Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Forrester: Lying AGAIN to New Jersey Republican Voters
Schundler for Governor ^ | 06/05/05 | Schundler for Governor

Posted on 06/06/2005 2:04:56 AM PDT by thenderson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: thenderson

So opposing affirmative action is "CRUDE RUDE AND OFFENSIVE"?

Why?

Are you saying that you'd be okay with opposing affirmative action in front of a white audience, but it's not okay in front of a black audience? Why?

Please explain. In detail.

Qwinn


21 posted on 06/06/2005 12:19:16 PM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn

If an atheist wanted to give a lecture on why they doubted the existence of God, they have every right to do so. It would be CRUDE, RUDE, AND OFFENSIVE for them to try to deliver a speech like that on the steps of a church on Christmas Day!

Discussing a controversial subject in a way to deepen everybody's understanding is good thing. Running around the state looking for hornet nests to kick is just plain dumb!

A candidate wants to create support, not erode it.


22 posted on 06/06/2005 2:16:21 PM PDT by thenderson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: thenderson

"If an atheist wanted to give a lecture on why they doubted the existence of God, they have every right to do so. It would be CRUDE, RUDE, AND OFFENSIVE for them to try to deliver a speech like that on the steps of a church on Christmas Day!"

"Atheism" is to "Christmas" as "Affirmative Action" is to "Martin Luther King"? How absurd!

MLK's message was that men should be judged by the content of their character, NOT the color of their skin. Affirmative action is based on the premise that judging on the color of their skin is a good and noble thing.

A far more appropriate analogy would be if he'd gotten up on the steps of the Church and delivered a speech about how Christmas is about the birth of Christ, -not- a secular gift-giving festival steeped in commercialization. Lonegan was upholding the -true- spirit of MLK's legacy, instead of buying into the entitlement meme promulgated by race-baiters like Jesse Jackson. And you're screaming "CRUDE, RUDE AND OFFENSIVE!" over it. Quite the opposite, it's Jackson and his ilk who tortured and completely reversed MLK's message that have been "CRUDE, RUDE AND OFFENSIVE", and Lonegan who has shown both MLK and the voters he spoke to far more respect than you are.

Qwinn


23 posted on 06/06/2005 2:46:41 PM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn

Do you really think that Steve Lonegan is the person to teach African-Americans about Dr. Martin Luther King?

My one grandmother was Irish. If Steve Lonegan started lecturing me about the Irish experience in America, I don't know how long I'd listen.


24 posted on 06/06/2005 3:46:28 PM PDT by thenderson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: thenderson

I see. So if Lonegan were -black-, then it'd be okay for him to hold his position and state it when and where he did?

Just trying to figure your position out here.

Qwinn


25 posted on 06/06/2005 3:58:50 PM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn

I think that ANY AND EVERY holiday is a time for -- at the very least -- respect, if not reflection.

If I remember correctly, in a speech President Bush mentioned that in Florida, the top percentage of the graduating class of each high school qualifies for a scholarship to a state university. In something like this, an assistance program becomes merit-based without limiting minority access.


26 posted on 06/06/2005 5:47:42 PM PDT by thenderson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: thenderson

"I think that ANY AND EVERY holiday is a time for -- at the very least -- respect, if not reflection."

I agree entirely. Completely. Totally.

What I'm trying to figure out is why you believe that supporting affirmative action is the only way to show respect to MLK's legacy, given that his most memorable statements ran expressly counter to the idea.

What I'm contending is that Lonegan -did- show respect toward MLK and to those voters he was speaking to, that those who support affirmative action are expressly showing disrespect for the color blind society MLK worked towards and disrespect to those black voters who are expressly condescended to by the notion that they -need- everyone else to be handicapped in order to succeed, and those who are claiming that Lonegan was "rude" and "offensive" for actually listening to what MLK said and applying it today, are the ones failing to show respect.

Qwinn


27 posted on 06/06/2005 6:04:53 PM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn

Did Lonegan communicate to one and all what you claim are his insights into and respect for the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King? Did large segments of Essex and Hudson County switch Party affiliation after hearing of the sayings of this sage of Bogota?


28 posted on 06/06/2005 6:43:43 PM PDT by thenderson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: thenderson

"Did Lonegan communicate to one and all what you claim are his insights into and respect for the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King?"

I would assume so, given the venue. Why would any conservative -not- rely on MLK in advocating a color-blind society? It's the standard conservative position.

"Did large segments of Essex and Hudson County switch Party affiliation after hearing of the sayings of this sage of Bogota?"

I don't know... but you certainly seem to be under the assumption that blacks will -reject-, out of hand, someone who reiterates MLK's ideal of a color blind society. Why is that? And do you believe that the way for conservatives to get "large segments of Essex and Hudson County to switch party affiliation" is to patronize and condescend to them the way liberals do?

Qwinn


29 posted on 06/06/2005 6:59:05 PM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
The voters have already rejected Schundler before. They haven't rejected Lonegan.

Tomorrow night he can join the crowd.

30 posted on 06/06/2005 7:31:47 PM PDT by Exit148 (Founder of the Loose Change Club. Every nickle and dime counts!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SunnyD1182

I went to your web-site and scanned your blogs. WOW! You've been busy!


31 posted on 06/06/2005 7:33:00 PM PDT by Exit148 (Founder of the Loose Change Club. Every nickle and dime counts!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
Not only will the very conservative Steve Lonnegan be ripped apart in the media but one should expect that for any Republican candidate. The problem with a moderate is not only will the press rip into him but so will his own party.
32 posted on 06/06/2005 8:03:34 PM PDT by peter the great
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SunnyD1182
I really do not look at Steve Lonnegan as the equivalent of a Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan and I will tell you why. Unlike Nader or Buchanan, Steve Lonnegan is actually a public office holder. Also, you must remember that Jim McGreevey, like Brett Schundler were also Mayor's. .
33 posted on 06/06/2005 8:10:27 PM PDT by peter the great
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nipplemancer
I figure it this way, the Lonnegan message will be a breath of fresh air and really different in comparison to everyone else..
34 posted on 06/06/2005 8:12:30 PM PDT by peter the great
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: peter the great
You're looking at it from the wrong angle. Lonegan is a 3rd party candidate that very clearly stands no chance. He's not even remotely close- the only 3rd party candidate to ever get close to anything was Perot back in 1992. Lonegan will get 5% at best, and all of those votes would be more than enough to get Schundler the win, so Forrester doesn't take the nomination.

Lonegan is right on the issues- but so was Pat Buchanan back in 2000 or 1996. He didn't stand a chance then, Lonegan doesn't stand a chance now. If this was Schundler vs. Lonegan, or everyone was running except Forrester, I can see the logic in a Lonegan vote, as one wouldn't exactly be putting a liberal into office by voting for Lonegan over, say, Schundler. But since Forrester is in this race- and worse yet, has the lead- any vote for a no-chance candidate is a wasted vote, one which hands even more power to Doug Forrester.

35 posted on 06/06/2005 8:14:33 PM PDT by SunnyD1182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: peter the great
Yes, a breath of fresh air to those of us who understand him on the issues, but by the time Corzine gets through with Lonegan, he will have ended up branding the NJ GOP an out of touch party that has no idea what this state wants.

Compared to this state's voting base, Lonegan is a right wing crackpot. Now, that would be fine, if you had the personality and charisma to go with it, but Lonegan doesn't. He came off as an obnoxious abrasive dork during yesterday's debate- a total bomb-thrower. He needs to clean up his act if he ever thinks he's going to stand a chance in politics in this state.

36 posted on 06/06/2005 8:16:20 PM PDT by SunnyD1182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson