Reader comments · Carl Paladino apologises for ‘poorly chosen words’ after homophobia row · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Carl Paladino apologises for ‘poorly chosen words’ after homophobia row

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Dave North 13 Oct 2010, 3:41pm

    I don’t think you can describe yourself as a “simple man” with a net worth of over $150 million.

  2. Vile right wing lying bigot. I don’t forgive him.

  3. I think anyone who can say what he said, whilst intending to say something completely different, needs to consider whether they possess sufficient intelligence to discharge the duties of the role for which they are seeking election. That is of course if he ‘mis-spoke’, which seems highly unlikely.

    When someone describes themself as a ‘Republican’ it has the same effect on me as listening to nails being scratched down a blackboard due to the sheer inanity of most of the things they say and do. This incident does nothing to change that.

  4. editing a speech is not the same as editing the mind – i think a few bits could be cut from that part without any loss to the humanity

  5. “Mr Paladino, whose campaign is struggling, apologised yesterday for the phrasing of his comments.”

    Hmmmm so what was the reason for the apology? I very much there’d have been one if he was winning!

  6. Disgusting bigotted monster.

    It’s amusing to see how such a moral champion is raising children with both his wife and mistress.

    Vile hypocrite.

  7. Dominick J. 13 Oct 2010, 4:38pm

    I wouldn’t trust this man if his lips came notorized!! He said those words in a speech, how about other words he’s said with out reading a speech? He’s a liar, and apparently an un-educated one, about sexual orientation, and certainly not to be a LEADER in such a diverse city And State.

  8. What a prick, it’s no wonder his campaign is struggling to find enough support
    I wouldn’t be surprised if he was a holocaust denier aswell

  9. He supports gay rights but not marriage?


    That is all >.>

  10. “100% in favour of gay rights, except for gay marriage”? Well then you’re not 100% in favour of gay rights, are you?

    Silly man.

  11. Well, now. Exactly in what sense were his words ‘poorly chosen’? There do not seem to me to be many possibilities:-
    1 He meant the exact opposite of what he said.
    2 He did not use sufficiently insulting words in which to communicate an offensive message.
    3 He did not find sufficiently diplomatic or flattering words in which to communicate an offensive message.
    4 He is not capable of finding appropriate words in which to express himself clearly (possibly linked to 1?).
    5 He says anything which happens to chime with the prejudices of the people he’s talking to (also possibly linked to 1).
    6 It worried him that people unsympathetic to what he was saying were likely to hear about it, but it did not occur to him that this might happen. This is generally known as being thick.
    None of the above explanations should inspire confidence in this buffoon, on the part of absolutely any of his potential constituencies.

  12. His words were poorly chosen in the sense that they might have lost him more votes than they gained him. What othe sense does he recognise?

  13. So either he opened his cakehole with his brain in neutral or he meant every word of it.
    The first is unlikely (but would still be a gaffe in any politician’s book) and the second makes his apology worthless unless he had a timely epiphany regarding civil rights in the space of 2 days.
    If he meant it there’s nothing more to be said other than “see you at the polling booth, good luck getting back that deposit”.

  14. chris in new england 13 Oct 2010, 7:55pm

    Nate Silver gives Paladino a 0.2% chance of winning – yes, that’s two-tenths of one percent –

    Not much to look forward to in this election, but it will be satisfying to see this putz go down in flames, and hopefully Meg Whitman too.

  15. Wim in Holland 13 Oct 2010, 7:56pm

    It is easy and cheap to say apologies. I don’t believe his words, until he convinces me by his deeds.

  16. That’s not an apology. And how thick can you be to write something vile and discriminatory but think it would have been OK if you’d edited it a bit further before saying it? The message is still clearly one of hate.

  17. He is the Emperor from StarWars be very afraid!

  18. although i think his words were completely offensive and disrespectful nad full with prejudices, I also find it remarkable that a right wing politician is apologising for his though words after there was a massive reject of them. It’s incredible to see how we have advanced, probably 10 years ago a politician could have said that without even apologising

  19. Jock S. Trap 14 Oct 2010, 8:13am

    Could someone tell this brainless simpleton that saying you are “”100 per cent” in favour of gay rights, except for gay marriage,” means you not “100 per cent” in favour of gay rights.

    It’s a bit like saying I’m a 100 per cent loving chocolate cake, except for the chocolate!

    The mans a fool and doesn’t derserve to be in politics.

  20. It’s unfortunate that this adulterous man is against gay marriage (or more properly marriage equality) but how does it affect him in any way?
    Straight marriage is of little use to us LGBT’s but none of us are against straight marriage or want to ban it.
    Instead of working against marriage equality, that will have no impact on him nor his marriage, he should concentrate on preserving his own marital and extramarital relationships and try sorting himself out.

  21. An Cat Dubh 14 Oct 2010, 11:15am

    @Dave North: Well, he’s not really talented at phrasing what he said. Maybe he meant ‘simpleton’… Hah. Nah, he probably meant that he didn’t get all uppity from his financial success (read: nouveau riche).
    @Adam, Oscar, and Jock S. Trap: Some Republicans, as well as Julia Gillard, think that marriage has always been a union of man and woman, and expanding that definition is like expanding the definition of a circle to include elipses. Or at least that’s how I understood it. (Nevermind the fact they got the facts wrong and here have been same-sex marriages in history…)
    There’s only one repented phobe I honestly forgive, and that’s Meïr Ariël (Israeli equivalent of Bob Dylan, only more talented–perhaps the better comparison should be to Vladimir Vysotsky), who admitted his opinions (which he stuck to even when constantly harrassed by gay groups, which, even though his opinions at the time were very objectable, earned him my respect) were the result of sheer ignorance.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.