patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,192,740 comments by 13,872 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President, richwicks, Robert Sproul online now
White candidate pretends to be black to win election
invite response
2013 Nov 11, 3:07am 24,102 views 79 comments
« First « Previous Comments 40 - 79 of 79 Search these comments
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!
Homeboy
2013 Nov 13, 4:07am
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.
Homeboy
2013 Nov 13, 4:11am
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.
Y
2013 Nov 13, 4:23am
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.
leo707
2013 Nov 13, 4:24am
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.
leo707
2013 Nov 13, 4:26am
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.
Y
2013 Nov 13, 4:27am
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.
HydroCabron
2013 Nov 13, 4:27am
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.
Y
2013 Nov 13, 4:31am
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
leo707
2013 Nov 13, 4:33am
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.
leo707
2013 Nov 13, 4:37am
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.
leo707
2013 Nov 13, 4:38am
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?
leo707
2013 Nov 13, 4:41am
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
2013 Nov 13, 4:53am
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.
Homeboy
2013 Nov 13, 4:58am
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.
Y
2013 Nov 13, 5:00am
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.
Y
2013 Nov 13, 5:01am
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.
Homeboy
2013 Nov 13, 5:03am
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"?
Y
2013 Nov 13, 5:04am
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.
Homeboy
2013 Nov 13, 5:04am
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?
Homeboy
2013 Nov 13, 5:06am
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.
Homeboy
2013 Nov 13, 5:07am
No one likes debating a racist.
Ah yes, more name-calling in lieu of argument. Keep digging that hole.
Y
2013 Nov 13, 5:10am
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"
Y
2013 Nov 13, 5:11am
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.
Y
2013 Nov 13, 5:14am
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.
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.
leo707
2013 Nov 13, 5:47am
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?
Y
2013 Nov 13, 6:10am
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!!
One, question...are you smarter than a fifth-grader?
RWSGFY
2013 Nov 13, 6:24am
It doesn't matter if he is black or white....does it?
Per Homeboy, if it doesn't matter to you - you're racist.
leo707
2013 Nov 13, 6:44am
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.
Y
2013 Nov 13, 7:32am
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....??
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.
leo707
2013 Nov 13, 7:55am
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...
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.
Y
2013 Nov 13, 1:33pm
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.
Homeboy
2013 Nov 13, 2:09pm
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.
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.
« First « Previous Comments 40 - 79 of 79 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