What I was saying

Greenwich Democrats assist Harbor Master in removing offending moorings

Greenwich Democrats assist Harbor Master in removing offending moorings (Stephanie Paulmeno, rear)

Google “Republican date rape comments” and you’ll find lots of results, all devoted to excoriating the person who made them, but this one from “Ranker” serves as a pretty typical example:

The 9 Most Horribly Insensitive Republican Rape Comments

Yup, insensitive Republicans who distinguish between “rape-rape” and “date-rape” are in there but not, surprisingly, Greenwich Democrat First Selectman candidate Stephanie Paulmeno’s own contribution. *

Quell surprise.

*Greenwich Time, May 10, 2010: “I do believe no is no,” Paulmeno said. “(But) someone who has committed a rape is far different from someone who has committed a date rape. Someone who’s taking a picture is far different from someone who has molested a child.”

44 Comments

Filed under Right wing nut rantings

44 responses to “What I was saying

  1. Al Dente

    I’ve never understood a “crime” vs. a “hate crime” – seems to me if you shoot someone, you must hate them.

  2. housecat

    As I said in the other posting on this noxious subject: if her Dem supporters believe she has been misquoted on this subject, then now is the time to urge her to make her true sentiments clear, and publicly so, If she does, in fact, think that rape magically morphs into something that’s really no big deal because the victim knows the attacker, then she is a fool. Just google “drunk girl rape/sex” and just see the kind of homemade video fun that turns up if you don’t believe me. THAT’s what it looks like, Ms Palumeno.

  3. Astonished

    This quote is horrific on every level. She should be ashamed of herself. The DEMS need to act now and remove her. This comment is extremely damaging, hurtful and misguided. Rape is rape. Period!

  4. Democrat

    Blumenthal, Himes, Malloy need to call on her to resign.

  5. Policeman

    She is actually correct…. Date rape is different than rape. From the law point of view. Treated differently.

  6. Democrat

    The DEMS need a well executed exit strategy for Stephanie. They need to wash their hands from anyone associated with the word rape and controversy. She obviously doesn’t get it and thinks because one drinks a little too much its then OK to go committ a horrific violent sex act. Her comments are beyond troublesome and they are misguided.

  7. Avid reader

    Rape is Rape!

  8. Convicted sex offender

    You have my vote!

  9. Open mind

    She was probably misquoted. The GT and Vigdor constantly are doing that. I want to hear what she had to say firsthand.

    • sunbeam43

      Yeah…..OK…..and she will definitely be truthful!! Ignorance is such bliss!

    • burningmadolf

      Overly defensive posturing by her maybe. Misquoted? No way.

    • Stephanie Paulmeno

      Thank you Open Mind, for your sensible approach. I have repeatedly shared that I have no awareness of ever being interviewed by Neil Vigdor on the topic of the very flawed “Child Safety Zone” ordinance that was overwhelmingly defeated two years in a row and left to die on the vine as it should have been. Neil however WAS sitting in at each of the videotaped RTM meetings at which I spoke on this topic, as well as at the sub-committee meetings and he knows exactly what I DID say, and the context in which each statement was made. There are many different ways to misrepresent the truth. What I have said is on record and video-recorded the for anyone to see and hear. When I requested to hear a tape of Neil’s alleged interview with me, the Greenwich Time editor told me they don’t have one; so I asked for the transcript of that alleged interview. Much to my surprise I was told that doesn’t exist either. When I inquired about what they do have, I was told only Neil’s notes. I requested an electronic copy of those notes and have yet to receive that. Neil knows exactly what I said repeatedly, over and over again in public forums for two full years on just about every aspect of why this proposed piece of local legislation was so flawed. The RTM meetings can be viewed at your leisure on your computer by just accessing the Town website and going into the RTM archives that were taped by Channel 79. The RTM hearings on this topic were held at the September 2009 and September 2010 meetings; I wish you doubting Thomas’s out there would go hear for your themselves what I said, but some of the fear mongers and smear campaign supporters don’t really want to hear the truth. I don’t have to defend myself because what I said is a matter of written and videotaped public record and I have well over a decade or more of work to the contrary of the position Neil purports ever came from my mouth. I’ll say it once more here for Chris Fountains followers:
      The points I made in discussing the “child safety zones” was that our teenages are having sex starting at a very young age; people, including kids, often date those younger than themselves. When a teenage boy reaches a certain age he can find himself on the Connecticut sex offenders list and that I don’t think that two teenagers on a date having consensual sex is the same as rape. I stand by that position most fully. Do we really need our sexually active teenagers criminalized with their lives ruined. I think not.
      The other point I made, also in the context of the flawed “Child Safety Zones” arguements put forth by its proponents, was that of the 4 (and then 6) people listed as sex offenders in Greenwich, only one was there for a crime against children and even he had never touched a child, but rather took pictures of the boys swim team at Greenwich High School from the school’s viewing window. Isn’t it amazing that when you put that phrase into the context in which it was said it takes on a whole different meaning.
      I think the better story than the gibberish being played out in this column and in the Greenwich Time is the story Ken Borsuk wrote this week giving an in-side view of how this massive smear campaign was orchestrated and played out. All I can say is shame on the people of Greenwich who feed into this type of nonsense. It shows a total lack of moral fortitude and disregard for people. I’m ashamed of you!
      Now here is a newsman and a news story with a backbone! Read on:
      http://www.greenwich-post.com/17320/politics-of-malice/

  10. sunbeam43

    ALSO, just wondering if the site, Ranker, got their name from the Urban Dictionary…….????? Hmmmm?! http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ranker

  11. housecat

    Had a minute to spare and looked up the Statutory Rape law in CT. As it has been the subject of much conversation, here it is if anyone actually wants to know. (For some reason, the link leads to Colorado, but scroll down – CT is just below). The legal age of consent in CT is 16. Statutory rape charges won’t be filed if the ages of the participants differs by two years or less.

    http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/sr/statelaws/statelaws.shtml#Colorado

    • anonymous

      interesting link housecat. What’s remarkable is the wide range of the defendants age against the victim. it’s worth scrolling through each state law to see the wild differences. I’m all for states rights but in this instance it is hard to understand how a statutory rape law can have so many variations. any lawyers wish to opine?

      • housecat

        Re this particular subject, it makes no sense to me, either – legal or otherwise. I really don’t have a good answer as to why the ages of consent – or the participant age spreads – should vary so widely in the 21st century. But, as we know, state legislatures march to their own peculiar drums…

    • Stephanie Paulmeno

      I have repeatedly shared that I have no awareness of ever being interviewed by Neil Vigdor on the topic of the very flawed “Child Safety Zone” ordinance that was overwhelmingly defeated two years in a row and left to die on the vine as it should have been. Neil however WAS sitting in at each of the videotaped RTM meetings at which I spoke on this topic, as well as at the sub-committee meetings and he knows exactly what I DID say, and the context in which each statement was made. There are many different ways to misrepresent the truth. What I have said is on record and video-recorded the for anyone to see and hear. When I requested to hear a tape of Neil’s alleged interview with me, the Greenwich Time editor told me they don’t have one; so I asked for the transcript of that alleged interview. Much to my surprise I was told that doesn’t exist either. When I inquired about what they do have, I was told only Neil’s notes. I requested an electronic copy of those notes and have yet to receive that. Neil knows exactly what I said repeatedly, over and over again in public forums for two full years on just about every aspect of why this proposed piece of local legislation was so flawed. The RTM meetings can be viewed at your leisure on your computer by just accessing the Town website and going into the RTM archives that were taped by Channel 79. The RTM hearings on this topic were held at the September 2009 and September 2010 meetings; I wish you doubting Thomas’s out there would go hear for your themselves what I said, but some of the fear mongers and smear campaign supporters don’t really want to hear the truth. I don’t have to defend myself because what I said is a matter of written and videotaped public record and I have well over a decade or more of work to the contrary of the position Neil purports ever came from my mouth. I’ll say it once more here for Chris Fountains followers:
      The points I made in discussing the “child safety zones” was that our teenages are having sex starting at a very young age; people, including kids, often date those younger than themselves. When a teenage boy reaches a certain age he can find himself on the Connecticut sex offenders list and that I don’t think that two teenagers on a date having consensual sex is the same as rape. I stand by that position most fully. Do we really need our sexually active teenagers criminalized with their lives ruined. I think not.
      The other point I made, also in the context of the flawed “Child Safety Zones” arguements put forth by its proponents, was that of the 4 (and then 6) people listed as sex offenders in Greenwich, only one was there for a crime against children and even he had never touched a child, but rather took pictures of the boys swim team at Greenwich High School from the school’s viewing window. Isn’t it amazing that when you put that phrase into the context in which it was said it takes on a whole different meaning.
      I think the better story than the gibberish being played out in this column and in the Greenwich Time is the story Ken Borsuk wrote this week giving an in-side view of how this massive smear campaign was orchestrated and played out. All I can say is shame on the people of Greenwich who feed into this type of nonsense. It shows a total lack of moral fortitude and disregard for people. I’m ashamed of you!
      Now here is a newsman and a news story with a backbone! Read on:
      http://www.greenwich-post.com/17320/politics-of-malice/

  12. Riverside voter

    Stephanie has my vote. She is wonderful women who has helped so many people. This is dirty politics at it finest. Stay strong Stephanie and don’t even think about dropping out. The Republicans are running scared.

    • Stephanie Paulmeno

      Thank you Riverside Voter and Paulmeno Supporter for your kind words and show of support. I truly appreciate your encouraging comments in the face of such vile comments by such blind-sighted people who won’t even listen to the truth or the facts when they get slapped in the face with them. I’ve yet to see here that anyone of the vitriolic nay sayer with whom you’ve been dialoging have yet viewed the public television tapes of the RTM meetings that I referenced previously in this blog. That is only because they do, then all the steam goes out of their arguements because, like Neil Vigdor is aware, what I said is on the record with my name associated with it, for all to view and hear. “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” Unfortunately the people behind this smear campaign have been running scared and just don’t care to hear the truth or to allow anyone else to do so.
      What have we come to in Greenwich? You would be so surprised to know who is behind the letter writing smear campaign…or maybe you wouldn’t be (hmm). I’ve always felt that if you have something to say, come out and say it and put your name behind it…like I did.

  13. Riverside voter

    The Greenwich Time has misquoted her! Just look at her record. She also has my vote! It takes courage to do what she has done.

  14. Paulmeno supporter

    This was obviously a misquote! Don’t let them define you Stepanie. Hang in there. You have my support.

    • anonymous

      How many phone calls did SP make to get three people (or one with three different aliases?) to comment in rapid succession in her favor? Me thinks I smell a rat.

      • Proud Democrat

        I think we should reserve judgement and let Stephanie explain what she meant. Her past record indicates perhaps she was misquoted. It would be very unfortunate if she backs down. Obviously the quotes are not hers. Makes no logical sense. She has my vote!

        • “Obviously the quotes are not hers.” What’s “obvious” about it? Given the context: speaking in opposition to a proposed ordinance that would have banned all sex offenders from public parks, her argument that the law was overbroad dovetails neatly with her statement that there’s a difference from rapey rape and date rape (although what the hell she was thinking when she also distinguished between pederast photographers and those who physically touched children is beyond my understanding).

          My complaint about Paulmeno is that she leads a local group that wants to ban ordinary citizens from owning guns and takes date rape lightly (assuming she wasn’t including her own son’s crime in any definition of date rape – if she was, then her definition of date rape is as crazy as her idea of proper behavior of pervert shutter bugs). I want my daughters to have the right to own pistols and be trained in their use in self defense against people like, sorry to say, a drunken intruder who shows up at the shower door with a stocking over his head, a butcher knife in his hand and loving on his mind; Paulemo doesn’t. That doesn’t disqualify her from holding public office, but it does rule out her getting my vote.

        • burningmadolf

          You mean people should wait to hear how she spins it and not believe what she said.

        • AJ

          This befuddles the mind, if a person living in Greenwich has an article written about them in the Greenwich Time, they are certain to see it unless they are living in total isolation and have absolutely no friends or aquaintances. If the proof of the pudding is in the tasting (see, I got it right this time), then surely there is a request for a retraction that is findable. And even if a person were out of town and happened to miss it, surely it could be found online, or as a last resort at the library. For someone who is involved in local politics to say they were unaware of an article that misquoted them is what would be called in today’s vernacular “misspeaking”. She’s going to have to do more then send out the surrogates on this one, speaking of which, when is Ms. Samarpana Tamm going to have something to say for herself, even if it amounts to nothing more than speaking in tongues, her input would be appreciated. After all, isn’t that the job she is seeking, one where she will give the town the benefits of her input?

        • AJ

          Perhaps she was thinking of Plato’s Republic where in the utopian city, there would be no husbands or wives, and parents would not know their children who would be raised by the state. In such a State all procreation would be for the benefit of the State, and therefore by definition no such thing as rape but only civic duty. Could this be Barry’s dream?

        • Stephanie Paulmeno

          Thank you Proud Democrat. I am one also. If your on the DTC I’ll see you at the Democratic Kick-off. Even if your not, the invitation is open to all Democraticsupporters.
          I have repeatedly shared that I have no awareness of ever being interviewed by Neil Vigdor on the topic of the very flawed “Child Safety Zone” ordinance that was overwhelmingly defeated two years in a row and left to die on the vine as it should have been. Neil however WAS sitting in at each of the videotaped RTM meetings at which I spoke on this topic, as well as at the sub-committee meetings and he knows exactly what I DID say, and the context in which each statement was made. There are many different ways to misrepresent the truth. What I have said is on record and video-recorded the for anyone to see and hear. When I requested to hear a tape of Neil’s alleged interview with me, the Greenwich Time editor told me they don’t have one; so I asked for the transcript of that alleged interview. Much to my surprise I was told that doesn’t exist either. When I inquired about what they do have, I was told only Neil’s notes. I requested an electronic copy of those notes and have yet to receive that. Neil knows exactly what I said repeatedly, over and over again in public forums for two full years on just about every aspect of why this proposed piece of local legislation was so flawed. The RTM meetings can be viewed at your leisure on your computer by just accessing the Town website and going into the RTM archives that were taped by Channel 79. The RTM hearings on this topic were held at the September 2009 and September 2010 meetings; I wish you doubting Thomas’s out there would go hear for your themselves what I said, but some of the fear mongers and smear campaign supporters don’t really want to hear the truth. I don’t have to defend myself because what I said is a matter of written and videotaped public record and I have well over a decade or more of work to the contrary of the position Neil purports ever came from my mouth. I’ll say it once more here for Chris Fountains followers:
          The points I made in discussing the “child safety zones” was that our teenages are having sex starting at a very young age; people, including kids, often date those younger than themselves. When a teenage boy reaches a certain age he can find himself on the Connecticut sex offenders list and that I don’t think that two teenagers on a date having consensual sex is the same as rape. I stand by that position most fully. Do we really need our sexually active teenagers criminalized with their lives ruined. I think not.
          The other point I made, also in the context of the flawed “Child Safety Zones” arguements put forth by its proponents, was that of the 4 (and then 6) people listed as sex offenders in Greenwich, only one was there for a crime against children and even he had never touched a child, but rather took pictures of the boys swim team at Greenwich High School from the school’s viewing window. Isn’t it amazing that when you put that phrase into the context in which it was said it takes on a whole different meaning.
          I think the better story than the gibberish being played out in this column and in the Greenwich Time is the story Ken Borsuk wrote this week giving an in-side view of how this massive smear campaign was orchestrated and played out. All I can say is shame on the people of Greenwich who feed into this type of nonsense. It shows a total lack of moral fortitude and disregard for people. I’m ashamed of you!
          Now here is a newsman and a news story with a backbone! Read on:
          http://www.greenwich-post.com/17320/politics-of-malice/

  15. Anonymous

    What group does Ms. Paulmeno belong to that thinks ordinary citizens should not own guns? And what makes you think she thinks “lightly” of date rape. From what I infer from her remarks, she did say that there is a difference in a brutal assault rape and a rape in which a participant is sexually led on (date rape.). That doesn’t necessarily mean she takes it lightly.

    • Mrs. Paulmeno belongs to Greenwich Citizens Against Gun Violence, at least one of whose members, an ascot-wearing fop named Jonathan Dubois, spends his time demanding a $2 tax on bullets. Dubois, as an amateur historian and devotee of the Civil war, presumably knows enough about weapons to know that guns are useless if the man or woman behind the trigger has not practiced their use. Raising the cost of, say, 100 .22 practice rounds from $5 to $105 isn’t going to stop anyone with mayhem on his mind from committing a crime: it will shut down shooting ranges, where target shooters often practice once a week, 100 rounds per week. This, coupled with other taxes, costs and restrictions Paulmeno’s group endorses are aimed at making legal gun ownership as difficult and burdensome as possible while doing nothing to deter criminals. A separate, mandatory insurance policy for gun owners, for instance, or annual inspections by the police to examine where guns are stored – unlikely the Bridgeport Crips will be inviting the police into their homes for that one.

      Again: the leader of the state-wide coalition of anti-gun groups called the passage of Connecticut’s new gun laws “a good first step”, with more to do. Just as ObamaKare was merely the first step in the ultimate goal of a national health system for its advocates, “common sense” gun regulations (a term anti-gune groups were specifically instructed to use by their national umbrella organization) are just a beginning. Paulmeno may just be a useful idiot of these people, or she may be more involved, like Jonathan Dubois – the difference, when it comes to holding the First Selectman’s office, is irrelevant.

      • Roger Paulmeno

        I can see why you no longer practice law. You were probably not too good at it. As a lawyer you know everyone has their day in court. It’s amazing to me that you help perpetuate such nonsense. It’s people like you who are willing to spread fear and misinformation about things you and your followers no nothing about. It’s true you read the article correctly about Stephanie and the “rape” issue that proves nothing about her but what is written. She knew going into the elections that statements of hers will be miss quoted or misunderstood. Those are the hazard of the beast and as a politician; she knows there will be supporters and supporters. What she and I don’t tolerate is dragging the family into the mudslinging. I don’t recall at any of the 30 yrs. we lived in this town has any political opponent go after the family. I have to admit I am ashamed of the people of Greenwich who feel these tactics are okay when it comes to politics. Stephanie has always been an open book to the town, as she has always stated, “Google me”. If you and your followers feel that a life time of work for the betterment of her fellow man is totally disregarded then I feel you deserved what you get. Our only concern for her to drop out was our son. I hope none of you will ever have to go through what we did. In case the law comes knocking on your door, be prepared. Read this just in case….if you dare…
        http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm

  16. Anonymous

    I recall that Ms. Paulmeno defied a mandatory evacuation order during superstorm Sandy because she did not want to leave her dog at home. Perhaps she was misquoted on this too, and can apologize to the police and firefighters who would have risked their lives to save her when she wins the election and is in charge of public safety. She lost my vote on this issue alone.

    • Stephanie Paulmeno

      During and after the storm I was out checking up on ill and frail neighbors and their pets and inviting them to our home where we have a generator, and then working hours on end for two weeks in the Red Cross Shelter as a Red Cross Nurse instead of out campaigning in the final weeks of the State Representative race. I didn’t tell any of the media what I was doing, nor did I take the opportunities for photo ops. I just did my volunteer job. What self-serving things were you doing to help your fellow man?

  17. housecat

    It’s unfortunate (for actual rape victims) that you don’t “get” the difference. For the Democratic candidate for First Selectman – and Town Police Commissioner – it’s a bit more than that.

    Just supposing you might actually want to *look* at the data on acquaintance rape, here’s some.

    http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/19/4191666/the-serial-rapist-is-not-who-you.html

    http://www.wcsap.org/sites/www.wcsap.org/files/uploads/webinars/SV%20on%20Campus/Repeat%20Rape.pdf

  18. Stephanie Paulmeno

    No one ever discussed acquaintance rape but rather two teenagers having consensual sex while on a date. I guess you have to hear it yet again; maybe at some point you’ll be able to get your listening ears on, or your seeing eyes open. Go see and hear the Channel 79 tapes of the RTM meetings from September 2009 and 2010 and hear it directly from my own lips; stop being so intentionally obtuse and ignorant. It only makes you sound like a fool.

  19. Stephanie Paulmeno

    I have repeatedly shared that I have no awareness of ever being interviewed by Neil Vigdor on the topic of the very flawed “Child Safety Zone” ordinance that was overwhelmingly defeated two years in a row and left to die on the vine as it should have been. Neil however WAS sitting in at each of the videotaped RTM meetings at which I spoke on this topic, as well as at the sub-committee meetings and he knows exactly what I DID say, and the context in which each statement was made. There are many different ways to misrepresent the truth, including taking comments out of context and paraphrasing what was actually stated into what you want someone to think was said. Changing “teens on a date” to “date rape” is just such an example. What kind of reporting is that. I can’t tell you how mnay people have called to say they, too, were mis-quoted by this same reporter.

    What I have said is on record. It is video-recorded for anyone to see and hear.

    When I requested to hear a tape of Neil’s alleged interview with me, the Greenwich Time editor told me they don’t have one; so I asked for the transcript of that alleged interview. Much to my surprise I was told that doesn’t exist either. When I inquired about what they do have, I was told they had only Neil’s notes. I requested an electronic copy of those notes and have yet to receive them. Neil knows exactly what I said repeatedly, over and over again in public forums for two full years on just about every aspect of why this proposed piece of local legislation was so flawed.

    The RTM meetings can be viewed at your leisure on your computer by just accessing the Town website and going into the RTM archives that were taped by Channel 79. The RTM hearings on this topic were held at the September 2009 and September 2010 meetings; I wish you Doubting Thomas’s out there would go hear for yourselves what I said, but some of the fear mongers and smear campaign supporters don’t really want to hear the truth.

    I don’t have to defend myself because what I said is a matter of written and videotaped public record and I have well over a decade or more of work to the contrary of the words Neil purports ever came from my mouth. I’ll say it once more here for Chris Fountain’s followers:

    The points I made in discussing the “child safety zones” was that our teenagers are having sex starting at a very young age; people, including kids, often date those younger than themselves. When a teenage boy reaches a certain age he can find himself on the Connecticut sex offenders list and that I don’t think that two teenagers on a date having consensual sex is the same as rape. I stand fully behind that position. Do we really need our (unfortunately) sexually active teenagers criminalized with their lives ruined. I think not.

    The other point I made, also in the context of the flawed “Child Safety Zones” arguements put forth by its proponents, was that of the 4 (and then 6) people listed as sex offenders in Greenwich, only one was there for a crime against children and even he had never touched a child, but rather took pictures of the boys swim team at Greenwich High School from the school’s viewing window. Isn’t it amazing that when you put that phrase into the context in which it was said it takes on a whole different meaning.

    I think the better story than the gibberish being played out in this blog and the Greenwich Time is the story Ken Borsuk wrote this week giving an in-side view of how this massive smear campaign was orchestrated and played out by a bunch of cowards with an ulterior motive.
    Now here is a courageous newsman and a news story with a backbone! Read on:
    http://www.greenwich-post.com/17320/politics-of-malice/

    All I can say is shame on the people of Greenwich who feed into this type of nonsense. It shows a total lack of moral fortitude and disregard for people. Talk about bullying at its finest, and we all know what is said about bullies. They are cowards! I’m ashamed of all of you and you should be ashamed of yourselves and of a Party that allowed this attrocity to go on! What ever happened to candidates campaigning on town issues. It is only a very weak or flawed Party, Party leadership, or candidate that would have to stoop to the level of personal attacks on the family of an opposing candidate to gain ground in an election process. I suppose I should be flattered to be considered such a threat that such tactics as these had to play out in the great Town of Greenwich. We have all been defiled in the process.