Or, really, he just shat out his mouth and tried to pass it off as political opinion. Here’s the quote from
The Village Idiot in his Natural Habitat
Roland Martin’s new show on CNN:
I want to say this very quickly—they’re not going to vote for this black guy. I mean, wh-wh…when Jackie Robinson broke through to the Major League Baseball, Branch Rickey took a chance. He took a chance on an exemplary person. I don’t think Barack Obama is that exemplary person for white America, that’s my problem here. That’s the problem here. If he were a better candidate for the job, I think that he would have a better chance. If you’re going to break through that ceiling [Roland Martin has at this point been saying, "Jooooe, Jooooe..."] Look, do you want to be real here, or do you want to talk about something else?”
What he means is, a better black candidate.
It seems that by saying that Barack Obama is not an exemplary figure, Mr. Pagliarulo is saying that he himself is not yet comfortable with the issue of race. That’s what I took from his statement. I would like to know what it is that Mr. Pagliarulo wants from an African-American candidate. Note to self: write to Pagliarulo’s secretary, requesting his scoring rubrics for white candidates, black candidates, Hispanic candidates, Asian candidates, as well as the method by which he prepares his foot before he shoves it down his throat.
8 responses so far ↓
Joe Pagliarulo // September 21, 2008 at 1:15 am |
Hey smart guy.. did you see the title of the show? Race, gender and age in the election was the premise. I was asked whether there are people who will not vote for Obama because he’s black. I was asked this after a racist white guy said something ridiculous in North Carolina. My answer is and was .. yes there are some who won’t vote for him because he’s black. I continued that it took Jackie Robinson to break through and unfair barrier in MLB.. and that Barak Obama is not Jackie Robinson. You’re lucky a friend happened by this website which nobody seems to care enough about to leave a comment.. and informed me of your silly little blog. I suggest you take your head out of your rectum and actually try to learn the definition of the word “context” before blathering on like and idiot when pushing your agenda on something I’ve said.
Dork!
j
Joe Pagliarulo Reads My Blog? Doubtful. « The Corner Booth // September 21, 2008 at 4:56 am |
[...] Pagliarulo Reads My Blog? Doubtful. 21 09 2008 Last week, I wrote a post about something I saw on television. I was watching Roland Martin’s new show on CNN, which tackles a different topic every week [...]
Jeff Mathews // October 11, 2008 at 1:41 am |
Pagliarulo: Racism is an illness of the soul and it demonstrates a genuine lack of intellect. No truly intelligent human being could possibly be a racist and call themselves rational and/or sane. This illness (racism) originates in the heart, but it does have the pathology (physical ability) to work its way to a neurological condition where real (physical) damage to the brain can occur. Get help before this happens.
To the rest: It is not (at all) difficult to see Pagliarulo’s contrast of Obama to Robinson, as being illogical, irrational and hopelessly flawed at the very least. Pagliarulo falls into the same pit that most racist do (at least when they have the guts to speak out in public about their own internal illness). Here’s why: He (Pagliarulo) initiates a false first cause (false first premise) and then stands on that weak baseline as the genesis for the effect of a ‘racist’ (how funny) not being able to bring him/her self to vote for Obama. Well, this is beyond silly. Why? Because he never defines/measures his first false cause which he states as: “exemplary.” Since the magnitude of exemplary was never defined by Pagliarulo, and since the term exemplary itself is a declarative subjective, it becomes crystal clear (to anyone with an education in English grammar) that Pagliarulo had to be using the term as a declarative pejorative; which by definition makes his statement not merely third-party (outside) observation of what a ‘racist’ would or would not do, but as a primary party making a subjective pejorative comment. One can only guess as to why Pagliarulo would feel the need to make such prime comments. Thus, Pagliarulo would do well to educate himself on the proper use of the predicate following a clause inside a declarative subject (statement). It is clues like these, that set the verbal trap for racist hiding under the vale of ‘openness’ and being (so-called) above board. Mr. Pagliarulo, your racism is palatable sir and can be detected through the use of your prose as compared to well spoken English.
Furthermore, it is ludicrous for Pagliarulo to conclude that Obama is not worthy of a vote from a racist (as if). That statement (all by itself) becomes a hollow and worthless waste of air-time. Of course, a “racist” is not going to vote for one he/she feels does not meet the racial qualifications held in their small brain decision tree. So, why state the obvious? Racists are not smart, sane, stable minded people, so what on earth could they possibly have in common with things “exemplary?” A genuine racist would not know the differential between “exemplary” and exempt. Why? Because real racist individuals have incredibly small brains, narrow minds and are typically not very intelligent, smart and/or coherent in thought. They lack the ability to reason well and thus don’t typically have the capacity to filter their restricted world through various progressions of things “exemplary.” Thus, the point was moot long before Mr. Pagliarulo discovered it as being worthy of dialectic suggestion. The fact that Mr. Pagliarulo would insert the obvious does raise more questions about WHY Pagliarulo would find such a statement relevant, when it is so clearly irrationally originated. Given the title of the show that day, he (Mr. Pagliarulo) would have been better off actually describing the elements of “exemplary” and how/why a “racist” would go about establishing such a filter as their dominant method for determining whether or not Obama met their requirements for President. But, of course, this never crossed Mr. Pagliarulo’s mind, no doubt.
I would love the opportunity to debate Mr. Pagliarulo live (on-air) regarding his comments about Barack Obama not being exemplary enough for the self-proclaimed racist. People like Pagliarulo (who I believe to be a racist in hiding), are easily trapped by their own ignorance. You can easily fly a Boeing 757-200 through their commentary, while exposing their rhetoric to the light of day as being precisely racist in nature. Mr. Pagliarulo may not understand how this is easily done, but that does not remove the fact that it is easily done.
Mr. Pagliarulo, does not like Obama personally – that much can be seen through his illogical and irrational rants about Ayers, Wright, etc., (radio and television) that he offers up as ‘intelligent rebuttal’ to Obama’s campaign for the Presidency. He fails discuss the McCain/Keating, McCain/Gram, McCain/Hagee, McCain/Annenberg, etc., connections when irrationally blasting Obama about his so-called relationships. Mr. Pagliarulo, went on to flat out LIE when he said that Obama and Ayers were “close friends” on CNN (Friday, October 10th, 2008). What Mr. Pagliarulo fails to understand, is exactly what the McCain camp fails to understand about the election of 2008. The election of the President has nothing to do with ‘six hundred’ degrees of separation highlighting so-called ‘relationships’ that don’t exist. No, those are nothing more than red herring/strawman/distractions at best. This election also has nothing to do with so-called “experience,” as neither of the candidates ever spent single night in the White House previously. No one could possibly know what being the President or Vice President is actually like, until they’ve become the President or Vice President – so attempting to ‘qualify’ a candidate based on their “experience” is likewise a moot exercise at best.
Instead, the election of the President (and Vice President) has everything to do with Competence and THAT measure is a composite of the candidates Capacity, Aptitude and Appropriateness for the role they seek. Barack Obama has a greater degree of Competence as demonstrated through Capacity, Aptitude and Appropriateness, than does John McCain.
I would LOVE the opportunity to debate Mr. Pagliarulo on this model of Competency, as it goes to the heart of exposing his racist attitudes towards Barack Obama – if he dares.
(Do the math before you accept the debate challenge – it puts you in a no win scenario, obviously.)
e // June 11, 2009 at 3:17 am |
What do you have to say about President Obama’s competence now Mr. Mathews? Clearly Mr. Pagliarulo was dead on. President Obama’s lack of experience and lies have and will continue to cause severe damage to country and its people for generations to come. Rather than focusing on things being said by a radio talk show host such as Mr. Pagliarulo I suggest you feed your hunger for debate by asking your competent president exactly why he’s failed to present the people of this country a valid birth certificate. Obviously, Obama’s lack of experience in being an American is the cause for his anti-american ways…It’s no suprise he’s sitting in the office spitting at our constitution with people like you defending him and his competence. You, your ignorance, and your basis of voting liars like him into office scare me!My only hope is that in four years we will still have the right to defend our opinions on sites such as this one.
Mike // October 11, 2008 at 1:17 pm |
@Jeff: Damn, Jeff.
I agree with most of what you’ve said, but if you want someone to hear you, it might be better if you sent a letter or an email to Pags himself. As mentioned in the follow-up post to this one, I don’t get much traffic, so you may not be read here.
Your comment seems a bit more like a blog post–you should post it somewhere. Most people don’t take time to read long comments, so make your own way, and continue the fight against ignorance!!!
riceroni // October 23, 2008 at 10:00 pm |
I could believe that comment was from Joe PagLIARulo himself, being the arrogant partisan prick he is, he would try and defend such a stupid derogatory statement.
K. Simms // June 4, 2009 at 1:57 pm |
Joey P is simply a failed abortion.
e // June 11, 2009 at 2:47 am |
PagLIARulo…clever! How long did you have to stare at the print to come up with that one? If you want to fight against ignorance I suggest using better methods besides calling someone a “prick” or worse yet a “failed abortion”! I suppose you think calling someone a failed abortion is a constructive and an advantageous way of defending your positions. Good luck with your fight against ignorance!