL, and just who is the dipshit? You can't see the obvious reason WHY blacks don't trust and/or vote for whites, and especially when somebody has your attittude or disdain for a group of people.
Notice that it was some f-n redneck that had to lie and mislead with his campaign to pull off some stupid stunt, that somehow validates/vindicates ? to you, and you support the stupidity.
Dipshit? Coming from you, that's a complement, and am I ever glad that we're opposites.
And to think, it was just said in another thread how fucking stupid Right wingers are.
At least the Republican voter knows who they are voting for.
I wonder exactly just how many Obama voters, didn't even know he was black in 2008?
Your numerous posts taught me how to identify and call out a douchebag.
Thanks for the lesson!
Homeboy says
That's not a lie douchebag.
Ooh, you called me a name. Guess you win. :rolleyes:
Nothing you've said below changes the fact that the candidate did not lie.
Until you acknowledge that you qualify as a dipshit.
upisdown says
If that's what you get from my post, then you are actually the dipshit that
you appear to be.
LOL, and just who is the dipshit? You can't see the obvious reason WHY blacks don't trust and/or vote for whites, and especially when somebody has your attittude or disdain for a group of people.
Notice that it was some f-n redneck that had to lie and mislead with his campaign to pull off some stupid stunt, that somehow validates/vindicates ? to you, and you support the stupidity.
Dipshit? Coming from you, that's a complement, and am I ever glad that we're opposites.
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?
Politics is a bloodsport at its core. At least, it has always been this way in america and for most of old europe's history. Furthermore, this atricle supports my theory that the reps are likely to try to fracture minority vote in future national elections, such as nominating minorities like jindal, cruz, playa cain etc.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
That's not a lie douchebag.
Homeboy saysHe 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.
Yes, I did win the argument, and you ran away from defeat pissing your panties, your face a crimson red with shame....
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.
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.
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.
That's not a lie douchebag.
Homeboy saysHe 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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It was not a false statement. THat is required in your definitions below.
Therefore it was not a lie.
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.
Agreed.
Glad I did not make any statements supporting what you've written below.
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.
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"?
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?
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.
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?
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.
No one likes debating a racist.
Ah yes, more name-calling in lieu of argument. Keep digging that hole.
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.
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"
Not name calling.
Just a labeling of those who use the "N" word frivolously.
No one likes debating a racist.
Ah yes, more name-calling in lieu of argument. Keep digging that hole.
« First « Previous Comments 26 - 65 of 79 Next » Last » Search these comments
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