Comments Posted By JerryS
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 53 Comments
YES TO HOFFMAN, BUT NO LITMUS TEST PLEASE
Rick -
I read the entire article, and yes, we agree on certain points. However, your post didn't mention at all why Hoffman is wrong for the district, which was my point.
I meant no disprespect, other than to point out that the GOP is committing suicide by putting someone like Hoffman into this race. If they had found a conservative from WITHIN the district, it would have been a different story.I grew up in this district. I know the people. Hoffman is going to get creamed, but he's going to pull enough from Dede to get the Democrat elected.
That's the larger issue. One more vote for Pelosi, when we could have had a vote for Boehner.
Comment Posted By JerryS On 27.10.2009 @ 17:06
Rick -
1. Hoffman doesn't even live in the district. He's a carpetbagger.
2. Why does the Conservative "movement" from outside the state think it can tell local and state Republicans what's best for their district? Dede has about the same social positions as Pataki, Guliani, and Bloomberg, all successful GOP NY elected officials. Why is she sudddenly so far outside the GOP "base"?
3. A Republican from NY will never be the same as a Republican from Mississippi. If that's what the GOP is looking for, they're going to be in the wilderness for a long, long time.
4. Hoffman recently met with the local paper for the district he's running in... and was COMPLETELY UNFAMILIAR WITH THE LOCAL ISSUES. http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091023/OPINION01/310239957/-1/OPINION Hoffman is being exposed as a fraud and a tool in the article. It's a joke that conservatives are going to GIVE this race to the Democrat by dividing the much larger Republican electorate into two candidated.
Go Dede!
With idiots like you plugging for her, I wish her the best.
Next time, read what I write before commenting. If you had bothered to read, you would have seen large areas of agreement. But lazy asses like you who drop by and comment give your candidate a bad name.
ed.
Comment Posted By JerryS On 27.10.2009 @ 16:03
THE NFL IS WORRIED ABOUT A 'RACIST' OWNER?'
Rick -
Words mean things.
I'm 48 years old, and was one of only a few minority kids at my grammar and high schools. As a teeneager, I was taught to not drive into certain parts of town, or to not even go into several nearby towns.
I know what a racist is. Jackson is definitely a racist. Sharpton as well. Limbaugh, no doubt. Here's a few others: O'Reilly, Hannity, Spike Lee, Louis Farrahkan. Racists all.
I would suggest you start understanding that words have consequences, and that it doesn't take a history like David Duke's to make someone a racist. Words and context matters. It's impossible for any fair minded person to look at Limbaugh's actual quotes to read them and not see the racism inherent in the words.
Comment Posted By JerryS On 15.10.2009 @ 11:57
Rick -
Jackson? Racist.
Sharpton? Racist.
Limbaugh? Racist.
I'm consistent. Too bad you aren't.
Jackson, like Limbaugh, is a provocateur. Sharpton may be a racist - I don't have your gift for looking into the souls of men to glean what's in their heart. I look at both as race hustlers.
I would suggest you quit judging people until you understand what race hate really is. Then you may call someone a racist. In your eagerness to score political points (you have no interest in calling out real racism), you have revealed yourself an ignoramus.
ed.
Comment Posted By JerryS On 15.10.2009 @ 11:40
Rick -
I've listened to Rush for over 15 years. What about the ACTUAL quotes Limbaugh has made over the past 10 years?
"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it"
"Barack, the Magic Negro."
"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."
"They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"
I'll stop there.
Do you want to defend any of THESE comments (and I could give you 20 more that are similar), or will you continue to defend Limbaugh?
Racist? Absolutely.
You have lowered the "racist" bar to a ridiculously low level - for purposes of skewering a political opponent.
When I hear liberals taking Sharpton, Jackson, et all to task for their outrageously bigoted comments, then you can complain about Limbaugh.
Besides, the only thing I defended Limbaugh against were patently false smears and the hypocrisy of the NFL and players association making any comment at all about one's behavior.
Maybe you should read the post again.
ed.
Comment Posted By JerryS On 15.10.2009 @ 11:30
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PASSION AND PARANOIA
Rick -
Big difference between the Democratic Kooks of 2004 and the current crop of Conservative Kooks.
Who were the equivalent ELECTED Dems in 2004 who equal the current birther elected members of the GOP (Schmidt, DeMint, Blount, Franks, etc)?
Who were the equivalent ELECTED Dems in 2004 who equal the current GOP elected members of the GOP who claim Obama is starting up "re-education camps" (Bachman)?
You cite Sheehan and Moore as proof of the Dem kooks. They weren't elected. The difference is that too many of the current GOP kooks are elected officials (Bachman, Franks, DeMint, Inhofe, Blount, Paul, and too many others to list.)
Comment Posted By JerryS On 14.09.2009 @ 14:42
IMPRESSIVE TURNOUT IN DC FOR PROTEST
CZ -
If you were really protesting the items you posted, you'd have been out there protesting 5 years ago, when Bush busted the budget, started two wars without paying for them, introduced the largest expansion of Medicare since it was started. Then you would have been protesting a year ago, when Bush bailed out Wall Street.
But you weren't. Hmmm... wonder why...?
No. Seriously. What were you protesting since the reasons you give are completely bogus - given the history of the last 8 years?
Comment Posted By JerryS On 13.09.2009 @ 16:06
Elizabeth -
Actually, no. The protest was certainly not about spending, because if it was, you'd have been protesting for the last 8 years. That you chose only now to protest proves that. Steve Benen at Washington Monthly says it best:
"We learned today that right-wing activists don't like government spending (except when Bush and Republican lawmakers spent freely), don't like the size of government (except when Bush and Republican lawmakers increased the size of government), don't like deficits and debt (except when Bush and Republican lawmakers added trillions to the nation's tab), and don't like czars (except when Bush used dozens of them to implement his agenda).
They don't like health-care reform, though it's not clear why. They don't like gun control, though it's not clear why they think anyone's coming for their firearms. They also don't like taxes, immigration, abortion, Muslims, the U.N., and the idea of "socialism," though their understanding of the word is tenuous at best.
In other words, the point of today's rally was to let the country know there are a lot of right-wing activists with right-wing beliefs. We knew that before today, but I guess they wanted to remind us."
It certainly wasn't about spending, or else the signs wouldn't have read:
1. Nancy Pelosi: You can keep the Facism. I'll keep the Freedom.
2. "Whoa Boys, I'll take it from here" (a picture of Obama waving goodbye to several Muslim Terrorists with airplanes overhead.)
3. Impeach the Muslim Marxist
4. Oust the Marxist Usurper... Honduras Did It.
5. 1600 Marxist Way
6. James Clyburn - Racist (over a photo of James Clyburn. A Civil Rights leader from the 1960's.Seriously. It certainly WAS NOT about spending.
Comment Posted By JerryS On 12.09.2009 @ 16:38
Facts presented... and....
Crickets...
Silence...
'Nuff said.
Thanks for playing.
Comment Posted By JerryS On 12.09.2009 @ 16:14
Elizabeth -
Um...
Fact 1: Most of the current deficit is directly related to the policies of George. W. Bush. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019651.php
Fact 2: On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.
The Census' final report card on Bush's record presents an intriguing backdrop to today's economic debate. Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. Congressional Republicans are insisting that a similar agenda focused on tax cuts offers better prospects of reviving the economy than President Obama's combination of some tax cuts with heavy government spending. But the bleak economic results from Bush's two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet. http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09/closing_the_book_on_the_bush_legacy.php
So.. really... What are you protesting?
You obviously didn't get the memo. The Obamabots have now dropped the notion that they are shocked...shocked I tell you, that anyone would protest anything about Obama and pretend they don't know what the protests are all about. Sorry, you missed the new talking points. The new meme is that we are all angry white racists who don't want things to change.
Please use current leftist talking points. Using old, stale ones are indicative of insufficient committment to the cause. So use your crayon and copy the new memes word for word. They're all the rage, you know.
ed.
Comment Posted By JerryS On 12.09.2009 @ 15:11
