Tea party candidate for NY governor's race gaining ground

[CSpindizzy]

Clearly you haven't read the stories on this. The Jewish group he spoke to was the one who wrote the speech. He omitted a good amount of what was in those prepared remarks before a VERY orthodox Jewish group. But of course people selectively listen to or read what they want and jump on the bandwagon of a very biased media.

No I don't because who decides what beliefs hold a higher value fit for the 'hate'? Are you going to be the unbiased voice saying crimes against a Jew by a Black deserves greater punishment or a White southerner against a Black has greater punishment?

Are we saying killing or beating someone itself is not a crime? I guess that means any racists out there who want to kill a black just don't yell the N word and they won't get as harsh a punishment.

I'd love to see your scale as to what crime committed against what group for what reason deserves X punishment. Who gets higher value and who decides? Some poor Joe off the street gets killed...sorry pal. Some 'fill in the blank' gets killed. We'll hang, fry, shoot, draw and quarter, boil in acid that criminal.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I don't care what someone believes or says normally, but if they're a politician I expect them to have some tact while making important decisions that affect my life. They should be smart enough to hold their tongue and make their important belief heard on a more appropriate platform. And your Senate Majority leader example only enhances my point.

Did you really think you'd be convincing me with that? I told you I'm a republican. But just because I'm not a bigot doesn't make me a Dem.

I used an example of the man in charge of the senate. As I said the place is filled with those making "insensitive" remarks. If you bothered reading and comprehending, I never made a partisan ID there. If anything you could probably find an insensitive remark given by everyone in office. It's called being human, erring in judgment, free speech, stating your beliefs and principles, all of the above.

As for using tact, he didn't say what the media claimed he said. And they've avoided covering what he did say and referencing it in context. But in our hypersensitive world we live in, people are quick to jump on the first headline that comes across the screen before even checking the story. Get out the lynch mob. We're going to judge someone on the kneejerk rather than investigate the full story.

 

[Heebs]

No I don't because who decides what beliefs hold a higher value fit for the 'hate'? Are you going to be the unbiased voice saying crimes against a Jew by a Black deserves greater punishment or a White southerner against a Black has greater punishment?

Of course I'm going to be unbiased about that. I don't care about your skin color, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or any of that. I love how you assume that it would be crazy not to.

Are we saying killing or beating someone itself is not a crime? I guess that means any racists out there who want to kill a black just don't yell the N word and they won't get as harsh a punishment.

I'd love to see your scale as to what crime committed against what group for what reason deserves X punishment. Who gets higher value and who decides? Some poor Joe off the street gets killed...sorry pal. Some 'fill in the blank' gets killed. We'll hang, fry, shoot, draw and quarter, boil in acid that criminal.

I don't know where I ever advocated a harsher penalty for the reason of the crime. I used the term hate crime in the non legal sense in my first post to highlight a stupid time and place to make these remarks. When a henious crime is committed against the group you're railing against, the next day is not the most beneficial time to start spewing hatred. I guess I'm just old fashioned like that.

And my rant in the second post I did allude to giving out a harsher penalty for a hate crime, but my point was not that. Specifically, I meant that the prosecution needs to highlight the reason why a crime was committed, the intent I was referring to, so that the criminal in question can be properly rehabilited before they are let loose on the public again.

 

[Heebs]

As for using tact, he didn't say what the media claimed he said. And they've avoided covering what he did say and referencing it in context. But in our hypersensitive world we live in, people are quick to jump on the first headline that comes across the screen before even checking the story. Get out the lynch mob. We're going to judge someone on the kneejerk rather than investigate the full story.

I'm aware that he edited the text of the prepared statement. But if he didn't look over what the prepared statement said before it was distributed to the media, then he deserves the criticism I am heaping upon him. Because if he is too stupid to not make sure that the text of his speech is okay for distribution to the media, then he is too stupid for my vote.

 

[vols22]

People need to get a brain and a little bit of a work ethic. To many people want a hand out for doing nothing but sit on their butt. Then some want to stop our religion here and take our guns. Bullcrap. I will go down shooting, promise you that. People who buy guns and own guns legally are not the problem. Its the people who have them illegally and commit crimes. You take honest people guns away and we can't defend ourselves. The criminals will still have theirs idiots. Wow, some of the people in this country don't deserve to be in it. Go Teaparty!!!!

 

[CSpindizzy]

It is crazy. If everyone is "equal" and someone took another's life, why should a criminal pay a higher cost on the reason? Hey, poor people rob rich people. That's "class hatred". Should we redefine punishment based on that? A wife hates her husband for cheating on her and kills him. Do you realize where this goes? Who decides what holds greater punishment?

Go do research on "hate crimes" laws and what their definition is to include punishments.

And you say you don't care about someone's religious beliefs but clearly you're all over 'hating' an Orthodox Jewish and Catholic view on homosexuality. You've made some pretty powerful statements for someone who seems to be pushing a more 'enlightened and tolerant' side of things.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I'm aware that he edited the text of the prepared statement. But if he didn't look over what the prepared statement said before it was distributed to the media, then he deserves the criticism I am heaping upon him. Because if he is too stupid to not make sure that the text of his speech is okay for distribution to the media, then he is too stupid for my vote.

Have you ever worked on a campaign?

 

[Heebs]

It is crazy. If everyone is "equal" and someone took another's life, why should a criminal pay a higher cost on the reason? Hey, poor people rob rich people. That's "class hatred". Should we redefine punishment based on that? A wife hates her husband for cheating on her and kills him. Do you realize where this goes? Who decides what holds greater punishment?

Now you're just ranting. I said I wasn't advocating harsher punishments and that I was using hate crime in a non legal sense, just saying that some gays were brutally beaten and robbed because they were gay two days before this event took place.

And you say you don't care about someone's religious beliefs but clearly you're all over 'hating' an Orthodox Jewish and Catholic view on homosexuality.

I don't care if someone is Jewish or Catholic or Hindu or Pentecostal Baptist or a Zoroastrian, expressing my disagreement is a lot different than going up to someone who is difference and causing them harm just because I don't agree with them. And you're the one that's interpreting my distaste as "hate". Don't be that guy.

You've made some pretty powerful statements for someone who seems to be pushing a more 'enlightened and tolerant' side of things.

So sue me. You've gotten us way off track with the whole hate crime tangent. That was never part of the original claim that the dude's an idiot who's a bad politician. Now this mess is way too muddled

I'm tolerant of people's beliefs. If they are a bigot, then that's fine, but I'm not going to stand by and let a person running for higher office publically condone being intolerant. Deal with it.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I seem to recall you mentioning the hate crime thing. No one forced you to respond. What you call "distaste" looks to be hate for this guy. You're all over this guy saying he's bigoted, intollerant, paranoid, and a long line of other descriptors here just because of his religious view. Sounds like you really care about somoene else's views after all. For someone who rails on a guy about his beliefs it doesn't sound very tolerant of Catholic of Jewish views at all. Last I checked Paladino has yet to hurt anyone. He has repeated his Catholic upbringing which was in line with the Orthodox Jewish audience he spoke to.

CBS2 is reporting that one of the rabbis gave a copy of the remarks to the press. So there goes your "he's an idiot" conspiracy. A lesson in campaigns as well. Speeches are typically written by other people on the staff who are more connected to the group being spoken to. A speech to a Orthodox Jewish group would typically be written by a Jew or someone more familiar with the teachings of this group. Very few candidates write speeches of this nature. Typically the said speech is shoved in front of them for review for a quick glance. In Paladino's case he noticed certain things were not what he wanted and crossed them out. Since a rabbi from this group wrote the speech it's not beyond anyone for them to have copies and pass around. In this case, that is what happened. Even if it did not, NO ONE on the attacking media even bothered to state what he actually said. NO ONE offered a disclaimer saying this was just the text but not the spoken word. The campaign had to bring this up and it was shoved to the side.

And now we have 'tolerance' using words like bigoted, idiot, paranoid, etc. to describe a guy they've based an opinion on a biased media report.

And Heebs, here are your own words on how you feel on the Catholic and Orthodox Jewish position Paladino echoed:

the next day is not the most beneficial time to start spewing hatred.

"Spewing hatred"? Your words. For someone who cares less what religion they are those are some powerful words about someone's religious beliefs.

 

[tim]

Personally, I appreciate the honesty. He said what he felt. Unlike most politicians who lie, cheat, and steal to get elected and vote in a way contrary to their public stance. At the very least we know how he feels about homosexuality and for some it aligns with their beliefs.

 

[Heebs]

Even if it did not, NO ONE on the attacking media even bothered to state what he actually said. NO ONE offered a disclaimer saying this was just the text but not the spoken word.

From the link I gave:

A prepared version of his remarks obtained by CNN from New York affiliate NY1 said that "There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual," though Paladino did not wind up delivering that line.

"That's not how (God) created us," the prepared remarks continued, though Paladino did not say those words.

Paladino distributed copies of his prepared remarks to reporters at the event, an address to a group of Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn's Williamsburg neighborhood.

And yes, saying that a gay person is dysfunctional is pretty hateful.

 

[Heebs]

And I can disagree with someone's belief while being tolerant. Like I said, they can say whatever they want. That doesn't mean I can't point out how dumb they sound while doing it.

I was simply trying to point out that

A) It was an insensitive time and place to criticize the homosexual lifestyle 2 days after the crime was committed and in the same NYC borough. As a politician, I would try to be more aware of stuff like that.
B) You can say you are a social conservative that doesn't agree with homosexuality without calling them dysfunctional and coming across as homophobic.

You ran with the rest.

And this is a pattern of behavior exhibited by Paladino that makes him seem like a less than reputible character.

 

[CSpindizzy]

From the link I gave:



And yes, saying that a gay person is dysfunctional is pretty hateful.

And CBS2 said the remarks came from a rabbi and not the campaign. So clearly there is confusion as to where it came from. But yet you choose to go on that. AND you choose to hold him to believing something based on this info that the source is questionable. He chose not to say that and has stated that was not his belief but yet YOU judge him based on that. Sounds pretty bigoted to me.

And calling someone all of the names you called Paladino based on a lack of facts I guess would be 'tolerant'? Educated? Repeating a religious view is "spewing hatred" and using that phrase based on a lack of clear understanding of the whole event is better? It sounds like you have used ignorance to argue against 'hatred'. You've used some pretty powerful words and claims against a man who did not say those things. You've made some powerful comments against a man's faith - actually the beliefs of two decent sized beliefs in this country. But I guess you are the open minded one and as you say could care less about other people's views. Your own posts show otherwise.

 

[IPorange]

what he states is accurate. not sure the problem.

you're right IP, nothing wrong with sticking the most sensitive part of your body in a place where waste comes out. nothing dysfunctional about that all.

Because waste doesn't come out of a penis or anything. It's completely for reproductive purposes.

 

[CSpindizzy]

And I can disagree with someone's belief while being tolerant. Like I said, they can say whatever they want. That doesn't mean I can't point out how dumb they sound while doing it.

I was simply trying to point out that

A) It was an insensitive time and place to criticize the homosexual lifestyle 2 days after the crime was committed and in the same NYC borough. As a politician, I would try to be more aware of stuff like that.
B) You can say you are a social conservative that doesn't agree with homosexuality without calling them dysfunctional and coming across as homophobic.

You ran with the rest.

And this is a pattern of behavior exhibited by Paladino that makes him seem like a less than reputible character.

First point from the above in bold - I wouldn't exactly say "pointing out how dumb they sound" as being "tolerant". You do yourself a disservice by making such a statement. You're tolerant....nevermind calling someone with a different view as dumb, etc. Makes no sense. And that's the irony of the "tolerant" people in society. We're all about putting up with other people's views....as long as they don't disagree with our own. It's like those who say the "backwards, witchburning, ignorant, racist, homophobe zealots should be more like us and tolerant of all views".....again, makes no sense.

Can you show me evidence Paladino said gays are dysfunctional? Can you say he believes this? Or is this just an assumption based on some very conflicting and screwed up media reports? Are you pre-judging someone? Surely someone tolerant like you would not be jumping to conclusions and being prejudiced against him without having all of the facts....

 

[Heebs]

And CBS2 said the remarks came from a rabbi and not the campaign. So clearly there is confusion as to where it came from. But yet you choose to go on that. AND you choose to hold him to believing something based on this info that the source is questionable. He chose not to say that and has stated that was not his belief but yet YOU judge him based on that. Sounds pretty bigoted to me.

And calling someone all of the names you called Paladino based on a lack of facts I guess would be 'tolerant'? Educated? Repeating a religious view is "spewing hatred" and using that phrase based on a lack of clear understanding of the whole event is better? It sounds like you have used ignorance to argue against 'hatred'. You've used some pretty powerful words and claims against a man who did not say those things. You've made some powerful comments against a man's faith - actually the beliefs of two decent sized beliefs in this country. But I guess you are the open minded one and as you say could care less about other people's views. Your own posts show otherwise.

You keep on saying this stuff about religious views. Do Catholics and Jews believe that gays are dysfunctional? I can understand saying no I don't think they should be married. But he's done a really good job of backpedaling since then.

And you tell me about Catholics not believing in homosexuality, because there's been a lot of priests' actions that say otherwise.

 

[Heebs]

First point from the above in bold - I wouldn't exactly say "pointing out how dumb they sound" as being "tolerant". You do yourself a disservice by making such a statement. You're tolerant....nevermind calling someone with a different view as dumb, etc. Makes no sense. And that's the irony of the "tolerant" people in society. We're all about putting up with other people's views....as long as they don't disagree with our own. It's like those who say the "backwards, witchburning, ignorant, racist, homophobe zealots should be more like us and tolerant of all views".....again, makes no sense.

Can you show me evidence Paladino said gays are dysfunctional? Can you say he believes this? Or is this just an assumption based on some very conflicting and screwed up media reports? Are you pre-judging someone? Surely someone tolerant like you would not be jumping to conclusions and being prejudiced against him without having all of the facts....

It's not that he's got a different view, it's that people think gays are less of human beings for it. Call me whatever you want. I'm comfortable with calling myself tolerant and thinking that people shouldn't be so hateful. And in turn, I will be hateful to people who are intolerant.

This is going nowhere. So, good day.

 

[CSpindizzy]

You keep on saying this stuff about religious views. Do Catholics and Jews believe that gays are dysfunctional? I can understand saying no I don't think they should be married. But he's done a really good job of backpedaling since then.

And you tell me about Catholics not believing in homosexuality, because there's been a lot of priest's actions that say otherwise.

You are attacking what this man "spewed". He emphasized his beliefs and has even referenced that in several speeches after that. You made the comment based on his 'spewings'. Unless you are backpedaling on what you said.

What exactly has he backpedaled on? Quotes please.

I merely made the comment on the official line of the Catholic Church. I wouldn't exactly say the actions of priests are the official positions of the church. I mean if you choose to keep stereotyping....but that is the tolerant thing right? Stereotyping? I mean we wouldn't want to paint a group with such a broad brush based on the actions of certain supporters. We could go on endlessly with broad generalizations then.

 

[CSpindizzy]

It's not that he's got a different view, it's that people think gays are less of human beings for it. Call me whatever you want. I'm comfortable with calling myself tolerant and thinking that people shouldn't be so hateful. And in turn, I will be hateful to people who are intolerant.

This is going nowhere. So, good day.

lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:

Good one. I needed the laugh. Good day it is....:salute:

 

[JayVols]

ironicly it's the fact that there is no religion (specifically Christianity) being taught in government schools that has gotten our schools where they are today.

oh but environmentalism is a religion, many schools are encouraging islamic teachings, but i'm sure you are you socialist comrads have no problems with that.

Sorry about getting to this late, but... these statements are proof that at least one of the following things is true. Our schools really did fail this guy and he is ignorant and/or he heard someone say this, so it MUST be true.
Posted via VolNation Mobile