Join the Conservative Fusion Party’s “Police Brutality PAC”

Carl Paladino is shilling for the NYS Conservative Party, forwarding the email shown below (SFW): 

That’s pretty cool! Register with the Conservative Party, because the cops put a black man in an illegal-since-1993 chokehold and committed homicide! I mean, the NYPD is going to re-train officers as a result of this tragedy, but w/e! I mean, they killed this man and waited a full 7 minutes before trying CPR! He’s black, so he doesn’t count, right, Carl? Right, Conservative Party?  As Paladino so aptly put it in an earlier email

 

DEMOCRATS: STOP ASKING FOR THIS PARTY’S ENDORSEMENT.

IF YOU SEEK THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE CONSERVATIVE FUSION PARTY, YOU ARE EXPLICITLY ENDORSING SHIT LIKE THIS.

46 comments

  • More proof that liberals are the REAL racist.

    • You’d better be joking. Because you don’t want to see my response if you’re not. It might have to be aired on HBO.

      • Nope, Paladino is a RINO demonrat.(http://www.investigativepost.org/2014/02/12/carl-paladino-is-a-rino/) REAL REPUBLICANS support freedom from racism (both ferguson AND the CRA signed by LBJ[happy birthday!]) and free markets. You libtards can have him. Rand Paul 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Mark this down, go take it to the bank and cash it out in November 2016:

          Rand Paul will NOT be the Republican standard bearer that year. End. Of. Discussion.

          • People in this country are SICK of Tyranny, Taxes, and Lawlessness. Its just like 1776, watch out, the liberty train is coming. Who else is going to win? Corrupt “bridgegate” Christie? Ted “all talk, no action” Cruz? JEB? Mitt going to go for #3? Rand is the only true conservative left standing.

          • Except when he’s doing his “Aqua Buddha” bit. Then he’s kinda levitating.

          • The Liberty Train is coming? Bloody hell man who’s the conductor? Ron, Rand or Les Paul? are you effing kidding me? Your movement fails on cornball ad copy alone. The effing Liberty Train. Ha ha ha ha ha. Stop you’re killing me.

          • He may win the Republican primary, but he will get trounced in the actual election.

          • Its just like 1776

            That is an insult to the memory of those who died in the Revolutionary War.

        • A guy who is afraid to answer questions when approached without time to prepare……..your dreaming Marc…in addition he would have to begin too far right in the primaries to appease the conservative wackos who vote in primaries and they already see him as suspect….same problem all repubs have now….gonna be a long time before you see another rep president……

        • This is parody, I assume.

        • :::startled:::

    • because there is no such thing as a conservative racist…………..SMH

      • There’s probably a few, but they aren’t real conservatives. Look at the US Senate, 1 African American. Which party is he in? Look at all the crap Clarence Thomas had to put up with, and still does, from liberals. One of the smartest men in the world, Ben Carson, gets called terrible things on a daily basis because he -gasp- doesn’t agree with liberals.

        • Racism doesn’t have a political affiliation. I really wish people would stop trying to give it one.

          • Thank you Jp. Racism is a human flaw, not a flaw that is related and capable of only any specific group

        • Ben Carson gets called horrible things on a daily basis because he thinks gay people like me shouldn’t have equal rights under the law. Fuck him and the disgusting bigot goons who support him.

        • Why don’t you and I go to a Klan rally. We have two t-shirts, a George W. Bush t-shirt and a John Kerry t-shirt. Which one would you like to wear?

  • I read this once and it didn’t make sense to me. But I’m glad I re-read his message and saw that he named checked Al Sharpton. I totally didn’t understand what he was getting at until I went back and saw that.

  • Are any of you saying the video itself is racist or advocating/accepting of police brutality?

    Setting aside anything about any political parties (I don’t care about any of them), but focusing on any people who listened to that video’s content as I just now did – the statements and news conference Q&A – and who think it raises some reasonable points, what’s racist about that or advocating/accepting of brutality?

    I think that video is worthwhile for others to watch or hear, and to consider the arguments expressed in it.

    Does me saying that automatically mean any of you think I’m racist or accepting of brutality?

    How so? In that half hour video, what are any minute:second point(s) that indicate a viewer of it is racist or accepting of brutality if he/she doesn’t reject what’s being said?

    Here’s the link to it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTBZ_LXNQW4

    • 1. Eric Garner wasn’t a criminal. He was resisting an unlawful and pointless arrest. An officer committed a homicide against a guy who was standing in front of a shop minding his own business. I suspect that I, too, would be resistant of an unlawful and unjustified arrest of my own person.

      2. I wasn’t saying the video is racist. I was saying that Carl Paladino is racist, which he is.

      3. It’s hilarious to see union busters like Carl Paladino link – without irony – to a union boss’ press conference.

      4. NYPD killed a guy for no reason. It’s de rigeur and fashionable for people to shit on Al Sharpton, and I’m no fan of him, so I don’t much care. But instead of addressing the fact that a cop used a maneuver that has been illegal since 1993 to take down a guy whose only crime was to resist an unlawful arrest, the NYPD is whining about how poorly they’re portrayed when they behave horribly.

      5. As with Michael Brown, the quick tactic is to assail the character of the decedent. Garner was selling loosies on the street? He had a record of selling loosies? Well, fuck me, choke him to death!

      6. That chokehold was not a chokehold!

      7. “We don’t get to pick the laws. We enforce them”. Someone tell Tim Howard.

      • 2. I wasn’t saying the video is racist.

        Okay, thanks for clarifying what I asked about.

        I suspect that I, too, would be resistant of an unlawful and unjustified arrest of my own person.

        Do you mean physically resistant? (Is there any other kind of resistant other than physically resistant?)

        That seems to me as stupid a decision as what Kevin Ward did after he was angered by how Tony Stewart had been driving.

        FWIW, Mayor De Blasio says you’re “obligated” to never resist arrest if you happen to be in NYC:

        Mayor Bill de Blasio gave his unflinching support Wednesday to a call from the city’s top cop that New Yorkers being placed under arrest should submit to police rather than fight back.

        “When a police officer comes to the decision that it’s time to arrest someone, that individual is obligated to submit to arrest,” the mayor said.

        “They will then have every opportunity for due process in our court system.”

        De Blasio said Police Commissioner Bill Bratton was “absolutely right” for urging an end to a recent spate of incidents in which cops were forced to subdue alleged law-breakers physically.

        • He was resisting a pointless arrest. … I suspect that I, too, would be resistant of an unlawful and unjustified arrest of my own person.

          If you’re implying that Garner’s arrest was “unlawful”, then I’d ask what’s unlawful about low-level quality-of-life offense arrests of many-time-repeat offenders?

          Everything that’s pointless or stupid or harmful isn’t necessarily unlawful.

          I don’t favor the policy/strategy either. Pointless and unjustified are good descriptions of it. But a huge biracial majority of NYC residents do favor it – by almost 2:1 according to a Quinnipiac poll this week, and the politicians they’ve continued to elect also favor it – including De Blasio, who then hired an advocate of it as NYPD commissioner.

          http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/08/27/quinnipiac-poll-most-new-yorkers-support-broken-windows-policing/

          By a margin of 60 percent to 34 percent, with very little difference among black and white voters, the poll found New Yorkers support officers making arrests for low-level quality-of-life offenses.

          So, a large political consensus in NYC wants for arrests to be made that some people consider pointless, or unjustified, or worse.

          But you’re suggesting that resisting those arrests is a good thing to do, in that you suspect that you, yourself, would resist?

          • I have yet to see a poll of NYC residents (or anyone else, for that matter) that approve of cops executing citizens in the street. That did poll well, however, in 1940 a little east of here.

          • I’m hesitant to reply with substance, not knowing if you’re only into snarky goal post moving away from what my comments focused on. But I’ll give a serious reply anyhow:

            My comment was about Pundit writing that he suspects he’d personally also resist (presumably physically?) an arrest he felt was “unlawful” — implying that he suspects that he’d have also physically resisted the same type of arrest Garner did.

            If he didn’t mean to imply that, he can clarify. But for now, that’s how his wording appears to me, so it’s my premise.

            If 60% of NYC residents even after Garner’s death still told Quinnipeac they want arrests to continue for “low-level quality of life crimes”, and if they continue electing legislatures who enact laws making such things arrest-worthy and elect mayors who favor the arrest policy — then my question is what’s “unlawful” about a police officer saying to Garner (or to Pundit some day, or anybody) “You’re now under arrest for selling loose untaxed cigarettes in NY City.”?

            How is unlawful for police to say that? And how is the (apparently) proposed-by-Pundit physical resisting of a police officer who says that not both unlawful and harmful?

            You’ll notice my comment isn’t weighing in on what the grand jury will decide in what happened after Garner allegedly resisted. It’s future-focused about how these wanted-by-60%-of-NYCers arrests are “unlawful” and about why Pundit might be saying that physically resisting them is something he suspects he’d do.

          • I sincerely hope no female member of your family faces the decision of whether to obey “lawful” order from a cop like this:

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/29/oklahoma-cop-charged-sexual-assaults/14830063/

          • As my previous comment’s first paragraph predicted from you:

            goal post moving away from what my comments focused on

          • Sell a loosie, get a ticket.

            Sell 20 loosies a day for 100 days, get 2,000 tickets.

            Sell a loosie, you don’t get arrested or choked to death.

          • Sell a loosie, get a ticket. Sell 20 loosies a day for 100 days, get 2,000 tickets.

            That reply still ignores two very direct questions I asked.

            At the risk of badgering someone who of course isn’t obligated to directly answer, here they are again:

            1. What did you mean when your wrote “unlawful” about arrests for low-level quality-of-life/tax offenses such as selling untaxed loose cigarettes?

            It’s currently a misdemeanor under both NY City law and NY State law, with repeat offenses (which might’ve been the case in the S.I. arrest) being a state-level felony.

            FWIW, I’d agree with you if you’re advocating a law change so that and other LLQOL/tax offenses are no longer arrestable. However, that law change would require new legislation by both the NY state legislature and NYC council, then being signed by Gov. Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio (or vetoes overridden). If that’s what you meant, it would be you saying the arresting should be made unlawful, not that it is now unlawful which is what your first comment strongly implied. That’s a big difference.

          • 2. Did you seriously mean you’d physically resist an arrest for such an offense?

            Whether or not you agree with laws making them arrestable offenses, or agree with the policy of de Blasio and Bratton to continue their “broken windows” arrest strategy favored by 60% of NYC public opinion — wouldn’t you or anybody physically resisting an arrest be a very stupid health risk, and harmful to the public good if it became widespread?

          • You should watch that video again.

          • You should watch that video again.

            I asked what you meant about how you would resist being arrested, as you wrote that you suspect you’d do.

            That’s separate from particulars about how Garner resisted being handcuffed.

            I think any physical resistance to being handcuffed by police is a very bad idea, no matter what anybody’s views are about anything else debated in this thread.

          • 1. It was an unlawful arrest because he was just standing there minding his own business. According to one witness, he had just broken up a fight. There was no legal justification for arresting him, except for standing while black in Staten Island. If he was arrested for selling loosies, that’s like arresting someone for a parking violation. It’s way out of proportion. Do you really think that – even if it’s a misdemeanor – police resources are best used to arrest, choke, and kill a man selling loose cigarettes?

            Furthermore, the NYPD outlawed the chokehold in 1993, so to my mind, the cop’s violation of regulation leading to death outweighs the serial loosie selling.

          • It was an unlawful arrest because he was just standing there minding his own business.

            That clarifies what you meant by your allegation-stated-as-fact of “unlawful”, unlike your previous response about ticketing vs. arresting. (If there really wasn’t observation or other probable cause, then ticketing Garner also would’ve been been unlawful.)

            I don’t know if he really was observed selling or not. According to reports such as these from CBS News and the NY Daily News, the claim you cited that police didn’t observe him selling is disputed by police involved:

            Police say the officers observed Garner selling untaxed cigarettes on Bay Street, just blocks away from the 120th precinct.

            Cops said they observed him selling his wares Thursday on Bay St. and moved in for an arrest.

            It’s possible that people on either side of that dispute might be lying. Or it’s also possible both sides are telling the truth, if witnesses who said Garner wasn’t selling really didn’t see him doing it but police really did. I think, to the extent technically feasible, police should have to wear continuously-recording cameras. Also, requiring police to take polygraph tests as a condition of employment would make sense to me.

            Changes like those would reduce disputed allegations in both directions.

          • It was an unlawful arrest because he was just standing there minding his own business.

            That allegation does clarify what you meant by “unlawful”, unlike your previous response about ticketing vs. arresting. (If there really wasn’t observation or other probable cause, then ticketing Garner also would’ve been been unlawful.)

            I don’t know if he really was observed selling or not. According to reports such as these from CBS News and the NY Daily News, the claim you cited that police didn’t observe him selling is disputed by police involved:

            Police say the officers observed Garner selling untaxed cigarettes on Bay Street, just blocks away from the 120th precinct.

            Cops said they observed him selling his wares Thursday on Bay St. and moved in for an arrest.

            It’s possible that people on either side of that dispute might be lying. It’s also possible both sides are truthful – if witnesses who said Garner wasn’t selling really didn’t see him doing it but police really did. I think police should have to wear continuously-recording cameras. And requiring police to take polygraph tests after incidents as a condition of employment would also make sense.

            Changes like those would reduce disputed allegations in both directions.

          • Do you really think that – even if it’s a misdemeanor – police resources are best used to arrest, choke, and kill a man selling loose cigarettes?

            My previous comment a few days ago in this thread proactively answered that:

            I don’t favor the policy/strategy either. Pointless and unjustified are good descriptions of it.

            So no, on this I disagree with De Blasio, Bratton, and an almost 2:1 majority of NY City residents who told Quinnipiac (several weeks after the Garner death) that they favor continuing the “broken window” strategy/policy of arrests for low-level quality of life crimes.

            I’d approach the goal of reducing serious street crime by a very different use of resources, including much longer jail terms than often happen now.

          • Sell a loosie, get a ticket.

        • People in authority demand that people submit to authority, even when of dubious legality or justification?! Quelle surprise!

  • I will admit there are not that many minorities standing in that video.

  • As a conservative I wish Carl palladino and al Sharpton would go away together. As to the point of the police botching the the arrest of a low level crime of selling loose cigarettes, it is what people of NYC want. In a recent poll a large majority residents wanted this activity stopped. A good solution would be to lower the ridiculous taxes on cigarettes then Eric could have gone back to selling joints.

    • Oh, well, as a long as a majority of residents approve of killing somebody for selling loose cigarettes it’s perfectly okay. When do we get to vote on killing conservatives en masse?

      • Any time you wish to engage! I was thinking the same thing about liberals! It’s not about petty crime, it’s about thinking you’re not abliged to live within the same boundries of social behavior that the rest of us do!

        • *Obliged. Yes, I’m sure that’s exactly what the dead guy was thinking. It surely couldn’t have been “I’ve got to find some way to support myself and my family” or anything like that. He was all about breaking boundaries.

          • No what the dead guy was thinking was “fuck these cops, just because the guy that owns this store I am standing in front of is stupid enough to pay the taxes on these cigarettes , doesn’t mean I have to.”

            Beyond that the guy wasn’t doing any thinking.

          • You should be thankful that walking around without thinking isn’t an executable offense (at least for white people). Otherwise, you would have been drawn and quartered like Mel Gibson in that fakakta kilt movie a long time ago.

    • “botched the arrest”?!! They killed the fucking guy! Choked the life right out of him!
      I bet you think the Kent State Massacre was a little “oopsie” by the Ohio National Guard.

Leave a Reply