Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Tearsheets | Media Kit | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Those who disagree with governor are still New Yorkers

January 27, 2014
 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(28)

ITprober

Jan-27-14 11:38 AM

Cuomo's comments are part and parcel of the hate speech that the left can get away with every day. Except that THIS time, he has been called on it by an (hopefully) unbiased reporter. Whether you like him or not, he has given himself a black eye that IMHO most New Yorkers, will not forget. I am a New Yorker, and all our fellow bloggers here that live and breathe here in our state are New Yorkers no matter what our opinions and feelings about topics that affect our lives are. We disagree on many things, but just because we have differing opinions, does not mean we do not belong in this state.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Jan-27-14 2:01 PM

EXCELLENT EDITORIAL! i am a democrat pro life and pro-gun(not assault rifles). i also think gays should have rights.i don't like them using the word marriage tho. everyone of us are new yorkers and the gov obviously isn't aware that we all have rights......now if only you could get our leaders to understand that members of all parties should work towards a better country. term limits would help but we've got to work towards unity...i have never voted a straight ticket and i will not vote to re-elect gov cuomo.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

designer5

Jan-27-14 2:44 PM

I voted for Cuomo because he appeared to be fairly moderate. His remarks show clearly that he believes he "owns" New York State, and he would like all that disagree with his views to leave. His radical abortion bill, thankfully, did not pass. However, his attempt to disarm law abiding citizens was passed with alarming speed, even ignoring the State Constitution which required a 3 day waiting period before voting on the bill. This area is just a playground for the rich with people like Cuomo. I would never vote for him again; but New York City has all the votes he needs. He couldn't care less about the working people and their views.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wondering

Jan-27-14 3:37 PM

Agree with the points made so far except that prober seems to imply that leftys are more frequent purveyors of hate speech than rightys. I think any fair assessment will show the opposite to be true by a large margin.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Jan-27-14 8:38 PM

Wonder I wonder if you know what "hate speech" is? Currently in the US "hate speech" is being defined by Liberal mouthpieces. That is why anyone who has conservative viewpoints is accused of "hate speech". Problem is that we have a constitutional thing called freedom of speech. Anyone has the right to say anything they want if they are willing to accept the consequences. If you look back in history the line between "hate speech" and "accepted" speech moves left and right. A person who is vilified for there views yesterday, examples are Jane Fonda, Susan Serandon, the Dixie Chicks etc were considered extremists and people such as Pat Robertson, Phil Robertson etc would have been mainstream. That is why "hate speech" will never be a "hate crime".

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lifeisgood

Jan-28-14 8:54 AM

I agree with everything in this editorial. Cuomo was accusing others of being extreme, while being extreme himself. There is plenty of hate coming from both sides, and its only purpose is to further divide. As an Independent, fiscal conservative with liberal social leanings, even I don't like current abortion laws. While I am pro choice, I find current abortion laws are almost barbaric. In almost every state, a woman can get a routine abortion up to 20 weeks, and in many states, up to 26 weeks, without any medical crisis to either the mother or fetus. At that stage, the fetus is fully formed, can*****its thumb, move its arms and legs, etc....Despite its viability outside the womb, I don't understand how anyone can look at a fetus of this gestational age and not call it a baby....Just my opinion.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ITprober

Jan-28-14 9:13 AM

When the left defines hate speech, it is always against the right. When the left USES hate speech, it is considered mainstream. When the right uses hate speech it is considered the work of evil. This is a double standard against the right.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wondering

Jan-28-14 9:20 AM

I don't who these "liberal mouthpieces" are you mention but I understand framing. Such as the right wing has done with social security framing it as an "entitlement" rather than the deferred earned benefit that it is.

"Hate speech", I would define it as verbal attacks on individuals, not because of what they themselves have done but because of the category the speaker places them in. I'm not in favor of censoring them although I think a business, like a TV network, has the right to drop them if they feel it hurts their business. But that only happens rarely and when it does they're usually reinstated when the drama subsides.

Limbaugh is probably the foremost spewer of hateful speech usually liberally laced with lies and innuendo and no one is censoring him, in fact he's rich because of it.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ITprober

Jan-28-14 11:10 AM

Oh like you don't know! LOL that is SUCH a laugh! And there you go again! you throw daggers out at your favorites while you sit there all so innocent! Hypocrite! BIG TIME!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wondering

Jan-28-14 12:51 PM

You know prober if that was coming from someone who wasn't a so narrow minded it might bother me.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wondering

Jan-28-14 12:55 PM

Believe it or not I don't know who dw means by liberal mouthpieces. I know some who claim to speak for the political left but those that have the credibility to do so are seldom if ever quoted by the mass media. that's no surprise since it's mostly owned by right wing interests. History question for ya prober: Was it left wingers who persecuted and blacklisted right wingers during the Mccarthy era or was it the other way around.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

goosecutioner

Jan-28-14 2:27 PM

Wondering why do you liberals love to call people with different views than yourself "Narrow Minded"? Not trying to start a fight but I hear it a lot and it is not a bad argument it is an immature way of telling someone you are right and they are wrong and that is that.

Because someone believes in a single set of values to live upon they are narrow minded? Interesting concept, totally fair and balanced...

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Concussion

Jan-28-14 2:28 PM

Funniest part, what most of the Tea-tards are calling "hate-speech" and "liberal attacks", rational people are calling "facts" and "reality".

Maybe all you Internet Patriots® should get back to pretending you care about Benghazi. By now you might even be able to point to it on the map. Or Heck, we can just give you Jesus-land and we'll be done with it. I would like to get our Govt. back to fixing problems instead of dealing with Trolls.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EsoxSavant

Jan-28-14 2:52 PM

Ha Ha, Jesus land....just make sure it's in the Middle East, where totally-not-brown Jesus lived.

Even Reagan was a liberal to these people, they've gone so far right the're up against the padded walls.

Heck, even Paul Ryan is realizing a 5 year temper tantrum strategy is not productive or popular and is at least pursuing an appearance of moderation. Some people just can't let go of the hate...yes I'm looking at you too Concussion! Haters gona hate, er something.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wondering

Jan-28-14 3:46 PM

goose, I don't refer to everyone disagree with as narrow-minded. I often disagree with you but since you don't call me names I try to address your opinions rather than you as a person. Maybe I shouldn't respond to prober's personal attacks in kind but I never said I was perfect. Never said I'm always right either except that I rely much more on verified info than just my gut feeling as some here do.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rockydog

Jan-28-14 3:52 PM

tea-tard? Just imagine if a conservative used the term lib-tard. The ACLU would be demanding apologies.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Jan-28-14 4:08 PM

Here's a list for you...MSNBC, NBC, ABC, New York Times, NY News, Rev Sharpton, John Stewart, Jesse Jackson, Maddow, Chris Mathews, Oblermann, Maher, Al Gore, Pelosi, both Clintons, Mike Moore, Harry Reid, etc.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Jan-28-14 4:15 PM

Remember that it took from June 17th, 1972 until August 9th, 1974 for the Dems to get rid of Nixon. That is with wistle blowers and "Deep Throat". It was another three years before the trials to end and the truth to be known.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Jan-28-14 4:19 PM

Benghazi attack came on Oct 26th 2012. Using Nixon's timeline, we still have to wait four years for the truth to come out.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

designer5

Jan-28-14 8:58 PM

We already know most of the truth about Benghazi. Our Ambassador, and 3 very brave men died that night, abandoned by the present administration. EIGHT times they called for help. A Colonel was relieved of duty for trying to bring a team to help them. Our State Department ignored the desperate situation, and gave direct orders NOT to send help. Our Secretary of State explained her position when she said "What difference does it make?" The president went to bed when briefed on what was happening. Every s c u m b a g that allowed those people to die should be rotting in jail.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wondering

Jan-29-14 8:05 AM

If everything designer says is true then they should be in jail. But who do we believe, a lying democrat administration or a lying republican opposition with a stated goal of making sure Obama fails. If there was any justice they'd all be in prison along with most of the previous administration.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EsoxSavant

Jan-29-14 9:03 AM

DW likes to paint it up like Obama was on the phone with our diplomat, laughing, as our embassy was being burned. Of course it's completely false, just like every other concept they've had for the past 10 years. He is a liar.

The GOP hung it's hopes with the Davies account, which was a complete fabrication. Of which the GOP is still using his "reports" as a cornerstone that something needs to be exposed.

It's the same way it's worked for the past 5 years. Insinuations built up on lies that only offer more insinuations backed up by lies.

The GOP creates so much smoke, the sheep think there's a fire. Truth be told, the GOP doesn't want to solve problems, they want journalism and Americans to take another one for the team and move on to the next "scandal that will certainly end Obama".

You ask me the last great thing a republican did for this country, which helped its people, was Eisenhowers interstate highway program.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Jan-29-14 5:01 PM

You see why we can't have an intelligent discussion of the facts Wonder? When a Liberal is loosing they resort to innuendos and accusations, "DW likes to paint it up like Obama was on the phone with our diplomat, laughing, as our embassy was being burned." We all know by Obama's own admission that he was in bed and was not notified until the following morning. Google "Benghazi: Obama's Actions Amount To A Shameful Dereliction Of Duty". It's a story by Forbes.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EsoxSavant

Jan-30-14 8:40 AM

I read the editorial piece from Forbes. It's (conveniently) damning for sure. As it was intended to be written because it's an editorial piece which suits your politics. Your problem is you hear and see only what agrees with your predetermined positions.

I think as a country, adminitstration, and Govt. we have the wrong focus on the issue. People like Issa have taken the focus away from preventing this from happening again, to make sure to stick it to the black guy somehow. They focus on reactive security measure(disingenuously obviously) when the focus should be why are they still bombing our embassies?

You are just someone standing on the bodies of 4 dead Americans because you think you can impeach the President with their deaths.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wondering

Jan-30-14 8:56 AM

I get your point but wish to note that the use of name calling and innuendo are not limited to the "liberals" posting here. Hyperbole is also a common tactic.

Anyone who reads my posts know that my views are left of center and given how far the center has drifted to the right even WAY left of center. That said I have no love or respect for this president who in many ways is as bad or worse than his predecessor. He does speak as a lefty but his actions show the falseness of that pose.

So I think I'm pretty unbiased on Benghazi. I've tried to learn what I can but that is nearly impossible since the sources I've read on both sides of the issue contain obvious propaganda and lies.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 28 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web