Brownstoner Democratic Primary Results

I am not surprised - I choose not participate because of the exclusion of republican candidates. Im sure many others did as well.

Thanks Bluestoner

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 9:34 AM

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why anybody would ever vote Republican. I understand the religious beliefs (e.g. against abortion, blah, blah, blah) and wanting to keep money in your pockets (greed). Besides those two things (which I personally think is a very self-interested view of the country and world) why would you ever vote Republican?

Do you think the Republicans actually make this country safer or promote a stronger economy?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 9:39 AM

uh oh I smell a 100+ comment tirade coming...

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 9:44 AM

If you're religious, believe the world was made in six days and it's only 5,000 years old, & you hate foreigners. That's why they're Republican.

Me, I personally view myself more Independent than Democrat. I am not at all for Socialism as most Democrats are. I also believe in the "Republic model" of government and not the "Democracy model" of government. And, no, I'm not talking about political parties. For those that went to college and took history, political science courses know what I'm talking about.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 9:49 AM

You are confusing Neo Conservative with Republican.
I am a Republican but anti-conservative so basically I'm shit out of luck these days.
I want more states rights and less federal power for basics.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 9:49 AM

@9:48AM

I'm sure it was more ad revenue, target ads, info gathering.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 9:50 AM

I think the majority of posters on this site are neocons anyway.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 9:51 AM

I dont vote Republican or Democrat. But I find myself preferring republicans to govern becuase in theory they stand for fiscal conservatism and smaller government, and lower taxes.

The democrats idealized and naive social welfare programs and are so dysfunctional and further add to the bureaucracy that make America less and less competitive and innovative with each passing year. Higher taxes scare me as we are now one of the most taxed anti-business countries int he world.

Having said that - In reality democrats and republicans are essentially the same animal in reality: they spend our money without restraint in order to keep themselves in office and appear as if they are doing something. Voting Democrat or Reblican makes no difference anymore - You are voting for someone to spend your money as fast as you can make it.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 9:51 AM

"I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why anybody would ever vote Republican."

A couple of points:

-your world-view clearly lacks explanatory power if it cannot account for a phenomenon as widespread as voting for a Republican

-you sound like a cloistered provincial urbanite--that's a big club, and you're in distinguished company with your groupthink and confusion

Here are some ideas that get short shrift from the Democrats these days, yet have their stubborn adherents across this country:

-free markets
-low taxes as an engine for economic growth
-individual freedom
-individual responsibility
-muscular advocacy of our geopolitical interests
-pride in America, past and present
-confidence that the assimilation of immigrants is better for society and immigrants, rather than the multicultural suspicion of the broader, blander "American culture"

Those are just a few ideas without a home--not even a rental--in the Democratic party at the moment. Not to say that all Republicans embrace all these ideas, but at least there are some.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 9:52 AM

9:52 - I would generally agree in concept with you except, in reality even the republicans dont practice what they preach. As soon as they took control of congress and the white house in 2004, they went on record spending sprees, enacted protectionist legislation, involved themselves in countless moral and political scandals, and grew the size of the government to record levels.

Unfortunately, it more about control and maintaining power, than ideal platforms like the ones you, and I too, admire. Congress is interested in 1 thing - Keeping their job, and unfortunately that means pork, pork, earmarks, pork, lobbyist favors, pork, and pork.

When the democrats win in November, get ready for more of the same as their party will be in control of congress and the white house - ready to go on another spending spree with your money.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:02 AM

Edwards is BEST for president. But voters are afraid to take chances and make changes even if they want to. It will be samo politics at the end of the day. They will not vote for him even if he's platform makes complete sense. This is a country of fearful citizens when it comes to financial and national security or belief systems. That's why we only have a two party system, a joke much like pro wrestling. They all share the same locker room later after the big bogus battle royal.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:10 AM

Edwards is a class warefare ultra left socialist who speaks of the ills of working class people out of one side of his mouth and makes appointments for $400 haircuts and manicures out of the other.

He and his tort lawyer friends will ravage whats left of this country its businesses and its economy if elected into office.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:16 AM

9:52 is right - those are the ideas, but 10:02 is alo right in saying that in the last few years some of those were greatly compromised.
The bottom line: Republican party needs another Reagan, but the prospect of "tax 'em dry" and "UN rules" Dems taking over both executive and legislative branches is just too frightening.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:18 AM

Democrats are going to raise taxes and spend more money on what?

The Tax and Spend scare tactics don't work anymore.

It will be very very difficult to top the last 7 years of republican spending.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:22 AM

9:49 - you are uninformed as to what neo-conservatives believe. Actually, the leading thinkers of the neo-conservatives are jewish and do no subscribe to the beliefs of the christian right. They are also generally not fiscal conservatives (hence Bush' spending spree). Neo-conservatives are generally interested in america taking a strong stand in the world (agressively standing up for and spreading its "ideals"; defense of israel) and civil rights/education/race issues (anti affirmative action and identity politics; pro vouchers and school choice and traditional curricula; anti welfare, single motherhood, etc etc).

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:24 AM

Clinton it is!!

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:25 AM

Greenwood Slope, do you have some numbers I haven't seen that shows that Brooklyn is actually a Republican stronghold?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:29 AM

the thing i love about neocons is that they seem to draw strength over the steady diet of wrong sauce that drenches all the crow they eat.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:31 AM

Brownstoner, can you please give the percentages for all the questions answered? I'm particularly interested in the nabes, race, and incomes of the respondants.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:31 AM

amen, Drew.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:36 AM

Reagan was a fearmongering asshole, but the Rebublican party started to pervert inself under Nixon.

We need Lincoln back!

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:37 AM

Thanks Drew for illustrating what I said--the cloistered urban provincials comprise a big club full of groupthink and confusion. Groupthink and confusion don't encourage good reading comprehension, apparently, nor do they help one to hone one's arguments.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:39 AM

Sad that Kucinich isn't taken seriously. (Side note: Scared to find out there actually are Republicans in Brooklyn—definitely will walk more cautiously from subway to door this evening.)

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:41 AM

HIGH-larious 10:39. But you're a good Cap'n to go down with your ship.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:42 AM

10:39am You like to listen to yourself talk, don't you?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:42 AM

"Sad that Kucinich isn't taken seriously. (Side note: Scared to find out there actually are Republicans in Brooklyn—definitely will walk more cautiously from subway to door this evening.)"

Parody? Unwitting self-parody? You be the judge.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:43 AM

Didn't you hear, 10:41? according to demographer extraordinaire "greenwood slope" we've been fooling ourselves that Brooklyn is "blue!"

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:44 AM

well said 10:32. 9:52 is a typical repuglican opportunist who only wants what he wants. wake up and smell the coffee. after all the election, it will be groundhog day in America. 10:10

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:45 AM

Political Logic formulas:

Renters=Democrats
Rent Stab or Project Dwellers=Liberals
Owners=Republicans
Landlords=Conservatives
Granola Hairy Armpit Tree Huggers = Socialist Liberals

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:46 AM

i'm torn. i'm rich, so i like republicans. but i'm not an asshole, so i like democrats. what do i do?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:47 AM

wow, 35 posts before 11am. Should hit 100 by lunchtime.

although i prefer a good ol' fashioned Goldman Sachs/Brooklyn Heights post.

That was a classic, hearing all the Slopers try and say that the Goldman execs were actuallying moving in to their hood.

I'm feeling nostalgic.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:49 AM

Mr B
I agree with those prior posters who ask for the full breakdown. We were generous enough to share our race/income etc, now you tell us the results. I know that info is valuable to your advertisers but there's no harm in posting it here.

Give up the goods Mr. B. We deserve it.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:54 AM

you must be a stalker 10:54

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:57 AM

"10:39am You like to listen to yourself talk, don't you?"

Yes, actually. And it's a good thing, too, because I hardly meet anyone else around this town who does.

North Sloper, see the 10:39 post about reading comprehension. It should answer your question about "my stance" (I haven't provided one, I was just explaining which ideas might lead one to vote for Republican).

I'm not a cloistered urban provincial. I'm a cosmopolitan neocon zionist Jew warmonger who thinks this country, and the sliced bread we've brought the world, are the best thing since, well, ever.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 10:58 AM

Strap on a gun, 10:58, you're needed in Afghanistan.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:00 AM

"- the buck fush t-shirts, bumper stickers, i-hate-bush-more-than-you-so-i'm-cooler bullshit"

Don't forget the trust fund babies walking around weating Che t-shirts. as if he would not have taken ALL of their shit and placed 20 families in their brownstones. Of course, he and Fidel would have kept the choicest park block ones for themselves.

"We need Lincoln back!"

Really? You do know that Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, right? maybe that's where Bush got the idea?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:00 AM

I'm a registered democrat, but I've resolved not to vote for anyone who voted to authorize this war. That means that, if Obama is eliminated, I'm screwed! If it comes to that, I guess I'll look for some third party candidate to support--which I wouldn't mind too much, as I think the two party stranglehold on American politics is probably a bigger problem than the war, the economy, health care, or anything else.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:01 AM

10:54am You didn't say pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssseeeeeee.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:01 AM

"Mr B
I agree with those prior posters who ask for the full breakdown. We were generous enough to share our race/income etc, now you tell us the results."

Why wait for B-stoners. Let's do it ourselves.

African-American
I vote Republican
Park Slope
Less than $100000 a year

Don't remember the other questions

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:10 AM

11:00- try shooting them all dead. Che was not one for half-measures.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:13 AM

Brownstoner is no fool -

Wait until the posts trickle down after about 150-175. Then a release of the data on a new thread will fire up more activity.

Maybe tomorrow, just to keep the flow of activity spread out.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:14 AM

10:46, I own and I'm a democrat. Though I do not totally agree with you simplicistic view-I think someone that owns (in NYC) is more likely to be Repulican than someone who rents.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:14 AM

what is Che?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:15 AM

You mean who was Che.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:24 AM

ok fine - who was Che?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:27 AM

The republicans are important because they keep the democrats honest.
Ohmygod, if the democrats had free reign over the past fifty years we would all be in the midst right now of dismantling our centrally-planned economy and trying to learm from the Chinsese about free markets.
Most of the old brownstones in Brooklyn would have been razed and replaced with Moscow-style public housing. Republicans have their excesses too and are reigned in by the democrats. that's the beauty of the 2-party system. As long as everyone is at each other's throats, the system works.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:33 AM

really?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:34 AM

11:33 - That's a pretty decent point you made there. As a wise NYC judge (who was elected as a Democrat but didn't hate Bush) once told me, "an eagle needs a right and a left wing to fly straight." I believe that, but I also believe that the "buck fush" crowd does a real disservice to the debate by their childish hatred of anyone with a different opinion.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:42 AM

11:27am You know, I didn't know either until I googled it. You might want to try it.

Ernesto Che Guevara

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:45 AM

Lots of Brooklyn brownstoners are less liberal than it seems looking at their tshirts. People who own brownstones they intend to leave to their children are going to be against the "death tax". With the way brownstones are increasing in value. Fewer and fewer are interested in doing things like putting their kids in a public school that needs help, and work towards improving it. Like brownstone residents who came before them did. The mere idea of it makes them freak in exactly the same way it does a Connecticut Republican.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:45 AM

Jeezus H. Christ--how old are you people that you don't know who Che was?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:47 AM

If you want the State to care for you, feed you, cloth you, shelter you, employee you, tell you you're special -- then, I suggest you move to Cuba.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:48 AM

I'm familiar with the image of Che, just didn't know his full name.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:50 AM

The most reassuring thing about this thread is that there are people who don't know who Che is. That's not very "progressive," but it is cultural progress!

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:52 AM

Bush was the worst president that ever lived and did incredible harm to this country. On that both parties agree. It's not about a differing "opinion" Bush holds that we just can't handle, 11:42. Anybody who still hates the Democrats simply because the Democrats dared to criticize Bush, is purely egotistical, fighting to the end just to avoid feeling embarrassed for voting for the worst president in history.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:54 AM

Just checked out "Che" on Wikipedia - Why are you people so enamored by him.

Looks like the guy was a brutal power hungry communist who executed thousands of people in the name of Marxism.

Why, exactly is he a hero?

An yes, sorry I am only 30 and not some disaffected youth longing for the warm soothing communist embrace.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 11:57 AM

"So, why don't some die hard democrats tell us what good they have accomplished in the past 50 years?"

Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a federal surplus. He appointed more minority federal judges than had existed at any time prior. President Carter brokered the Camp David accords in 1978, creating peace between Egypt and Israel. LBJ signed into law civil rights legialation inclduing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Fair Housing legislation in 1968. LBJ also named the first black man, Thurgood Marshall, to the U.S. Supreme Court. I could easily go on.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:00 PM

12:00 First Most of what you named i.e. "Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history" and "signed into law civil rights legialation inclduing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Fair Housing legislation in 1968" etc. are essentially functions of congree not the president.

The only real things done were appointing minorities - not a bad thing but hardly an "accomplishment".

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:08 PM

Che, - some people will know only through the Motorcycle Diaries movie, how cute the actor is and that's it. But the revolutionary icon Che in Argentine means and started as "hey". I'm not Argentine, but a home owner non-repuglican who believes that among Clinton, Obama and Edwards, the latter will better serve the country. Until the groundhog day. 10:45

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:10 PM

"Hardly an accomplishment" 12:08????

You're obviously not black nor does empathy come very naturally to you.

Spoken like a true Republican.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:15 PM

10:58 is in cahoots with the Christian right neocons who can wait to hasten the prophecy. You might as well convert now bec you both belong in the same pot. Crackpot.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:27 PM

"The only real things done were appointing minorities - not a bad thing but hardly an "accomplishment"

You're in denial.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:28 PM

12:19pm Well said. I agree 100% with you. That's why I'm an "Independent".

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:28 PM

"hardly an accomplishment"

A black man may very well become President of the United States in several months, because of what these white Democrats did and what they started a few decades ago. There's no question these were important accomplisments. But we don't need you to admit it for it to be so. The history books will say it.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:37 PM

If I were Black I'd be against Obama - nothing good for individual blacks can come of it...(and potentially alot bad can happen)

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:39 PM

"If I were Black I'd be against Obama - nothing good for individual blacks can come of it...(and potentially alot bad can happen)"

Fortunately, you're not black.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:41 PM

"10:58. You scare me. Why don't you pull out those Uzis while you're at it. And defend your brownstone."

Don't worry, it's not you I'm after, drowsy sloper. I live in a Williamsburg wood-frame, full of nice original details like a coal shoot, and well, that's it--not a brownstone. The house is just a few blocks from where my grandparents landed after narrowly escaping the fate of a very likely and very likely nasty European death. Then they escaped Williamsburg for Queens. What a country!

Also, Uzis are for suckers. This is the last word in effective home defense:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raygun

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:43 PM

Che did not slaughter thousands of people, although he would have if given the chance, and he certainly would have killed most of us.

and to the people who keep lumping neo-cons and christian rights, they are really different subgroups of the republican party, so you are only displaying your ignorance.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:47 PM

What does being black have to do with anything?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:55 PM

I have a theory as to why Che is such a hero.
Are you ready for this Montrosse?
He was really nice-looking and sexy with his long locks and he had a great name.
He couldn't love somebody named "Che".

Sure he murdered thousands and many who knew him think he was truly sadistic, but he was sooo cute. He had true chic.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:56 PM

12:47pm Oh now, don't get your panties in bunch over your embarrassment and shame being a Republican. Radical Christians and Neo-Conservatives and Republicans are all the same thing and you know it. You're trying to split hairs.

If Republicans want to teach creationism, they should just send their kids to private schools instead of destroying the separation of Church and State. That's just one example of radical fundamentalist Christians attempting to bring back the Dark Ages to the US.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 12:58 PM

12:47
Che certainly was responsible for killing thousands in Cuba during the early days of the Castro coup he then killed many thousands more in his forays in Peru and Bolivia. He was not a nice person although he was photogenic and cool. Many liberal democrats in NYC were rooting for his team back in the 60's, some still are.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 1:02 PM

12:58, did I miss the fundamentalist Christian ranting on this board, or did you just make that up because it's easier to denounce than actual, real-life people who don't share your world-view?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 1:03 PM

The reason most Republicans belive in Creationism, is because they are not evolving.

Most people who'd I'd consider to have moved up the human evolution chain a bit are Democrats.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 1:06 PM

1:06, what about this guy?

http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/images/2007/05/18/smdemflame.jpg

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 1:12 PM

12:58pm
"If Republicans want to teach creationism, they should just send their kids to private schools instead of destroying the separation of Church and State."

But, that's the rub isn't it? Most of the Republicans are either very wealthy or very poor in Middle America. They can't afford private schools are even have private schools in their little hilly villages and incorporated towns. There answer to everything is pray your way out of financial ruin, peer inadequacies.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 1:14 PM

I think most republicans in the state of NY couldn't care less about creationism.
The fact that there are folks in other states of the union who hold religious convictions different than those prevalent in the Big Apple does not mean that they should be denied a voice or denigrated.
Who has a louder voice than Al Sharpton? I think he is at least as wacky as some of the fundamentalists. But he's from here so we are used to him.
There is a strong tendency among big-city Dems to demonize and marginalize those with whom they disagree. I find it one of the least attractive traits of the modern liberal. I think it may be one of the reasons why they are so good at losing elections.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 1:22 PM

republicans scare me.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 1:25 PM

Obama supporter. I would not vote for Bloomberg over Obama (and responded that way on the poll)--but I would vote for Bloomberg over Hillary.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 1:43 PM

THE WINNING TICKET:

PRESIDENT OBAMA
VICE PRESIDENT BLOOMBERG

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 1:50 PM

I get the comment at 12:39 - I'm a Jew and feel the same way about Bloomberg, even though I love the guy.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 1:53 PM

1:50 - you live in a fantasy world - please get out a visit the rest of America

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 2:05 PM

I must have missed the comment at 12:29 because I don't see it - yes Jewish too-but I did see the comment at 12:19 about Israel and think it is a subject best left alone. There are enough hate mongers on this forum without you joining in.

As for Bloomberg- I have a like/strong dislike relationship. He's really cold but he's brilliant and focussed and he has done a lot for the City. I don't agree with all of it, but there is definitely something to be said for a successful businessman running a big city. Now if he could only have a little more understandig that a big city is nevertheless not just a big business....

My fear in November- if it's a Hillary/Mccain contest- he's probably the only one who can offer her a serious challenge.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 2:08 PM

2:05...care to explain your rather idiotic comment?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 2:09 PM

1:50- if you recall the sheer nastiness and hate that defined the last Presidential contest I am sure you will realize that big-city Dems have no lock on the demonizing and marginalizing of anyone. In fact we got our lessons from the Conservatives and republicans. the term "swiftboating" did not come from a Democratic political tactic.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 2:11 PM

if you are referring to bloomberg, 2:11 he was a republican up until a year ago and is now independent.

certainly not a "big city dem"

you need to do some more big city reading.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 2:21 PM

"the term "swiftboating" did not come from a Democratic political tactic"

Perhaps not, but misrepresenting the claims of the "Swiftboaters" who claimed that Kerry exaggerated his military record did.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 2:25 PM

2:21pm
Actually, Bloomberg has been a life long Democrat all his life. He changed to the Republican ticket in order to run for Mayor of NY since the Democrat contenders were crowded with people and he also received endorsement Giuliani from the after math of 9/11. While in office he has voted like a Democrat on just about everything, with a few exceptions when he handed out party rules for the Republicans. He has always been a Republican on paper only.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 2:31 PM

2:09 - a black and a jew? - keep dreaming

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 2:36 PM

Nice of you to point that out for 2:21, 2:31--and to refrain from calling him the fucktard that he is.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 2:39 PM

Wow, Montrose, your 1:27 post was only three lines long! I never thought I'd see the day where you expressed a viewpoint in less than 15,000 words. With miracles like this, maybe Kucinich can win.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 2:46 PM

2:25- I beg to differ. the swiftboaters were shown to be the the fiction spouters by a whole lot of official documentation, including military records and men who actually served with him. If anyone tried to misrespresent anything, it was the swiftboaters who made a crusade of character assassination of a Vietnam Veteran and war hero. Funny, they only did so during Bush's second election campaign- if Kerry's record was such an issue over the years, they should have been screaming about it since he got his medals. A little too politically expedient if you ask me.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 2:55 PM

2:46- you are such a one-issue bore.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 2:56 PM

2:09,

How is 12:19's comment about Israel hate mongering? His comment critized the creation of a nation, an opinion to which he is entitled. Had he made anti-Semitic comments I would have agreed with you 100%. We have to be careful not to mix critism of Israel with racism against the Jewish people. The are not necessarily one and the same.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 3:21 PM

New York City is basically a one-party town. If you want a say in who will represent you at the borough, city and state levels, you have to vote in the Democratic primaries -- which means you have to register as a Democrat. There are plenty of Democrats in NYC who would be Republicans if there was a viable Republican party organization here.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 3:47 PM

3:21- why bring up Israel in the first place? And unfortunately it's a subject bound to bring out the worst in these forums- it's one of those flashpoint issues and while I personally criticze Israel for many things, too many people love the whack Israel issue because it is a Jewish state. And that's a fact. I am as offended by his questioning Israel's right to exist as I would be if someone said the cessation of apartheid was the ruination of South Africa.

And I really object to those who think the issue is so one-sided and it is all Israel's fault. It's a great, mindless way to eventaully bring the argument up that 9-11 wouldn't have happened except for the Israelis. And that is a fact because I personally have been subjected to that argument, once in fact while I was standing on the WTC site during the clean-up.
In the history of the world, how do you think nations are created? Does anyone live in a country that wasn't fought over? And before people talk about the creation of the state of Israel, they should have a better knowledge of the actual history of how it came about. And how the Palestinians were relegated to camps. Do I think Israel is perfect or blameless- absolutely not. Do the Palestinians have a right to a homeland- absolutely yes.

But it is a fact that Israel is a code word used for other things- pretty much the same way many bloggers use the terms "poor" and "renters" and a host of others to vent their not so hidden racism. Mention PLG and boy does it rear its ugly head. that's my opinion and I am sure to get raked over the coals for it.

3:47- Perhaps if the republicans had a more viable message for NYC they would have enough interest to have their own primaries. And that has been knocked back practically to the stone age thanks to Bush & co. If republicans want more power in NYC they shouldn't send people here who don't even like us.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 4:10 PM

Oh- and 2:46- sorry to disappoint but I am not Montrose Morris (wish I was that erudite and articulate) :-)

4:10

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 4:13 PM

Sue me 4:10pm. I think Israel is horrible and the world would be better without it. Israelites were the original terrorists. That's history talking, not my personal opinion as I'm sure you will say. I'm also sure you'll call me an anti-semantic since I said anything offending against Israel.

On the same note, if I say offending remarks about the USA then I'm un-American? Grow a set a balls and quit being so damn defensive.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 4:20 PM

Sorry 4:20- it took me a minute to stop rolling on the floor laughing and wipe my eyes. when you can tell the difference between semantic and semite, then we can have an intelligent discussion. Maybe... I don't have much hope for you;.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 4:26 PM

4:20, thank you for brightening my day. Anti-semantic--that's exactly what you are!

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 4:39 PM

"With miracles like this, maybe Kucinich can win."

Look! I just saw a pig fly past my office window!!

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 4:54 PM

"I'm also sure you'll call me an anti-semantic since I said anything offending against Israel."

No, I call you "anti-semantic" because you clearly don't know the difference betwen "semantics" and "Semitic."

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 4:56 PM

4.10 Could you write more since I don't think you written enough diatribe about your cause. Keep defending.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 5:07 PM

I could but like they say in the Bible, I'd rather not cast pearls before swine

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 5:10 PM

3:21 here. I guess Israel was mentioned because it was his opinion but he made no allusion to Jews as a people. The analogy that you used of apartheid in South Africa was not a good one though because apartheid is based on racism and state building not necessarily so. I must admit that 12:19 does prove your point even if you didn't in his subsequent "anti-semantic" posts.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 5:12 PM

Why do we expend so many lives and so much treasure standing behind this tiny arrogant country (Israel) anyway?

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 5:22 PM

Hey 3:21- I know he didn't and actually I don't think anti-semantic (I'm still laughing!) is the same poster. 12:19 seems to post regularly and reasonably. You make a true point about racism and state building- on some level most state building really is racism. the US and the American Indian is a case in point. So was apartheid actually. I guess it's just my sore spot. Won't lie about that- but I have heard too many people use Israel to rant against Jews. Probably issue with 12:29 was that he is basically saying Israel has no right to exist. I think many many people forget that the League of Nations and later the UN divided up the area and mandated a huge amount of changes in the Middle East after each World war. Lebanon is another such "manufactured" country.

But Israel is a lightning rod and in truth every person I ever had a conversation who complained about Israel's right to exist, also told me how Jews run the world and they read it in the protocols of the elders of Zion. If we are all so rich and run the world, believe me I wouldn't be renting in Brooklyn but have a lovely old Queen Anne in upstate NY.

People also forget that for all its ups and downs, Israel has been the staunchest friend and most useful ally the US has in the Middle east. Unlike, for example, Saudi Arabia - land of the prez's beloved Bandar Bush as well as the main source of anti-US terrorists and homeland of most of the terrorists on the planes on 9-11.

Still people keep claiming Israel is to blame for Islamic terrorism- But Islamic fanatics operate all over the world and in countries that have little to do with us. They do it in the name of Islam ( a very perverted form of Islam).

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 5:45 PM

No north sloper- they don't. But that comment nets you the jerk of the forum award. Silly me- I actually posted I thought you were reasonable and a regular poster here.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 6:04 PM

5:22- because that "arrogant' little country is the best ally we have in the middle east and this country makes damn sure to use it for all its worth. This country does for Israel only what it thinks it can get out of it. Unless you have greater trust in the Saudis? What treasure is wasted on Israel? I'm sure you meant Iraq.

FYI to North Sloper- the majority of Jews (mot of whom support the State of Israel) are democrats and center to left of center. We hate neo-cons and find the Joe Leibermans to be disgusting. that said may I point out the majority of neo-cons and ocnservatives in this country are also religious fundamentalists who would love nothing more than to make this country a "Christian" one. Not that i think they know the first thing about what Christ taught or what Christianity really means.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 6:12 PM

It is obviously your sore spot 5:45. Clearly, there is nobody to blame for terrorism but the terrorist. Islamic or otherwise. That said, when conducting a criminal investigation one always goes to motive. If it is a murder investigation, the murderer is definitively at fault and if convicted will serve the sentence but motive is extremely important. It is immature to think that the state of Israel and the United States support of that state does not go to motive. I do not believe that the state of Israel once created has a right to exist but poor foreign policy in the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Israel, etc...,) in addition to lunacy on behalf of the terrorist, do fuel their fire. It in no way justifys their terrorist actions though. I don't think that terrorism would completely end if our issues in the Middle East were resolved but it would definitely stem the tide. Contrary to popular belief they don't "hate our freedom." They could care less. They just don't want us in their business. Now that said, there isn't much we can do about the outright lunatics.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 6:12 PM

Freak neo-con here. Hey somnambulant yankee, I didn't make you an antisemant, that seems to have happened without my assistance. I mentioned I was a cosmopolitan Jew zionist warmonger because those are names that other people around this town tend to call people of my political persuasion. I happen to be a gay-loving atheist swine-diner as well. It's all about the nuance.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 6:18 PM

6:12- Is anything any country does without motive? And yes- poor policy does add fuel to the fire, but at some point you have to think that the issue is really a media tool for gain by terrorists. If Israel ceased to exist, the jihad movement would momentarily deflate, then find something else- like ancient Buddhist statues that offend their eyes, or a child's naming a teddy bear Mohammed.

You are right- they don't care about our freedom, and our present policy is to shove democracy down everyone's throat because we are are obviously the anointed. the human rights issue aside, unless I am willing to grant another country the right to meddle in how my government is run, I don't think we should try to tell other countries they have to be like us. And true again- you can't account for lunatics.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 6:26 PM

omigod- is it a cause for hope or despair that no one can spell "anti-Semite?" :-)

love "swine-diner."

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 6:29 PM

6:12 here
That should have read "I DO believe that once created Israel has a right to exist"

If they have a law against naming teedy bears Muhammad, that's there business. If they knock down statues in their countries, again there business. I happen not to agree that either is right but again, it is there business. Now if they knocked down a statue in this country, we would have a problem. We forget that similar things did happen in this country with the Puritans and the with the growing evangelical political clout could easily happen here again.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 6:37 PM

6:12- I realized that was what you meant. And yes the naming of teddy bears is their own business. But do you advocate this country standing by as one of it's citizens got 200 lashes for not knowing that?

The destruction of another religion's sacred icons in a country that has both religions is humanity's business because therein are the seeds of genocide. Some things are universal business- like whipping rape victims for being raped. The problem with fundamentalists is that they use religion as a means of stripping away human, and if you believe, g-d-given rights. I don't think we have the right to tell a country they must become a democracy, but we do have a responsibility to take a stand on protecting the innocent from harm. there is a reason that Amnesty International exists and it had nothing to do with a country's politics, but with a right to life.

Is it wrong to tell a country you will not import their goods if they force women to commit suicide after being raped because it is a cultural norm for that country? I thing we would be right to do so. That particular kind of meddling I can live with. But I totally agree with you about the growing evangelical clout. It's terrifying.

And thanks, by the way for discussing,not insulting, even when we disagree. It rarely happens on Brownstoner anymore.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 6:55 PM

antisemant is a term of someone's accidental coinage that I liked, so I used it. It is not a misspleing.
-swine-diner

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 7:08 PM

No not at all I do not support it at all but as we say in this country ignorance is no defense of the law. The situation with the Brittish women in the Sudan was of course ludicrous as was the incident in Singapore where an American teenager was sentenced to caning. In the case in the Sudan parents and teachers from the school testified in her behalf and diplomatic means were used to resolve the whole affair. The Taliban blowing up the Buddha statues could not be resolved because they had sovereignty. This was a sad loss. I have the utmost respect for organizations like Amnesty International because they do advocate for peoples human rights, all over the world, without a political agenda. They have criticized the US for police brutality, the death penalty and the atrocities in our penal system, the Taliban for mistreatment of women and Israel for mistreatment of Palestinians. It is due to their lack of having a political agenda that their opinions are respected. We can definitely agree there.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 7:09 PM

this thread is completely incoherent. even montrose and the what are at a loss for words, thank heavens!

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 7:30 PM

It is incoherent to you because people are able to disagree amicably.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 8:48 PM

my only comments, 7:30pm, because I agree with pretty much everything you say is that

1. we did rout the taliban- not for the statues of course, but going into Afghanistan was one of those things that had to be done in light of 9-11.
2. Amnesty Int'l is an incredible organization but has yet to come out against terrorism or cite Palestinians for siucide bombings. In fact a few years ago when a suicide bomber blew up a club in Israel, killing mostly young people, teens, I don't believe Amnesty Int'l ever made a statement condemning it. I have yet to hear organizations -including the UN- condemn the practice of raising Arab children to believe a glorious death, suicide by killing Israelis, is heroic.

In fact the AI site is more about the US- and trust me, Bush should be in prison as far as I am concerned- and very little about the human rights violations occuring in everyday Arab society which is far more extensive than the problems at Guantanamo or Abu Gahraib. If offers the website in english,french, spanish and arabic. While they may not have a political agenda, they are playing politics i think.

Suicide bombing and the glorification of killing Israelis, the exploitation of children to become suicide bombers- how does this go unmentioned? A search brings up one report which basically blames Israel and makes no mention that any of Israel's actions are in retaliation for suicide bombings. Until the international community makes the Palestinians take responsibility for their part in this mess, nothing will change. But complicity with the Palestinians is a blood sport these days and since Arab countries are the world's biggest oil exporters, I doubt we will see fair treatment of Israel anytime soon.

Israel is the only established democracy in the Middle East- look at a history of hte region. It would be no more stable and content without Israel, just one less fake rallying issue.

Posted by: guest at January 10, 2008 10:57 AM