NY Senate Seat

[Damocles]

Only if we get to dictate who gets to discuss the issue.

Well, we can surely pipe in every now and then mentioning how it is only CO who gets to decide and any other opinion is useless (even though we know that the person will be part of a group that will effect our lives in the future we aren't allowed to have an opinion unless we live there, good thing we do.)

 

[Bonestorm]

This is inane.

Rejecting candidates based on penile ownership is sexism, plain and simple.

It is inane to pretend otherwise, only to make the world fit into the twisted picture of your own sense of "how things should be".

I was simply responding to Dano and the irony of that particular post in light of what he posted previously on this thread.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again I ask, if it is done who was appointed?

The only thing I have argued was your insistence that only women need apply because people who own penises cannot have a seat vacated by those who didn't have one.

It has long been my understanding that penile ownership as a qualification/disqualification for a job is sexist.

Personally, as I said in that thread long ago, I'll lose respect for NY State if they choose somebody based on their last name. They can, I know that and I really have no say. However I do have every right to give an opinion.

But my questions were for you....


Why should penis envy be something that is a qualifier/disqualifier for any job?

Penis envy? You're quite the feminist Damo.

I'm not quite surprised that you don't see the merit in seeking out a female (or black in the case of IL) replacement for Hillary Clinton is the Senate.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Penis envy? You're quite the feminist Damo.

I'm not quite surprised that you don't see the merit in seeking out a female (or black in the case of IL) replacement for Hillary Clinton is the Senate.

again you are creating a strawman... no one is saying that they shouldn't try to fill the seat with a qualified woman. We are saying that you should not eliminate all men just because of a penis. If they have two/three relatively equally qualified people and they make the decision to keep a woman in the seat, no problem.

 

[Bonestorm]

again you are creating a strawman... no one is saying that they shouldn't try to fill the seat with a qualified woman. We are saying that you should not eliminate all men just because of a penis. If they have two/three relatively equally qualified people and they make the decision to keep a woman in the seat, no problem.

What's the problem with going out and finding a qualified woman from the start? They do exist you know. Lots of them.

And it isn't as though the Senate is a great meritocracy comprised of the 100 most qualified persons that just so happen to be 90+% white and 85% male. It isn't eliminating all males because they have a penis, it is eliminating all males because there are already a shitload of males in a male dominated political body.

It isn't racism and it isn't sexism.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Google: Dunning-Kruger Effect. It describes you perfectly.

And admittedly, I know next to nothing about McNulty. The difference between you and me, though, is that you think he'd make a great Senator based on the nothing that you know. I, sagely, reserved judgment.

I didn't think he'd make a great senator, I do think that based on his record there is a MORE likely chance he will be a moderate senator.
Again, judging people based on voting record is far more accurate way of judging than going with your personal feelings or by this or that position on a specific issue. I never said it was perfect.

A guy who walks into the casino looking to make money and decides to bet more on the slot machines even though he has been shown that they statistically have a likelier poorer rate on return simply because he feels better about them.
He could be right. You could be right and McNulty could be McNutty but the odds are based on his record (and remember in so casually dismissing them, that we have years or sometimes DECADES to go through in determining that voting ranking number) that he will remain the most moderate Dem house member that could be a senator in New York.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There isn't going to be any man. Men need not apply for this position.

You can continue to rant and rave all you want. You can even join the two D's over in Dano and Dixie land where Obama is going to be impeached next month and unemployment is going to be eliminated.

Here in the real world, the seat will go to a woman.

Worry about your own state. You have an open seat. Start whining about that and keep your damned nose out of this state's business. We elected a woman, we're keeping a woman. I know you'd love to hide behind the "butttttttttttttt weeeeee can't discriminate against meeennnnnnnn" faggot whine, but that's because you're clueless about women's issues and women's rights.

It's our seat. Shut up and sit down until someone tells you to talk. It'll be a woman, and when she says "speak dummy" you can start with "thank you ma'm".

Ass.

ZOMGIHFIHGIJLJ?!!!?

Good fucking god you spaz like hell sometimes Darla.

I could care less who he appoints as long as they vote for the nuclear option.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I didn't think he'd make a great senator, I do think that based on his record there is a MORE likely chance he will be a moderate senator.
Again, judging people based on voting record is far more accurate way of judging than going with your personal feelings or by this or that position on a specific issue. I never said it was perfect.

A guy who walks into the casino looking to make money and decides to bet more on the slot machines even though he has been shown that they statistically have a likelier poorer rate on return simply because he feels better about them.
He could be right. You could be right and McNulty could be McNutty but the odds are based on his record (and remember in so casually dismissing them, that we have years or sometimes DECADES to go through in determining that voting ranking number) that he will remain the most moderate Dem house member that could be a senator in New York.

You just picked the Democrat with the highest rating from the ACU and said "Hey, pick this one".

Utterly retarded.

 

[Bonestorm]

I didn't think he'd make a great senator, I do think that based on his record there is a MORE likely chance he will be a moderate senator.
Again, judging people based on voting record is far more accurate way of judging than going with your personal feelings or by this or that position on a specific issue. I never said it was perfect.

A guy who walks into the casino looking to make money and decides to bet more on the slot machines even though he has been shown that they statistically have a likelier poorer rate on return simply because he feels better about them.
He could be right. You could be right and McNulty could be McNutty but the odds are based on his record (and remember in so casually dismissing them, that we have years or sometimes DECADES to go through in determining that voting ranking number) that he will remain the most moderate Dem house member that could be a senator in New York.

You don't even know what his record is. You know his ACU rating and are judging based on your feelings about ACU ratings. You have no idea whether he is moderate at all. In fact, he could be what you would consider a left-wing lunatic that happens to pro-life, which is pretty much what he is.

The idea that Patterson should replace Hillary Clinton with a pro-life Democrat is mind-numbingly stupid.

 

[Famov]

What's the problem with going out and finding a qualified woman from the start? They do exist you know. Lots of them.

And it isn't as though the Senate is a great meritocracy comprised of the 100 most qualified persons that just so happen to be 90+% white and 85% male. It isn't eliminating all males because they have a penis, it is eliminating all males because there are already a shitload of males in a male dominated political body.

It isn't racism and it isn't sexism.

By definition, bringing race and sex into the equation is in fact, bringing race and sex into the equation. Surely you're not trying to argue differently?

You want to destroy the glass ceiling? You want to see people get elected regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation?

Yeah, me too. But you do not go about it by constructing a system with a requisite number of people of a particular demographic, nor do you appoint someone who shares the most physical characteristics with the person who preceded them. Trying to justify that is trying to justify idiocy. Saying "White straight males already dominate, so who cares?" is the wrong answer.

You want to know how I'll break the glass ceiling? How about schools stop teaching women to take the gender roles that society dictates? Maybe teach inner city kids that gang life in in fact not the only option, but not an option at all. And maybe, just maybe, teach people that they are ultimately judged by their accomplishments and their character rather than their physical composition.

No, the Senate is not a meritocracy. It is a place where people who can make the most in campaign contributions get elected. It is a circle of power and money, where only a few with genuine ability as statesmen get elected. The Nepotism that is getting Caroline Kennedy attention is an example of that power.

 

[KingCondanomation]

You don't know what you are talking about. Salazar is indeed a moderate. Voting percentages are a dumb ass way to suggest that someone is liberal or moderate. It is the issues that they disagree on that are important in determining where a politician stands.

Do you mean "disagree" as in when they state their personal opinion on an issue or disagree as in when it comes time to vote and how they act?

Voting percentages are an imperfect way for sure, not a dumbass one.

You know Super there was a conversation once (true story) between 2 reps in the house once and the Conservative one said to the Liberal one that he didn't get how the other guy could get elected when he votes so Liberally in the house and comes from a fairly Conservative riding. The Liberal guy responded that it's because at election time he knows how to sound and act Conservative.
Politicians lie all the time don't they? They break their promises, they take 2 sides of some issues, they say they believe in something and they don't. BUT when it comes time to vote you are usually going to get the clearest picture of how they really are.

I don't know man, lately it seems you are hostile to lots of people who take a lot of the same views as you do, maybe you are just looking to go it alone against the left. That's your choice but the one reason the right came undone in the last election was an inability to work together. Just some friendly advice.

 

[Epicurus]

Man threads like this really remind you how sexist Darla is. On her better days she can come across as reasonable but clearly she's prejudiced at the core.

 

[KingCondanomation]

You don't even know what his record is. You know his ACU rating and are judging based on your feelings about ACU ratings. You have no idea whether he is moderate at all. In fact, he could be what you would consider a left-wing lunatic that happens to pro-life, which is pretty much what he is.

The idea that Patterson should replace Hillary Clinton with a pro-life Democrat is mind-numbingly stupid.

Let me take a more detailed look then.
In 2007 he supported earmark reform, a fiscally Conservative move.
In 2006 he opposed some CFR bill, supported parents notified of their kids abortions and some bills against illegal immigration.
So he is not strict pro-life and it's important to remember that the vast majority of bills in congress and the senate are to do with spending.

And you are welcome to post voting rankings from a Liberal site, I've viewed those before and they pretty much show what the ACU does, why wouldn't they? Almost all votes divide themselves down ideological lines.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Man threads like this really remind you how sexist Darla is. On her better days she can come across as reasonable but clearly she's prejudiced at the core.

Reminds of back in high school when there was a girl who was running for student president (or some title I can't remember) and in her speech she basically just said "Vote for me because I'm a girl" as she was just running against 2 other guys. She lost big time.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What's the problem with going out and finding a qualified woman from the start? They do exist you know. Lots of them.

And it isn't as though the Senate is a great meritocracy comprised of the 100 most qualified persons that just so happen to be 90+% white and 85% male. It isn't eliminating all males because they have a penis, it is eliminating all males because there are already a shitload of males in a male dominated political body.

It isn't racism and it isn't sexism.

Again ... no one is saying that you can't go out and look for a qualified woman. If you would actually learn to read, you would see that the author of the article brought up two such women. I fully understand that there are a lot of women qualified to be Senator.

That said, it does not change the fact that when you say... "I will only hire a woman, all men need not apply" That cannot be anything other than SEXIST. It is a decision based on GENDER.

How many times do you have to have this explained to you before you finally comprehend?

Likewise, if you say...' I will only hire someone who is black/white/asian' etc... it is racist. Period.

To eliminate someone based on gender is always sexist. To eliminate someone based on race, its racist.... always.

If you have two or more candidates who have relatively the same qualifications and then you give the edge to a minority or a woman, then in that case it is not racist or sexist.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Do you mean "disagree" as in when they state their personal opinion on an issue or disagree as in when it comes time to vote and how they act?

Voting percentages are an imperfect way for sure, not a dumbass one.

You know Super there was a conversation once (true story) between 2 reps in the house once and the Conservative one said to the Liberal one that he didn't get how the other guy could get elected when he votes so Liberally in the house and comes from a fairly Conservative riding. The Liberal guy responded that it's because at election time he knows how to sound and act Conservative.
Politicians lie all the time don't they? They break their promises, they take 2 sides of some issues, they say they believe in something and they don't. BUT when it comes time to vote you are usually going to get the clearest picture of how they really are.

I don't know man, lately it seems you are hostile to lots of people who take a lot of the same views as you do, maybe you are just looking to go it alone against the left. That's your choice but the one reason the right came undone in the last election was an inability to work together. Just some friendly advice.

I have no idea what most of your rambling was about. But I live in Colorado, I voted for Salazar, I am happy with the way he has represented the state and in the fact that his staff is pretty damn good at getting back to me when I question his positions or provide input on topics of interest to me. While I do not always agree, they at least are respectful enough to respond and explain why he disagrees.

As far as voting percentages, it is kind of retarded to use that to determine if a Dem is liberal/moderate.

It is ALL about WHICH issues they agree/disagree on. Not on how many.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again ... no one is saying that you can't go out and look for a qualified woman. If you would actually learn to read, you would see that the author of the article brought up two such women. I fully understand that there are a lot of women qualified to be Senator.

That said, it does not change the fact that when you say... "I will only hire a woman, all men need not apply" That cannot be anything other than SEXIST. It is a decision based on GENDER.

How many times do you have to have this explained to you before you finally comprehend?

Likewise, if you say...' I will only hire someone who is black/white/asian' etc... it is racist. Period.

To eliminate someone based on gender is always sexist. To eliminate someone based on race, its racist.... always.

If you have two or more candidates who have relatively the same qualifications and then you give the edge to a minority or a woman, then in that case it is not racist or sexist.

No it isn't. I know that, being a white guy, you have vast experience of what racism and sexism are and are not, but you are mistaken here. It isn't racism and it isn't sexism. All decisions that are based on race are not inherently racist and all decisions that are based on sex aren't sexist. I know it may be tough for you to grasp, but just try a little harder. You'll get there little guy.

 

[Cancel7]

Man threads like this really remind you how sexist Darla is. On her better days she can come across as reasonable but clearly she's prejudiced at the core.

Much like SF, you don't know what sexism is.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think one seat in every state should be reserved for a woman.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No it isn't. I know that, being a white guy, you have vast experience of what racism and sexism are and are not, but you are mistaken here. It isn't racism and it isn't sexism. All decisions that are based on race are not inherently racist and all decisions that are based on sex aren't sexist. I know it may be tough for you to grasp, but just try a little harder. You'll get there little guy.

Bullshit. When you eliminate someone based on their race, it is racist.

When you eliminate someone based on their gender it is sexist.

When you eliminate someone based on their religion or sexual preference, it is bigoted.

Being a white guy doesn't automatically disqualify me from understanding racism. Just because YOU want to attempt to justify racist and sexist behavior against white guys doesn't change the fact that it would still be racist and sexist to do so.