Racist New York Councilmember

[Pogo]

Can you quote the part of your article where she makes a value judgment about Asians? Or any race?

I read the whole thing, never saw it.

Thanks.

Oh and while you're in there, show us where she claims to be "upset Asians are allowed to move in".

Maybe you have one of those special article readers where if you play it backwards it says something different. I dunno.

OP I know you're just a-scourin' away at that material looking for the above requisitions... if it's not too much trouble can I add one more...

Could you point out where she "attacked Jews". Thanks. Shalom.

I guess you actually did NOT read the article as her attack on Jews was specifically mentioned and she had to apologize for it.

Oh no, I read that too. I'm asking where the attack is.

I'm not asking where somebody's forced to apologize because some illiterate can't read meanings of words and tries to spin them into something else like this thread does -- I'm asking where she attacked Jews. Please.

 

[Pogo]

Can you quote the part of your article where she makes a value judgment about Asians? Or any race?

I read the whole thing, never saw it.

Thanks.

She's using politispeak. Shes worried her voting base will shrink. Just the usual Liberal bitching.

Ah good, the old "I know what they said but here's what they really mean" song and dance.

Never expected to see that one on USMB.


Yanno by that logic nobody needs a quote for anything. We'll just make up words and paint them over their heads. Like speech bubbles.

Aren't comic books fun.

 

[Missourian]

She's saying the exact same thing as Jeb in the 1960...they don't look like us, they don't sound like us, they don't act like us and we don't want them here...in politi-speak.

Wouldn't know what Jeb said in 1960. He woulda been a kid then anyway.

But no I don't see where she's saying that either. Everything I read was about numbers. Nothing about how anybody sounds or acts, nothing about 'not wanting them' (in fact I saw the opposite).

You could say she's implying comments about a quota system. But you can't say there's a value judgment in there. I don't see any reference to any kind of behavior at all.

I think you are just failing to read between the lines. If their race, and their moving in was no issue, then why bring it up at all?

"Reading between the lines" meaning "inserting content that was never there" is not rational argument.
You need a causation. You need a causation that leads the subject to take a position specifically on account of their belief that said race is inferior.

And that is not present.
Culture clash does not count.

Say wut?!?

So, if you complain about blacks moving into your neighborhood, but never say they are inferior, it's just a cultural issue, then you are not a racist.

Are you reading what you are typing?

 

[Pogo]

She's saying the exact same thing as Jeb in the 1960...they don't look like us, they don't sound like us, they don't act like us and we don't want them here...in politi-speak.

Wouldn't know what Jeb said in 1960. He woulda been a kid then anyway.

But no I don't see where she's saying that either. Everything I read was about numbers. Nothing about how anybody sounds or acts, nothing about 'not wanting them' (in fact I saw the opposite).

You could say she's implying comments about a quota system. But you can't say there's a value judgment in there. I don't see any reference to any kind of behavior at all.

I think you are just failing to read between the lines. If their race, and their moving in was no issue, then why bring it up at all?

"Reading between the lines" meaning "inserting content that was never there" is not rational argument.
You need a causation. You need a causation that leads the subject to take a position specifically on account of their belief that said race is inferior.

And that is not present.
Culture clash does not count.

Say wut?!?

So, if you complain about blacks moving into your neighborhood, but never say they are inferior, it's just a cultural issue, then you are not a racist.

Are you reading what you are typing?

I'm actually writing it.
Maybe you should read it again slowly.

The hypothetical person above may or may not be a racist. But there's nothing in your hypothesis that tells me either way.
And that means I don't have the right to just go plugging it in because I feel like it. Because I don't know that causation for a fact.

Follow me?

We can't just walk around hanging labels on people we don't know for shit they never said. That's exactly what keeps us divided. Don't y'all get that?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Can you quote the part of your article where she makes a value judgment about Asians? Or any race?

I read the whole thing, never saw it.

Thanks.

That's nothing. Did you see the article where the republican councilman said "n*ggers" would be happier back in the fields?

No. Whozat -- Phil Robertson?

It was a New York council person. Unbelievable what the republicans will stoop to right?

 

[Hossfly]

Can you quote the part of your article where she makes a value judgment about Asians? Or any race?

I read the whole thing, never saw it.

Thanks.

She's using politispeak. Shes worried her voting base will shrink. Just the usual Liberal bitching.

Ah good, the old "I know what they said but here's what they really mean" song and dance.

Never expected to see that one on USMB.


Yanno by that logic nobody needs a quote for anything. We'll just make up words and paint them over their heads. Like speech bubbles.

Aren't comic books fun.

She appears to be a idealogical racist with a smooth tongue.

Shortly after her election in 2013, Cumbo infuriated Jewish groups by writing on her Facebook that black residents were being “pushed out of their (apartments) by Jewish landlords.”

She went on to praise Jews, but then added, “The accomplishments of the Jewish community triggers feelings of resentment, and a sense that Jewish success is not also their success.”


Pol makes bizarre claim about Asians moving into NYCHA - NY Daily News

 

[Hossfly]

Can you quote the part of your article where she makes a value judgment about Asians? Or any race?

I read the whole thing, never saw it.

Thanks.

That's nothing. Did you see the article where the republican councilman said "n*ggers" would be happier back in the fields?

No. Whozat -- Phil Robertson?

It was a New York council person. Unbelievable what the republicans will stoop to right?

Republicans will stoop to expose a racist bitch, right?

 

[Missourian]

She's saying the exact same thing as Jeb in the 1960...they don't look like us, they don't sound like us, they don't act like us and we don't want them here...in politi-speak.

Wouldn't know what Jeb said in 1960. He woulda been a kid then anyway.

But no I don't see where she's saying that either. Everything I read was about numbers. Nothing about how anybody sounds or acts, nothing about 'not wanting them' (in fact I saw the opposite).

You could say she's implying comments about a quota system. But you can't say there's a value judgment in there. I don't see any reference to any kind of behavior at all.

I think you are just failing to read between the lines. If their race, and their moving in was no issue, then why bring it up at all?

"Reading between the lines" meaning "inserting content that was never there" is not rational argument.
You need a causation. You need a causation that leads the subject to take a position specifically on account of their belief that said race is inferior.

And that is not present.
Culture clash does not count.

Say wut?!?

So, if you complain about blacks moving into your neighborhood, but never say they are inferior, it's just a cultural issue, then you are not a racist.

Are you reading what you are typing?

I'm actually writing it.
Maybe you should read it again slowly.

The hypothetical person above may or may not be a racist. But there's nothing in your hypothesis that tells me either way.
And that means I don't have the right to just go plugging it in because I feel like it. Because I don't know that causation for a fact.

Follow me?

We can't just walk around hanging labels on people we don't know for shit they never said. That's exactly what keeps us divided. Don't y'all get that?

Your hypothesis is flawed.

If a black man attacks a white man for no other reason than he is white...the black man is racist, whether he believes the white race is inferior, superior of equal is irrelevant.

If a black woman is troubled by Asians moving into her public housing unit for no other reason than their race, she is a racist...whether she believes the Asian race is inferior, superior of equal is irrelevant.

If a white man doesn't rent to a black family for no other reason than they are black, it doesn't matter if it's because he thinks they are inferior or he doesn't like black culture...he is displaying racism.

Those are the facts...argue against them until the cows come home, that still won't change them.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Can you quote the part of your article where she makes a value judgment about Asians? Or any race?

I read the whole thing, never saw it.

Thanks.

That's nothing. Did you see the article where the republican councilman said "n*ggers" would be happier back in the fields?

No. Whozat -- Phil Robertson?

It was a New York council person. Unbelievable what the republicans will stoop to right?

Republicans will stoop to expose a racist bitch, right?

"n*ggers belong in the fields" what in the world would drive a republican to say such a thing?

 

[Pogo]

Can you quote the part of your article where she makes a value judgment about Asians? Or any race?

I read the whole thing, never saw it.

Thanks.

She's using politispeak. Shes worried her voting base will shrink. Just the usual Liberal bitching.

Ah good, the old "I know what they said but here's what they really mean" song and dance.

Never expected to see that one on USMB.


Yanno by that logic nobody needs a quote for anything. We'll just make up words and paint them over their heads. Like speech bubbles.

Aren't comic books fun.

She appears to be a idealogical racist with a smooth tongue.

Shortly after her election in 2013, Cumbo infuriated Jewish groups by writing on her Facebook that black residents were being “pushed out of their (apartments) by Jewish landlords.”

She went on to praise Jews, but then added, “The accomplishments of the Jewish community triggers feelings of resentment, and a sense that Jewish success is not also their success.”


Pol makes bizarre claim about Asians moving into NYCHA - NY Daily News

That's not in the article. And I asked the OP who wrote the words -- not you.

What actually IS in the article is this:

Ms. Cumbo reacted to the “knockout game” phenomenon—in which groups of mostly black youth were accused of attacking Orthodox Jews and other whites—by noting on Facebook that many African-Americans “sense that Jewish success is not also their success.”
​

That is in no way an "attack on Jews". Now if she had supported and condoned violence, you might have more of a case.

The article goes on to note the comment drew widespread condemnation and she was forced to apologize. But that doesn't mean the condemners were right. As this thread demonstrates, any gadfly can stir up the shit with false headlines that can be proven -- mathematically -- to be false.

It's all about creating perceptions, truth be damned. I understand that. That's why I jump in to defend the Truth.

 

[Hossfly]

Can you quote the part of your article where she makes a value judgment about Asians? Or any race?

I read the whole thing, never saw it.

Thanks.

She's using politispeak. Shes worried her voting base will shrink. Just the usual Liberal bitching.

Ah good, the old "I know what they said but here's what they really mean" song and dance.

Never expected to see that one on USMB.


Yanno by that logic nobody needs a quote for anything. We'll just make up words and paint them over their heads. Like speech bubbles.

Aren't comic books fun.

She appears to be a idealogical racist with a smooth tongue.

Shortly after her election in 2013, Cumbo infuriated Jewish groups by writing on her Facebook that black residents were being “pushed out of their (apartments) by Jewish landlords.”

She went on to praise Jews, but then added, “The accomplishments of the Jewish community triggers feelings of resentment, and a sense that Jewish success is not also their success.”


Pol makes bizarre claim about Asians moving into NYCHA - NY Daily News

That's not in the article. And I asked the OP who wrote the words -- not you.

What actually IS in the article is this:

Ms. Cumbo reacted to the “knockout game” phenomenon—in which groups of mostly black youth were accused of attacking Orthodox Jews and other whites—by noting on Facebook that many African-Americans “sense that Jewish success is not also their success.”
​

That is in no way an "attack on Jews". Now if she had supported and condoned violence, you might have more of a case.

The article goes on to note the comment drew widespread condemnation and she was forced to apologize. But that doesn't mean the condemners were right. As this thread demonstrates, any gadfly can stir up the shit with false headlines that can be proven -- mathematically -- to be false.

It's all about creating perceptions, truth be damned. I understand that. That's why I jump in to defend the Truth.

Go ahead on.

 

[Pogo]

Wouldn't know what Jeb said in 1960. He woulda been a kid then anyway.

But no I don't see where she's saying that either. Everything I read was about numbers. Nothing about how anybody sounds or acts, nothing about 'not wanting them' (in fact I saw the opposite).

You could say she's implying comments about a quota system. But you can't say there's a value judgment in there. I don't see any reference to any kind of behavior at all.

I think you are just failing to read between the lines. If their race, and their moving in was no issue, then why bring it up at all?

"Reading between the lines" meaning "inserting content that was never there" is not rational argument.
You need a causation. You need a causation that leads the subject to take a position specifically on account of their belief that said race is inferior.

And that is not present.
Culture clash does not count.

Say wut?!?

So, if you complain about blacks moving into your neighborhood, but never say they are inferior, it's just a cultural issue, then you are not a racist.

Are you reading what you are typing?

I'm actually writing it.
Maybe you should read it again slowly.

The hypothetical person above may or may not be a racist. But there's nothing in your hypothesis that tells me either way.
And that means I don't have the right to just go plugging it in because I feel like it. Because I don't know that causation for a fact.

Follow me?

We can't just walk around hanging labels on people we don't know for shit they never said. That's exactly what keeps us divided. Don't y'all get that?

Your hypothesis is flawed.

If a black man attacks a white man for no other reason than he is white...the black man is racist, whether he believes the white race is inferior, superior of equal is irrelevant.

It is not only relevant, it is required. That's what racism MEANS.

rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.​

Don't sit here on the internet and try to change the dictionary.

And this was your hypothesis, not mine. I don't have a hypothesis. I have a definition. And it's not holding up in this thread, any more than it held up in the last several race-baiting threads I jumped into.​

By the way -- in your example above it's hard to imagine a scenario where he attacks the guy on the basis of race without the underlying belief in a racial superiority --- but what if he's simply scared out of his wits by race-baiters like this thread and countless others constantly yammering "they're out to get you, they're coming for you, be very afraid"? What if he's thinking not "he's inferior" but "he's out to kill me, gotta strike first"?

See -- THAT is why I jump in and correct this race-baiting bullshit. It foments and feeds this crap. Then we have a Ferguson explosion and act surprised.

​

If a black woman is troubled by Asians moving into her public housing unit for no other reason than their race, she is a racist...whether she believes the Asian race is inferior, superior of equal is irrelevant.

See above for relevance and cruciality.

And to the instant case, the Councilwoman gives no indication that her being "troubled" (and it's not she that she says is troubled but her constituents, speaking for whom is what her job is) is based on what race the incoming are. If anything it seems to be a story about quotas in the NYCHA and how they're being managed -- which could be a prelude to a question of discrimination. Are we not allowed now to examine questions of discrimination? We have no indication that there is, but ... we're not allowed to even raise the question now? Really?

Nor is either she or they "upset" -- yet another morph of the story I have to put back where it belongs:

Ms. Cumbo told Shola Olatoye, Chairwoman and Chief Executive Officer of the New York City Housing Authority, at a hearing of the council’s public housing committee that residents in her district are perplexed that so many non-English speaking immigrants are moving into certain developments. The African-American Councilwoman stressed that she appreciates the rich cultural heritage Asians bring, but that many people wonder why the new arrivals are being allowed in to the apparent exclusion of others.

"perplexed" -- not "upset"...
"to the apparent exclusion of others" --- the quota question.

Am I the only one who actually reads these articles?

If a white man doesn't rent to a black family for no other reason than they are black, it doesn't matter if it's because he thinks they are inferior or he doesn't like black culture...he is displaying racism.

Those are the facts...argue against them until the cows come home, that still won't change them.

On the contrary, your third example provides a perfect example of a causation that may not be racism at all. Maybe he sees said black family and decides "I don't want to hear rap music" and refuses to rent on that basis -- because they're black and he makes the assumption. But that is (a) a cultural assessment (e.g. he might not make the same decision if the black family is an old couple without children) and (b) a fallacy of hasty generalization. But without the underlying belief "blacks are inferior", it's not racism. People refuse to rent, or hire, or associate with, other people because they're young, old, Muslim, men, women, any number of reasons. Doesn't necessarily mean they think their target is 'inferior'.

I don't like rap "music" myself. But it's got zero to do with the race of the person playing it.

This trend of jumping up, pointing fingers and crowing "dat's wacist" every time a mosquito sneezes has just got to go.

 

[Missourian]

"n*ggers belong in the fields" what in the world would drive a republican to say such a thing?

According to Pogo, that's not racist unless the person specifically states "because they are inferior", how dare you insinuate that there is anything at all untoward about it. Just the use of the word in and of itself without the aforementioned caveat of inferiority is meaningless. You must wait until such time as the speaker SPECIFICALLY mentions that a certain race is inferior to call them racist. So, since you do not know, and will never know the causation of the statement, it cannot be racism. Therefore it is moot, and should never be discussed again...ever.

/Sarcasm off.

 

[TheOldSchool]

"n*ggers belong in the fields" what in the world would drive a republican to say such a thing?

According to Pogo, that's not racist unless the person specifically states "because they are inferior", how dare you insinuate that there is anything at all untoward about it. Just the use of the word in and of itself without the aforementioned caveat of inferiority is meaningless. You must wait until such time as the speaker SPECIFICALLY mentions that a certain race is inferior to call them racist. So, since you do not know, and will never know the causation of the statement, it cannot be racism. Therefore it is moot, and should never be discussed again...ever.

/Sarcasm off.

Lol I like how, despite the sarcasm, you fully accepted that a republican said that.

 

[Pogo]

"n*ggers belong in the fields" what in the world would drive a republican to say such a thing?

According to Pogo, that's not racist unless the person specifically states "because they are inferior", how dare you insinuate that there is anything at all untoward about it. Just the use of the word in and of itself without the aforementioned caveat of inferiority is meaningless. You must wait until such time as the speaker SPECIFICALLY mentions that a certain race is inferior to call them racist. So, since you do not know, and will never know the causation of the statement, it cannot be racism. Therefore it is moot, and should never be discussed again...ever.

/Sarcasm off.

Lol I like how, despite the sarcasm, you fully accepted that a republican said that.

God bless you, sarcasm, satire, irony, the art of lampoon, the art of poontang and Repub councilmembers always!!

 

[Siete]

Can you quote the part of your article where she makes a value judgment about Asians? Or any race?

I read the whole thing, never saw it.

Thanks.

Oh and while you're in there, show us where she claims to be "upset Asians are allowed to move in".

Maybe you have one of those special article readers where if you play it backwards it says something different. I dunno.

its that special decoder ring that helps RW's imagine tings ... ya know, the ring through their nose..

 

[Missourian]

"n*ggers belong in the fields" what in the world would drive a republican to say such a thing?

According to Pogo, that's not racist unless the person specifically states "because they are inferior", how dare you insinuate that there is anything at all untoward about it. Just the use of the word in and of itself without the aforementioned caveat of inferiority is meaningless. You must wait until such time as the speaker SPECIFICALLY mentions that a certain race is inferior to call them racist. So, since you do not know, and will never know the causation of the statement, it cannot be racism. Therefore it is moot, and should never be discussed again...ever.

/Sarcasm off.

Lol I like how, despite the sarcasm, you fully accepted that a republican said that.

Because it's moot, totally unimportant who said it. It's not racism, it's now simply impolite, perhaps antiquated, at worst, rude.

Whether it was a republican or democrat...totally irrelevant. Since you cannot judge based on it, why quibble over a trifling point of minutiae such as the party affiliation of the speaker.

Tell me, if you cannot call that speech racist, what point are you making exactly?

 

[TheOldSchool]

"n*ggers belong in the fields" what in the world would drive a republican to say such a thing?

According to Pogo, that's not racist unless the person specifically states "because they are inferior", how dare you insinuate that there is anything at all untoward about it. Just the use of the word in and of itself without the aforementioned caveat of inferiority is meaningless. You must wait until such time as the speaker SPECIFICALLY mentions that a certain race is inferior to call them racist. So, since you do not know, and will never know the causation of the statement, it cannot be racism. Therefore it is moot, and should never be discussed again...ever.

/Sarcasm off.

Lol I like how, despite the sarcasm, you fully accepted that a republican said that.

God bless you, sarcasm, satire, irony, the art of lampoon, the art of poontang and Repub councilmembers always!!

 

[Hossfly]

"n*ggers belong in the fields" what in the world would drive a republican to say such a thing?

According to Pogo, that's not racist unless the person specifically states "because they are inferior", how dare you insinuate that there is anything at all untoward about it. Just the use of the word in and of itself without the aforementioned caveat of inferiority is meaningless. You must wait until such time as the speaker SPECIFICALLY mentions that a certain race is inferior to call them racist. So, since you do not know, and will never know the causation of the statement, it cannot be racism. Therefore it is moot, and should never be discussed again...ever.

/Sarcasm off.

Lol I like how, despite the sarcasm, you fully accepted that a republican said that.

God bless you, sarcasm, satire, irony, the art of lampoon, the art of poontang and Repub councilmembers always!!

Yeah, TheOldSchool is a wit for sure. A nit wit.

 

[Missourian]

God bless you, sarcasm, satire, irony, the art of lampoon, the art of poontang and Repub councilmembers always!!

Sound and fury, signifying nothing.