Ageist bitch.
I’d be interested to know more about that, if you’ve got anything to hand.
Did I strike a nerve?
Well, yes, your general racism does bother me. But the ageist thing was just more of me mocking your blatant hypocrisy, which seems to be about 100% of the content of your post in the last two pages or so.
Fearless Reader
You’re on quite a roll. Insulting everyone. Setting an excuse for “F” (I am tired of his name even) and then completely failing to see how your comparison of “F” to David Dukes is the same as what Miller was saying. There is no excuse for the way “F” has acted over the years.
You have changed the argument anytime a reasonable person might concede a point and then go after another point.
You have seemingly missed every piece of snarky humor and sarcasm employed by others.
You made some points of Rudy that are downright frightening but then step it up to where he is worse than “F”.
You apparently are also unable to give Rudy any credit for the good he did for the city. You even begrudge him having done well on 9/11.
I don’t understand at all where you are coming from. Are you a member of NAI?
BTW your “A pathetic old man’s version” is actually ageist and sexist.
Jim
Yeah, lots of people reading this thread. What’s up with that?
But I’m not defending Farrakhan. I’m defending the merits of his anger - why he is angry. How he handles that anger is unfortunate, but I really don’t see how the reasons for it can be denied. Is there a way to separate his handling with the reasons?
Are we saying that a perfect black leader needs to rise up before we address this issue? That is what I have a problem with. I doubt that will ever happen, and in my more cynical moments I think that is what some people are counting on. Not necessarily anyone here (I think most of the hostility towards me is just misunderstanding or ego or perceived political differences - the usual reasons we decide to dislike someone). But why the aversion to discussing it?
I think Farrakhan should be addressed. I think Duke should be addressed too. Different reasons, different perceptions, but how can we afford to dismiss people who symbolize or mobilize anger for a larger group? Duke’s anger may not have the same merits, but he and others share that perception. Ignoring it or dismissing it doesn’t make it go away.
They don’t have to be right in order to be addressed. Plenty of examples in history of people who weren’t right, who subsequently got power and wreaked havoc - because the reasons for their anger were not addressed before they got power.
I just think the bar here about how to deal with racism is unrealistic.
No, you’re just excusing him, which is almost as offensive. When you say something like, “Sure he’s a racist, but it’s understandable because of his background,” you both minimize his brand of racism, and promote your own. Yes, blacks are oppressed in this country. That’s not an excuse to shun civilized standards of behavior: the attitude you’re expressing in this thread is the worst kind of liberal paternalism. It’s far more racist than any actual opinion expressed by any person in this thread.
Who here is averse to discussing the issues he’s raised? Why is he necessary to any discussion on racism, except as an example of it? These issues exsist independently of him, they can be discussed independently of him, as well.
Further, there is a whole hell of a lot of distance between “prefect” and “Louis Farrakhan.” Jesse Jackson is a flawed man, but not entirely without substance. Martin Luther King, Jr. had flaws, too, but is no less revered. No one is demanding a perfect black leader, but that doesn’t require an absolute abdication of standards, either. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to look for a black leader who is angry, outspoken, and not an unrepentent racist.
“Louis Farrakhan is a racist,” is, in fact, addressing Louis Farrakhan. It is also, please note, not dismissive of every issue which he raises. Those issues can be adressed without giving a racist an aura of legitimacy, or national attention beyond the fact that he’s a hate-monger.
And there are just as many example of people who came to power because people excused, minimized, or simply ignored their explicit bigotry. As you have done throughout this entire thread.
I know you will never forgive my cites about Giuliani, but keep in mind that I didn’t make them up. How is your continued defense of him any different from what I’ve said about Farrakhan? Aren’t they both men, with good and bad qualities? Or is it necessary to dehumanize Farrakhan, whereas Rudy gets a pass?
You ask for cites and I provide them, and then you never address them. Isn’t it time for you to step up to the plate and defend your hero?
I’m taking heat here - not for defending Farrakhan as a hero, but only as a flawed man with a message - but you get a pass to continue to go on about how Giuliani is still worthy of respect and on your wish list as President.
I’d fear Farrakhan if he had that kind of following. But he doesn’t. I fear Giuliani, for the reasons I posted, and he’s got the following, and the greater potential for power. They cannot be compared for that reason, and I keep saying why, yet you insist on continuing the lie by suggesting that comparing them was my agenda.
But why is it that you get a pass for enthusiastically supporting Giuliani? Who is in a position to cause more harm to this country? Why are we more concerned with Farrakhan? Are you trying to compare them as a way of making Rudy seem more palatable? The lesser of two evils?
Problem with that is - Farrakhan doesn’t have the same chance of winning an election. Why can’t you grasp that point?
Too bad you overlook the insults directed at me. You’re a member and can search. You’ve already said you checked out my history here. Do you think I came here to insult anyone? Is it possible that I have given up on polite discourse because of the volume of smears hurled my way in this thread?
Try to be <cough> objective.
Please look at post 432 & 437. Your link concerning Russell Harding appears a valid reason to remove Rudy from my list of supportable candidate for POTUS.
This is disappointing and I posted a responce to everyone of your quotes. I will assume you missed these posts. I do think I might at least be owed an apology on these points.
Yes I still think despite this Rudy is a much better man that “F”.
I did not overlook the insults directed at you, but because Finn & others were in attack mode you did give Miller a fair hearing. I believe I still post rationally even after I get attacked. I might get snarkier but I review my position and I am definately known to change it.
Well, misunderstanding, ego and political differences are pretty low on my list of reasons I dislike people. Hell, I think if Clinton and I ever went out on the town we’d have a pretty damn good time. It takes something much more substantive than the above 3 items for me to dislike someone.
But I’m sure that just like everyone else here it must be some “issue” I need to work out for myself.
If I missed some of your responses then I will apologize in advance. I’ll take you at your word. I didn’t realize the post about Harding had the import you suggest now.
I still like your style, and if you check this thread yourself, you’ll see I’ve apologized to you quite a bit, even though the perceived offensiveness was unintentional, and the facts behind the cites weren’t my own doing. I don’t enjoy disagreeing with people I like, but lying gives me stomach pains.
I’m sure you feel bad about the revelations about the Giuliani administration. Believe me, I wish they weren’t true. But that is reality, and that is my point. There are no perfect leaders. We weigh the good and the bad and struggle to make a decision (just as EddyTeddyFreddy said earlier. It’s not easy, and I still don’t think it can be objective, regardless of our good intentions in that regard.
So what makes you dislike someone?
I was thinking about internet dislike with my criteria. Real life dislike is a whole other can of worms.
Jim - sorry again but thanks for bringing it to my attention. There are a whole bunch of posts on the page before that I didn’t see. Probably cross posted with my own replies. I wouldn’t have said that about you acknowledging my cites if I’d seen it.
I’m really surprised that the Harding scandal was a tipping point for you, out of everything else. NYC politics has been so corrupt for as far back as I can remember. But I agree, we don’t need any more of that on a national level. That’s why I’m skeptical about Rudy actually tossing his hat in - all this stuff is certain to come out during any new campaign. Or is the media that impotent at this point?
I wouldn’t condemn Miller for “hate speech” related to gay oppression, and I didn’t. I agree that gays are oppressed. Anger about that wouldn’t cause me to dismiss the argument. I think it is justified.
I condemned him for mischaracterizing what I said in order to make his points.
Absent a character shift, the solution is just a click away
I’ll suggest an SSRI for you. Big Pharm says they’re good for everything - even paranoia. 
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9929,noel,7168,5.html
Apparently, F had some kind of special relation with the killer, too.
Gotta love the gummy bear porn on the village voice site 
Erm… it was there the last time I saw it. No, you’re crazy!
FinnAgain, what? They were in a queue, the green gummi collapsed to the ground, the yellow fellow is bending over to check if greenie’s ok and the red gummi-person is looking on solicitously. You sick, sick bastard.
Ok, they were in a queue for porn, but still.