Disqus - Latest Comments for reyrey

Re: A ‘landslide’ of endorsements for Obama

reyrey — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:33:13 -0000

Gee, dan9el sure seems to be worked up about newspaper endorsements. He's posted the same long rants (which have nothing to do with newspaper endorsements) several times now whenever newspaper endorsement articles have come online.

Re: NM Republicans sued for voter intimidation, violation of privacy

reyrey — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:30:45 -0000

Well, well, it comes out that the Republican talking points about ACORN were an illegal hit-job while the Republicans themselves broke the law.

I once considered Rep. Fox-Young to be a reasonable moderate in the Roundhouse, but this seems to no longer be the case. What poor judgment on her part to become involved in this.

Re: Conservative Daily Times endorses Obama

reyrey — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:27:37 -0000

Too bad dan9el comments are entirely unrelated to this endorsement.

I'm fairly shocked about this endorsement. Palin is being described as firing up the Republican base, but this endorsement seems to show otherwise coming from a very pro-Republican publication.

Re: Thanks Martha Stirman, a.k.a ignorant Otero County lady

reyrey — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:17:37 -0000

Too bad that Marcia Stirman's mother never had such a conversation (or, if she did, Marcia clearly didn't listen to her mother).

Re: Let’s talk about ‘verbal terrorism’

reyrey — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:20:11 -0000

Quote:
"You make no sense what so ever, the quotes I used were to address your comments not mine you need to read your prior posts before you try to twist what I am saying in response to you."

You're accusing me of making no sense for quoting the things you said about me when I responded to them? That's sort of misguided, sort of sad.

Quote:
"You say I don't have my facts correct and need a fact checker, I challange you to point to the part in my article that is wrong, come on give me one fact that proves I am wrong. I don't want your opinion I want a fact!"

Well, once again I guess I'll correct your facts about the 'Dixiecrats' like Strom Thurmond who changed parties from Democrat to Republican. That's a fact that your claim that it never happened can't contest. Another fact is that McCain supported ACORN and Rep. Lewis when it was politically expedient and then attacked his once allies when he wanted to solidify his Republican base. Those facts are well documented. You are also factually challenged in stating that "the Republican Party platform and philosophy has not changed EVER! ". All in all, its once again sad that a reader has to fact check a news commentator.

Quote:
"I guess we will agree to disagree about me being the mainstream media I am not a reporter I don't know how to say that any clearer then that to you, but I am starting to realize that no matter what I say you are unable to understand it anyway."

No, I refuse to "agree to disagree". I refuse to accept your unilateral attempt to make this go away. I refuse to let you off the hook. You aren't a reporter, that's for sure (your poor fact checking would be laughed out of even the most basic journalism class). But, people who have a byline and continuing column in the mainstream media are still part of the mainstream media. You're not a guest commentator, you're a continuing presence in a mainstream media outlet. Why can't you accept this fact? Its not embarrassing. Plenty of fine and upstanding citizens, even Republican ones, have worked in the media over the years.

Quote:
"well what do you call the State Chairman, Congressional Candidate and US Senator calling for him to resign?"

I call that individual Republicans who should be congratulated for standing up against racism. Where was the official condemnation by the Bernco Party, the party folks who investigated C de Baca, or the state party as a whole? That's right, there wasn't one. Again, the actions of a few sully the actions of many who fail to speak up.

Quote:
"Earlier you tell me I have not read the platform then you accuse me of spewing the "party line" come on reyrey which is it?"

Obviously its both. The 'party line' and the platform are 2 very different things. The 'line' is common vernacular for the spin put on events, not just the platform. The platform is set at the convention and doesn't change until its again voted on at the next convention. Its the interpretations that change. I'm sorry to keep having to educate you about these things.

Quote:
"School is out I am done educating you, maybe you should have paid attention when you were in school. Instead of writting me back go to the local library (that is the building with all the books) and read a little about history and stop relying on TV, the internet and the Democrat talking points for your facts."

That's pretty condescending. You know almost nothing about me, where I went to school, how many history books I've read, or how much time I spend in the library. You don't know if I happen to be your next door neighbor or the person in line next to you at the Home Depot. You attack people instead of listen to them and, frankly, that scares me a little. This diatribe is akin to your label of my original post, a discrete 3 paragraphs, as "spewing". When you can't face up to an idea you appear to fall back on attacking the person. How very, to use your own words from a previous post, "moral" of you.

Quote:
"Thank you and good night"

No, no thank you. And I probably won't have a good night after you've specifically insulted me as an imaginary and stereotyped person as you did in your last full paragraph rather than address what I've actually said.

Re: Let’s talk about ‘verbal terrorism’

reyrey — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:21:53 -0000

Dan,
You claim again :
"You said earlier that "many left the democrat party to become republicans" I was pointing out that was not true period!"
Again, you fail to remember that Strom Thurmond switched parties--he was a key 'Dixiecrat'. At least get your basic facts correct before you repeat yourself.

You state:
"I think you mean divisive but I am not sure. The fact is the Republican Party platform and philosophy has not changed EVER! We are still the only party that was founded on a moral platform and that was to do away with slavery. The democrats continue to pander to minorities and Republicans don't. Just look at the positions that blacks have held in the Bush administration and comapre that to the democrats."
Thank you for correcting my spelling error. I will do the same for your misspelling 'comapre' and failing to capitalize the proper name 'democrat'. Now that that's out of the way, we can get back to you once again failing to provide the slightest bit of evidence about the Republican Party Platform. Its relatively easy to find online, especially so for an online columnist like yourself. But, maybe you haven't read it, which is kind of embarrassing for someone who goes by the handle 'proudrepublican'. Its plainly absurd for you to claim that the platform "has not changed EVER!". It changes every 4 four years at the party convention. That's what the delegates are there for (not just to bask in the media limelight). I commend the convention delegates for taking the time to understand and vote on their platform as they guide their party through times that were unimaginable back in 1854 (the year your party was founded). Clearly its something you've never taken the time to do, much less consider.
Overall, you once again expose yourself for attempting to talk about the past instead of the present. Yes, your party was founded in part as a counteraction against the Whig Party and early leaders like Lincoln fought against the expansion of slavery. But your party is the one who besmirched the reputation of John McCain himself back in 2000 with the 'black baby' rumor in South Carolina. You party is now the one whipping up hatred against Arab Americans, Muslim Americans and bi-racial American.Times have changed in the last 154 years and, unfortunately, many, many racists have taken refuge in the Republican Party. Its truly sad that more Republicans haven't spoken out against racists in their midst. Its truly sad that they haven't kicked them out. But, its not surprising when even a 'proudrepublican' doesn't even know what their party stands for or how its even organized.

Then, you say:
"When Republicans see this kind of thing we take action democrats just ignore it and hope it goes away."
Really, I saw some Republicans--like Darren White, who is running for office, or Allen Weh, who as head of the Republican Party here in New Mexico has been building a power base against C de Baca--but there were many, many in power in the local Republican Party who explicitly stood up for C de Baca. Many more who never called for his resignation or moved to repudiate his racist statements. That sure sounds like ignore and hope it goes away to me. Yes, eventually C de Baca did go away, but that doesn't change the in-actions of his local supporters. The Republican Party never formally disavowed his racist comments. That's pretty pathetic.

But, it all comes down to your last claim:
"I am not the mainstrream media, I am a columnist who is not afraid to tell you who I am and how I am registered. Nobody reads my column and believes they are getting the news they are getting my opinion, so there is a big difference between what I do and what MSNBC, NBC and the New York Times does!"
Sorry, Dan, but you are a card-carrying member of the mainstream media. This is a mainstream media outlet, just like MSNBC, FOX, and the New York Times (which, you might remember endorsed John McCain during the Republican primary over local Rudy Guiliani--or you might not remember since you play pretty loose with the facts)--this is not an underground high school newspaper. the biggest difference visible between these media outlets and you are the presence of fact checkers and editors who try for at least a minimum of historical accuracy. In the end, you are a columnist for an online paper that rose out of the old Albuquerque Tribune--one of the oldest and most mainstream media outlets in our fine state. You can continue as misanthropist and hate yourself for being a columnist in the mainstream media, or maybe you can do something other than parrot the Party line about the media.

Re: Let’s talk about ‘verbal terrorism’

reyrey — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:47:13 -0000

Who cares if someone died a Democrat or changed parties (like Strom Thrumond--who did change to Republican) for what happened back then? You're making my point by not talking about anything from the last 40 years. What's significant is that even some who railed against civil rights, like Robert Byrd and even George Wallace himself to some extent, repudiated their past racist leanings and that we've arrived at where we are today. I'm not sure how my relatively succinct, 3 paragraph response, is spewing. I suspect that's just a word you use to discredit people when you can't discredit their ideas. Please show me specifically how the current Republican Party Platform is not decisive (and how the Dem one is). Please show me how current New Mexican Republicans like C de Baca and his supporters aren't racist.

As for ACORN, I never said that McCain gave them money. I said that McCain gave them his support of presence as standing Senator who calls himself a 'maverick'. I'm upset not by what ACORN does, but by what McCain does. He uses people and groups for his own publicity (like he has with Feingold, Lewis, ACORN and the many veterans he has voted against supporting over the years) and then throws them aside to appease a reactionary political base who is nervous about his 'maverick' leanings to bi-partisanship. McCain has spent the last 8 years readying himself for this current run at the presidency. Unfortunately, that has meant moving ever rightward and giving up bi-partisanship right and left.

Finally, your attacks at the "mainstream media" ring pretty hollow. You are the mainstream media (notice I didn't put quotes around it like you did).

Re: McCain’s Manchurian moment

reyrey — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:20:16 -0000

Tim, I'm sorry to hear that you bought into the superficial and manufactured image of McCain. Why does he surround himself with so many lobbyists if he doesn't "stand for lobbyists writing legislation"? Please provide an actual example of this from a third party (not from McCain himself).

But your eyes do seem to be opening. However, McCain is odious not for making a misstatement or being old guy who has trouble ambling around stage (those are excusable enough). McCain is odious for long supporting policies that hurt America and that favor the rich over anyone else (like his relatives in the beverage industry, his cronies from the S&L days, all the way up to Freddie Mac lobbyists today).

Re: Let’s talk about ‘verbal terrorism’

reyrey — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:52:35 -0000

Muslim smears and claims that Obama wasn't born in the US brought race into the argument. Palin's direct comments and McCain's lack of firm response showed it not to just be surrogates spreading lies. But, mostly Dan Foley wants to talk about ancient history so that no one will notice current events. George Wallace was one of many racist "Dixiecrats". Many, like Strom Thurmond, left the Democratic party to become Republicans. Some, like Wallace, never did before they died.

But, the Democratic party has long come to terms with its racist past and its current party platform reflects that. Unfortunately for the Republicans, their party has also shifted from its past. It is no longer the supporter of individual and equal liberties and rights as it once was for Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln. The current, not the historical, Republican party platform is divisive and Republicans have spearheaded the gutting of individual liberties over the last 8 years from presidential signing statements to suspending habeus corpus for US citizens to classifying political machinations as national security in order to keep them secret. Even the local, New Mexican Republicans, have produced the likes of Fernando C de Baca and his supporters. Its telling when so many local Republican's stood by C de Vaca when his racist comments ended up in international press.

Finally, Dan, you do realize that McCain was once a real supporter of ACORN (the current Republican party whipping boy of the day)? McCain has an unfortunate history of supporting bi-partisanship when it suits him, but turning his back on those who worked with him when trying to win over the reactionary Republican base (like Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform). McCain's attacks at Rep. Lewis are par for the course. Just a few weeks ago McCain labeled Lewis as one of his "wise men" like General Petraeus and EBAY CEO Meg Whitman. McCain threw Lewis out to gain some political points for Lewis' civil rights work. Then McCain threw him under the bus.