NY 26th Race is Called for Hochul

[del]

Red Herring: Well, not exactly. But an effort to redirect the thead and prevent an open and honest debate on who or what is a RINO.

Here's a clue for you: liberals don't get to redefine a term invented by a conservative to mean "people that libs don't like."

why not?

assholes like you have as much in common with buckley and goldwater as che guevera does.

 

[WillowTree]

Republican in Name Only is the pejorative used by the New Right, former republicans who have apopted an extreme ideology to influence moderate Americans to vote for extreme candidates. In Western NY, the real Republicans showed up. Registered Republicans outnumber Democrats by + 30,000 and yesterday the Democrat was elected to represent NY's 26th District.

The REAL RINO is not a liberal clothed as a Republican, it is a far right wing callous conservative who spends hours posting lies and ad hominem attacks on anyone who doesn't support their extreme ideololgy.

The vote in NY 26 offers an opportunity for the GOP to remain relevent in American politics. I suspect it's leadership will not, for the far right will continue to ignore the values and hopes of the majority of Americans, they will continue to overrreach and support a form of corporateism alien to the rest of our people.

cry us a river whydonchya? You have yet to tell us what you asswipes will replace corporations with. And what you will do when you've spent all the evil rich men's money? Start eating each other? How goddamn stupid can you get?

 

[bripat9643]

Here's a clue for you: liberals don't get to redefine a term invented by a conservative to mean "people that libs don't like."

why not?

The people who invent the term are the ones who define it, not some sleazy lying propagandist.

assholes like you have as much in common with buckley and goldwater as che guevera does.

The main difference between me and Goldwater and Buckley is that I don't have to treat thieving lying tics like you with respect because I'm not a politician. I can say what I think.

 

[Samson]

Republican in Name Only is the pejorative used by the New Right, former republicans who have apopted an extreme ideology to influence moderate Americans to vote for extreme candidates. In Western NY, the real Republicans showed up. Registered Republicans outnumber Democrats by + 30,000 and yesterday the Democrat was elected to represent NY's 26th District.

The REAL RINO is not a liberal clothed as a Republican, it is a far right wing callous conservative who spends hours posting lies and ad hominem attacks on anyone who doesn't support their extreme ideololgy.

The vote in NY 26 offers an opportunity for the GOP to remain relevent in American politics. I suspect it's leadership will not, for the far right will continue to ignore the values and hopes of the majority of Americans, they will continue to overrreach and support a form of corporateism alien to the rest of our people.

cry us a river whydonchya? You have yet to tell us what you asswipes will replace corporations with. And what you will do when you've spent all the evil rich men's money? Start eating each other? How goddamn stupid can you get?

Based on what little I read of Wry, he can get much more "goddamn stupid."

 

[del]

Here's a clue for you: liberals don't get to redefine a term invented by a conservative to mean "people that libs don't like."

why not?

The people who invent the term are the ones who define it, not some sleazy lying propagandist.

assholes like you have as much in common with buckley and goldwater as che guevera does.

The main difference between me and Goldwater and Buckley is that I don't have to treat thieving lying tics like you with respect because I'm not a politician. I can say what I think.

if you did that you wouldn't have much to say..

twit

 

[WillowTree]

Republican in Name Only is the pejorative used by the New Right, former republicans who have apopted an extreme ideology to influence moderate Americans to vote for extreme candidates. In Western NY, the real Republicans showed up. Registered Republicans outnumber Democrats by + 30,000 and yesterday the Democrat was elected to represent NY's 26th District.

The REAL RINO is not a liberal clothed as a Republican, it is a far right wing callous conservative who spends hours posting lies and ad hominem attacks on anyone who doesn't support their extreme ideololgy.

The vote in NY 26 offers an opportunity for the GOP to remain relevent in American politics. I suspect it's leadership will not, for the far right will continue to ignore the values and hopes of the majority of Americans, they will continue to overrreach and support a form of corporateism alien to the rest of our people.

cry us a river whydonchya? You have yet to tell us what you asswipes will replace corporations with. And what you will do when you've spent all the evil rich men's money? Start eating each other? How goddamn stupid can you get?

not that stupid. But then again look who is calling someone stupid.

you gonna tell us? what will you replace corporations with,, and then what comes after you've spent the evil rich man's money? We'll wait.

 

[edthecynic]

Here's a clue for you: liberals don't get to redefine a term invented by a conservative to mean "people that libs don't like."

why not?

The people who invent the term are the ones who define it, not some sleazy lying propagandist.

Is that in the CON$titution, because it's not in the Constitution.

Actually, CON$ have anointed themselves as the definers of ALL terms no matter who "invented" them. They define Liberalism, Progressivism, Feminism, Fascism, etc., none of which they "invented."

 

[whitehall]

Neither candidate got over 50% of the vote and there was only about 4 percentage points between them. Democrats pulled off one of the classic dirty tricks. They got a former democrat to run as a Tea Party 3rd candidate. Real republicans didn't buy it but he got 9% which was enough to skew the election.

 

[Synthaholic]

How much of an effect does a Rep win in any district in NY have??

I'm thinking not to much as the majority of the State is Dem.

The Dems have done such a great job of running NY. Must be why they are 20 billion in debt.

This wasn't an election for the State House - it was for the House Of Representatives.

By my count, The Democrats now only need 24 victories in 2012 to take back the House

Also by my count, you are leading this thread in stupid.

 

[Synthaholic]

The Republican'ts will try to spin this like a top, but even the GnOP pollsters were telling them that backing Ryan's plan was suicide. Well, they didn't listen and THIS is the result.

The Dems will hang the vote on the Ryan plan around the GnOPs neck like an albatross. Wear it proudly Republican'ts!

Exactly correct. You will demogouge the country into ruins. Exactly. Wear it proudly.

 

[Synthaholic]

Keep trying to end things like medicare while cutting the riches taxes yet again.

Its really paying off for your party

By all means lets do nothing until Medicare crashs and burns. Then we will see what plan the Dems come up with.

As for those tax cuts for the rich. They weren't cuts at all. But of course you know this.

libturds consider it evil to be rich, therefore they lie about Republicans giving tax cuts to the rich. the truth is Republicans don't wish to raise TAXES on ANybody. but the demonrats have no problems lying about the facts. They are bald faced liars from the top to bottom.

 

[Synthaholic]

thing is, if it were a rejection of Republican extremism, 53% of the vote was between extreme and more extreme.

this was not a rejection For Ryan's ideas. If anything, in two person races this is a rejection of the Democrat position.

Were it not for the stalking horse candidate, this would be just one more democrat loss.

If you want to arge did the democrats win a seat, and they are better off by one, sure. You can't argue against that. If you want to argue which ideology gets more votes based on the election returns, this is a distaster for the Democrat position.

LOL. Spin it however you want. Wisconsin, this election, and more to come are going to demonstrate that the electorate eyes have been opened.

Gov. Rick Scott's (Florida) approval rating is 29%.

 

[Synthaholic]

That's fascinating. Now prove you haven't once again wasted my time by showing us where any of that document, dated April 2011,

has anything to do with the budget I referenced,

for FY 2012.

Stunned silence.

that's what I thought.

I answered, I cannot help it if simple nuance is beyond your pay-grade....construct a strawman, thats your usual out when you are speechless.

How about fuck the nuance and say what you mean in plain English, so that you cannot deny what you said later on?

 

[Synthaholic]

Red Herring: Well, not exactly. But an effort to redirect the thead and prevent an open and honest debate on who or what is a RINO.

Here's a clue for you: liberals don't get to redefine a term invented by a conservative to mean "people that libs don't like."

Really? Is that a written rule? Link, please.

I think it's similar to:

Newt Gingrich: ‘Any Ad Which Quotes What I Said On Sunday Is A Falsehood’

 

[edthecynic]

The Republican'ts will try to spin this like a top, but even the GnOP pollsters were telling them that backing Ryan's plan was suicide. Well, they didn't listen and THIS is the result.

The Dems will hang the vote on the Ryan plan around the GnOPs neck like an albatross. Wear it proudly Republican'ts!

I thought you were going to pull a Romney and "hang them with it."
Metaphorically speaking.

 

[Ringel05]

Republican in Name Only is the pejorative used by the New Right, former republicans who have apopted an extreme ideology to influence moderate Americans to vote for extreme candidates. In Western NY, the real Republicans showed up. Registered Republicans outnumber Democrats by + 30,000 and yesterday the Democrat was elected to represent NY's 26th District.

The REAL RINO is not a liberal clothed as a Republican, it is a far right wing callous conservative who spends hours posting lies and ad hominem attacks on anyone who doesn't support their extreme ideololgy.

The vote in NY 26 offers an opportunity for the GOP to remain relevent in American politics. I suspect it's leadership will not, for the far right will continue to ignore the values and hopes of the majority of Americans, they will continue to overrreach and support a form of corporateism alien to the rest of our people.

Interesting since every non-partisan, unbiased online dictionary doesn't hold to your extremely partisan, horribly biased interpretation.
Go figure.

Really? So, you appeal to authority as proof I'm wrong?

Consider:

Appeal to authority

Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we're discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Example: "We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it." While Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there's no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions—he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than the person writing the paper.

Tip: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you're discussing. Second, rather than just saying "Dr. Authority believes x, so we should believe it, too," try to explain the reasoning or evidence that the authority used to arrive at his or her opinion. That way, your readers have more to go on than a person's reputation. It also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than people who will be perceived as biased.

Playing an esoteric shell game just to justify your position??!! Are you sure you're not a politician?
Okay, try Websters or Oxford.

 

[Bfgrn]

why not?

The people who invent the term are the ones who define it, not some sleazy lying propagandist.

Is that in the CON$titution, because it's not in the Constitution.

Actually, CON$ have anointed themselves as the definers of ALL terms no matter who "invented" them. They define Liberalism, Progressivism, Feminism, Fascism, etc., none of which they "invented."

del, you speak a truth that most people are totally unaware of.

Since around 1990, conservative rhetors have been systematically turning language into a weapon against liberals. Words are used in twisted and exaggerated ways, or with the opposite of their customary meanings. This affects the whole of the language. The goal of this distorted language is not simply to defeat an enemy but to destroy the minds of the people who believe themselves to be conservatives and who constantly challenge themselves to ever greater extremity in using it.

An underlying notion of conservative politics is that words and phrases of language are like territory in warfare: owned and controlled by one side or the other. One of the central goals of conservatism, as for example with Newt Gingrich's lists of words, is to take control of every word and phrase in the English language.

Conservative rhetors have been systematically mapping the language that has historically been used to describe the aristocracy and the traditional authorities that serve it, and have twisted those words into terms for liberals. This tactic has the dual advantage of both attacking the aristocracies' opponents and depriving them of the words that they have used to attack aristocracy.

Conservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing.

Why do conservatives appear to be so much better at framing?

Because they've put billions of dollars into it. Over the last 30 years their think tanks have made a heavy investment in ideas and in language. In 1970, [Supreme Court Justice] Lewis Powell wrote a fateful memo to the National Chamber of Commerce saying that all of our best students are becoming anti-business because of the Vietnam War, and that we needed to do something about it. Powell's agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. He outlined the whole thing in 1970. They set up the Heritage Foundation in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that. [There are many others, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institute at Stanford, which date from the 1940s.]

And now, as the New York Times Magazine quoted Paul Weyrich, who started the Heritage Foundation, they have 1,500 conservative radio talk show hosts. They have a huge, very good operation, and they understand their own moral system. They understand what unites conservatives, and they understand how to talk about it, and they are constantly updating their research on how best to express their ideas.

Why haven't progressives done the same thing?

There's a systematic reason for that. You can see it in the way that conservative foundations and progressive foundations work. Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say, 'Here's several million dollars, do what you need to do.' And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV. They do all of that. Why? Because the conservative moral system, which I analyzed in "Moral Politics," has as its highest value preserving and defending the "strict father" system itself. And that means building infrastructure. As businessmen, they know how to do this very well.

Meanwhile, liberals' conceptual system of the "nurturant parent" has as its highest value helping individuals who need help. The progressive foundations and donors give their money to a variety of grassroots organizations. They say, 'We're giving you $25,000, but don't waste a penny of it. Make sure it all goes to the cause, don't use it for administration, communication, infrastructure, or career development.' So there's actually a structural reason built into the worldviews that explains why conservatives have done better.
ref. ref.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Red Herring: Well, not exactly. But an effort to redirect the thead and prevent an open and honest debate on who or what is a RINO.

Here's a clue for you: liberals don't get to redefine a term invented by a conservative to mean "people that libs don't like."

RINO is a term invented by conservatives?

 

[edthecynic]

Red Herring: Well, not exactly. But an effort to redirect the thead and prevent an open and honest debate on who or what is a RINO.

Here's a clue for you: liberals don't get to redefine a term invented by a conservative to mean "people that libs don't like."

RINO is a term invented by conservatives?

Didn't you know, CON$ invented everything!
CON$ invented the internet.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting since every non-partisan, unbiased online dictionary doesn't hold to your extremely partisan, horribly biased interpretation.
Go figure.

Really? So, you appeal to authority as proof I'm wrong?

Consider:

Appeal to authority

Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we're discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Example: "We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it." While Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there's no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions—he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than the person writing the paper.

Tip: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you're discussing. Second, rather than just saying "Dr. Authority believes x, so we should believe it, too," try to explain the reasoning or evidence that the authority used to arrive at his or her opinion. That way, your readers have more to go on than a person's reputation. It also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than people who will be perceived as biased.

Playing an esoteric shell game just to justify your position??!! Are you sure you're not a politician?
Okay, try Websters or Oxford.

I'm positive I'm not a politican. Though I too can provide 'proof' by an appeal to authority. You see the Chief was planning his retirement and asked me if I wanted his help in going for the top job. I told him I liked what I was doing and wasn't interested. He actually said I was too honest and had too much integrity for the job, for it required less of each and a willingness to make deals with the devil (he was clearly ready to retire, for he was rarely so candid).