The Democrats have always been the party of racism. Long after fighting on the wrong side of the Civil War, they provided the bulk of the opposition to the civil rights movement and the ending of the web of Jim Crow segregation laws. Then as soon as they lost the battle for anti-black racism the party immediately switched to anti-white racism with its embrace of affirmative action (the race-conscious favoring of blacks in hiring and promotion). Their one constant: they never gave liberty a chance.
Now they are following the same path with feminism. “If you don’t buy me $18,000 worth of birth control it’s a WAR AGAINST WOMEN,” says Sandra Fluke and her sponsors in the Obama campaign:
Sorry girls but trying to force taxpayers to provide for your outsized birth-control consumption is a war BY women, and yes, this really is politics as a substitute for war because the issue is force. That is what laws do. They use the state’s monopoly on force to coerce individual behavior. Sandra and her ilk are trying to achieve a tyrannous majority, trampling the rights of others, grabbing other peoples’ stuff for themselves.
But there is a problem even for the Sandra Flukes of the world with using the Orwellian language of “war on women” for a war by women. When you accommodate to these perversions of language it becomes impossible to think straight about the issues involved. Remember the wisdom of Confucius: “When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty.” That is doubly true when the words whose meanings get perverted are our words for liberty, and liberty is important even for women.
Democrat discombobulation over liberty is evident in another of barackobama.com’s e-cards for women. Check out this woman-voiced claim that “control of our own health care” comes from submitting to the paternalistic system of government-run medicine that is Obama-care:
Are Democrat women actually stupid enough to fall for this? Do they really think that having government choose what health care they receive will give them more control than when they were free to choose their health care for themselves?
Liberty is slavery! That’s what Karl Marx said: free yourselves by submitting to totalitarianism! “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains,” enslaved by economic liberty. Obama-care just adds a slight twist, just for the ladies: free yourselves by submitting to paternalism!
Of course Democrat women are stupid enough to fall for this, but only because they have lobotomized themselves by uncritically embracing whatever seems to support what they take to be their side. They are choosing to be stupid and there is no limit to how stupid a person can choose to be. They will give up all control but think of it as being in control because they are choosing to give up control. Brilliant (Democrat style).
To have any chance of pulling Democrat women off of this pitch for paternalism as a feminist utopia it is necessary to work around the Democrats’ backwards-thinking cognitive style. Instead of following reason and evidence to arrive at conclusions, they start with their conclusions and seek ways to avoid and dismiss any reason and evidence that seems to militate against “their side.” Pointing out how stupid it is for Democrats to think that liberty is slavery has no effect because you are denigrating their side (the Democrats) and they are self-programmed to hate and ignore anything that denigrates their side.
But if you phrase it differently, if you point out that the ad denigrates women by depicting them as stupid enough to think that paternalistic socialist control of medicine is liberating (with 1950’s-style ad copy as a lure no less), then you might be able to get these women’s grotesque female bias to work against and cancel out their grotesque Democrat bias.
The fog clears and, for a rare brief moment, they are able to observe reason and evidence: “Hey wait a minute. Paternalism isn’t liberty!”
… Until the next opportunity for anti-conservative bigotry comes up. Then they’ll be back to full stupid again.
Hey all you mainstream Democrat leftists: to be conservative in the land of liberty is to value and fight for liberty, and if you’re not down with that then you are scum. Observe that, while your minds are momentarily un-befogged.
As a Southerner and a lifelong Republican (my late father was one of the first in Southside Virginia because he despised the Roosevelt’s– esp. Eleanor) I am perplexed by your going out of your way to insult those who comprise the largest block in the Republican column. Your post is both ill-informed and rather, if you will excuse the euphemism, moronic. All of those in the South who used to support the Democrats, i.e. Bourbon Democrats such as myself are now Republicans and all those who once supported the Republicans, i.e. Negroes, now support the Democrats. My own family ,on both sides, over the course of two centuries owned thousands of slaves. My 3x great grandfather Elisha Abbott of Halifax, Va mentions more than 40 in his will in the early 1800’s. I offer no apology for this, anymore than I will apologise for the fact that my Anglo Norman ancestors in England had serfs in the distant past. Get this and get it good– no matter how many screeds you write to the Negroes about how the Democrats of 1861 supported slavery, they will still vote for the Democrats of 2012 who are proffering” free stuff”. You can have either their support or you can have ours, but you cannot have both. The only purpose your essay serves is to give conservative white Southerners yet another excuse to remain politically Independent and thereby weaken our cause. A further point, sir, is this: To suppose that the majority of White Southerners thinks that the Yankee invasion and despoliation of our beloved Southland was a good thing and that we should all lease a house by the shore together and praise Lincoln around the campfire is typical Yankee arrogance. I, for one, will not regard Richmond’s Monument Ave. as complete until we have a shrine to the Avenger of our people, the Hon. John Wilkes Booth in a prominent location.
Silly Socialist troll sockpuppetry. Nice try loser.
Mr. rawls, I’m not from the south, but I learned a lot about history reading this short article.
I’ve always been under the illusion that the Civil War had something to do about states rights. Imagine my surprise when I learned that the killing was about slavery.
I live just north of Detroit and I can assure you that the next Civil War will be fought over states rights and giving the dysfunctional colored subculture the confiscated private property of productive members of society. The large numbers of wage slaves living around the Democrat run voter plantations, will rise up and demand freedom.
I for one, am sick and tired of history lessons about politicians in the past that gave away my private property rights (civil rights act) and are proud of it. The Republicans think that this was a battle to eliminate racism, by trashing the rights of property owners that you would secure the rights of colored people? The only thing that the Republicans of years ago did was trash everyones rights and they will never be recovered.
The members of the colored voter plantations should be given the freedom to learn that not working equals starving. That all of life is not some hustle to get a free cell phone. That bridge cards have been used for far too long to buy lottery tickets. That throwing a fire bomb into your neighbors house at 2 am is not a way to protest police brutality. That playing knockout on innocent white people is not the way to address some perceived wrong that took place a 100 years before your missing father was born. That getting high and impregnating yet another baby mama is not productive.
I live in the north, but next time I’m joining the Confederate Army.
$18,000???
What is that?
GOLD-plated Birth Control Pills???
A car to drive your pills home in???
Maybe it is for a LIFE TIME’s worth of BC.
Does she ”need” her tubes tied?
Maybe a historectomy?
A monthly D&C?
Pills are a mere $9 for a month.
Condoms are $5/dozen.
Women are fertile from ~ age 12 to about age 55.
43 years.
516 months.
$9/month.
That only comes to $4,644 over the whole time!
I guess we are adding in inflation??
Apparently you’re talking about the southern Democrats who fled en masse to the welcoming Republican fold when President Lyndon Baines Johnson pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ringing down the curtain on institutionalized racial segregation. If not, you’re deliberately conflating Civil War Era partisan attitudes with those of the 21st Century. This might be an example of what comes of right wing home schooling.
Actually, the democrats have always been about power, being racist is just one of the ways they keep it. Sort of like giving cell phones for votes, then screaming that those who point it out are the racists. . . too funny. Perpetuating a dependent underclass is the key to the democrats’ survival, promising solutions but never daring to allow them.
Certainly there are republicans who do anything for power, in my opinion one is currently running for POTUS, he is more like a democrat than the democrat candidate who is, in fact, a communist.
@Greg:
You are an example of progressive taxpayer funded skooling…
Greg says:
Of course a lot of those Democrats who had previously been anti-black left the party when the Democrats turned to anti-white racism. This in no way changes the fact that the Democrats have always been the party of racism, that YOUR party never gave liberty a chance.
Were the Republican’s a “welcoming fold”? Not for any racist views. Republicans were always the party of liberty and anti-racism. Of course anyone can register and vote Republican, but there has never been any significant manifestation of anti-black racism in Republican politics. Well, unless you want to count Abraham Lincoln’s racist views about black racial inferiority, but the issue (as Lincoln noted) is equality under the law. That has always been the Republican Party position and it has NEVER been the Democrat party position, a very damning fact.
@Greg:
Ah, yes. LBJ. The one man who did more to destroy black families than any politician before or since. Destroyed their freedoms as well, by bringing so many of them back to the plantation.
Actually, I think the official Right Wing view on the Civil War is that slavery had nothing to do with it, it was all about states rights. Aligning yourself with the Republican party of Lincoln and their views on that subject is just going to make anything you write about contemporary politics ridiculous and hypocritical. So get with the program.
Mr. Rawls seems to really relish calling female Democrats “stupid”. I bet he is completely flumoxed by why women lean Democrat. Know thyself, my friend. It can be an ugly business, but it could help you avoid embarrassing lapses in self awareness.
Tom: I relish calling ALL Democrats stupid, and you certainly fit the bill. You claim that today’s Republicans renounce the view of the early leader of our party that the Civil War was about slavery. (Lincoln’s Second Inaugural: “All knew that this interest [slavery] was somehow the cause of the war.”) You actually THINK this, no matter how bottomlessly stupid it is. It suits your preferred narrative about your side and about our side and so you actually THINK it. You don’t just SAY it with a sneaky knowledge inside that you know it isn’t true but you’ll say it anyway because it’s an effective bit of disinfomation to throw in the eyes of the opposition and on observers who you might be able to confuse. No, the way your brain works is, because something seems like an effective thing to say, that is your criterion of what is true. This is your version of reality: whatever concocted storyline you find most advantageous is what you actually think. Self-lobotomized. Incapable of thinking straight about anything. You are exactly who I was describing in the post. Absolutely as stupid as the stupidest Democrat female.
@Alec Rawls:
As stupid as a “Democrat female” even? Gasp!
I suppose I should just defer to your expertise and close familiarity with stupidity. Your cliche-strewn Onionesque post is an unintentionally hilarious clinic in it’s most hysterical manifestation.
@Alec Rawls:
Let me tell you about tom. Back when Giffords was shot, rabid leftists like tom were smearing the GOP and blaming them for it. He made it a point to come here and attack us for pointing out how the left was doing so. Tom actually claimed WE were the ones using the incident to smear the dems! That is how derranged and dishonest he is.
@Tom:
Tom, what was the Civil War about? What was the Emancipation Proclamation?
Ummmmmmmm, no. Slavery was wanted by the dems. The Republicans were and still are the party of Lincoln.
@Aqua:
Hello, Aqua. The Civil War was about slavery. I’m not sure I understand what you are asking me about the Emancipation Proclamation.
The civil war, like all wars was about money. The slave holders wanted to keep their slaves, the federal government wanted to keep the tariff money coming from southern ports (the majority of federal income at the time). Lincoln himself said if he could restore the union without freeing a single slave he would.
The war was not a noble crusade to end slavery, ending slavery (only in “those states currently in a state of rebellion), was nothing more than a tactic to weaken the confederacy in the eyes of Europe.
Let’s be realistic about war. Money or the assets it represents are the only logical reason for them. I supported the war in Iraq because of the oil. Without oil the whole middle east could fall into a sink hole and the majority of us wouldn’t miss it. When the war was “elevated” as one to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, W lost my support, their “freedom” isn’t worth a drop of American sweat, let alone blood. And democracy has not, can not, and never will work in a country dominated by the death cult.
@Tom:
I’m not going to say slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War, but that is not what the war was about. States rights and nullification was a major issue with the Southern States long before Lincoln was even thought of. Lincoln was a federalist, mean he favored centralized government. Seven of the 10 Southern States seceded before Lincoln became president. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order freeing the slaves of the 10 States that seceded in an attempt to bring them back into the union. Lincoln was more than willing to allow slavery to continue if the seceding States would return to the union.
So, knowing that, can you honestly say the Civil war was all about slavery?
@Aqua:
Slavery was the underlying cause. Yes, it was more complicated than that, but every step along the way, the question of slavery, whether it should flourish where it existed and spread into the territories; or gradually or immediately be abolished, was an irreconcilable difference. The question of slavery was a long standing grievance on both sides going back many, many years. The Missouri Compromise happened almost fifty years before the Civil War. Lincoln was launched to national prominence largely because of his stance on the The Kansas Nebraska Act. I don’t see how one can put slavery to the side and state this was a war about two different visions of Federal power, or the right to secession. These viewpoints were not formed in a vacuum; slavery was the driving force and principles espoused otherwise that nonetheless went toward protecting that institution could easily be said to be merely vehicles conveying those ends in more noble terms.
This actually gets to the main point of my initial comment. I didn’t bring up the cause of the Civil War to start a larger debate on it (although it’s an interesting topic); I question this claim I hear over and over that The Republican Party of the 21st century are the natural philosophical descendents of the Republican party of the 1860s and Lincoln. Does anyone holding this conviction actually know what these people advocated for? Even putting the Radical Republicans to the side, who were practically a one-issue (slavery) party, William H. Seward, one of the most moderating voices in Lincoln’s cabinet, held almost no viewpoints in common with a modern day Republican:
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/10/01/121001crbo_books_wickenden#ixzz28AeumYtn
If Republicans want to claim the glory of Lincoln and the Republicans of his day, they should embrace the actual principles that defined these men (and women), many of whom were outright abolitionists and radicals out to destroy the pretense that tradition alone is reason enough to allay change.
Is today’s GOP the party of Lincoln; in many ways, good and bad, I think the answer is yes. Is today’s democratic party the party of JFK; not by any stretch of the imagination.
Check and mate.
@JustAl:
Well, except for the fact that the Republican party of Lincoln’s time was the more progressive and the less conservative and traditional party of its time. Is that still the case today? JFK’s party was the more progressive party of its time and I think you’d agree, that hasn’t changed.
I”m no fan of the big government GOP, nor of Lincoln, but I never get tired of these (love the music to):
JFK was about all boats rising, BHO is about class warfare. JFK about fighting any foe, BHO about giving them foreign aide, JFK was about helping any friend, BHO doesn’t have time to meet with them, JFK was about free markets, BHO is about “you didn’t build that”, JFK was about asking what you could do for your country, BHO is about demanding your country pay for your abortions and birth control.
BHO is a pathetic excuse for an American, let alone an elected office holder. I wish the GOP had the gumption to offer something better than Willard as an alternative.
@JustAl:
Then you’re going to LOVE this song, with the same guitar riffs.
An old classic riverboat gambler song.
And what you say about John F. Kennedy….absolutely true, every word of it.
He would HATE Obama if he ever met him.
He would have disowned his own Democrat Party had it become what it is now while he lived.
I campaigned for JFK as a teenager and for BHO at 60+ I can assure you JFK, like his younger brother and oldest daughter, would have been proud to support and campaign for Obama.
The Dem. Party of 2012 is not that different from the Dem Party of 1960.
It’s actually the Repub. Party of today that Ike and Dewey would have trouble recognizing.
Tom Keep fighting the good fight. BHO could only hope to debate the Right as well as you do so consistantly.
N.D. 4-0 and ranked 9th. Got Canes in Chicago this Sat.
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler:
Rich, seriously? The man that said, “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Obama would have laughed at him. Obama can’t even stand the Clintons.
Think about these two logical fallacies and reexamine your statement:
@Aqua:
There is something very wrong with rich for him to have such a disconnect from reality.
It wasn’t long ago I posted proof of how his hero JFK stole the presidential election thru vote rigging, how he and RFK engaged in illegal wiretaps of citizens, and abused his presidential authority. Yet he still holds him up as someone worthy of admiring. In light of what I have posted, he may actually be right that the dem party hasn’t changed much since JFK. 😛
@Tom:
Your hatred blinds you and as usual, you have it wrong.
More Republicans supported the CRA than dems. Today, more Republicans support freedom than dems. Things have not changed at all.
Pushing socialism does not make you part of the vanguard or “progressive”. It makes you re-gressive and part of those trying to oppress others.
@Hard Right: Come to think of it, his sacrifice of the Cuban patriots at the Bay of Pigs sort of gives the lie to “help any friend, fight any foe.” And, of course JFK apparently committed statuary rape of a subordinate. Maybe they haven’t “progressed” much since 1960 after all.
@JustAl:
While abandoning those Cubans was despicble, I wouldn’t be here if not for that. How ironic that someone rich dislikes so much is here because his hero was a backstabber.
You’d think that tom and rich would analyze their beliefs when it becomes obvious that even history doesn’t support their claims. The joy of being a liberal- pathological denial of reality comes standard.
Aqua That’s heavy stuff.lol
As you know, the Kennedy family, including Ted,Maria,Caroline and her kids,and RFK Jr. have STRONGLY backed BHO.
The Clintons have, somewhat surprisingly to me, ALSO been strongly supportive of Obama. Go figure. I think Hillary and Bill, (can’t have one without the other), are considering a run in 2016 and want to keep the base happy.
I’ll repeat. I see a close Obama win with Ohio and Va. being decisive. Popular vote a less than 2% win for BHO.
Dems. hold Senate with close wins in Mass. and Va.
House composition virtually unchanged.
Did you know #9 N.D. football is joining A.C.C? Renew a great rivalry. with #3 FSU.
@Richard Wheeler:
Ted Kennedy is no JFK. Jimmah Carter was too moderate for Teddy, which is why Teddy ran against him. I have no idea what is behind the support from Bill and Hill. I think someone on the Obama team has the dirt on them.
I think Va. and Ohio will be close, but I think Romney wins Florida. I also think the Senate will end up split. Brown holds onto Mass and Allen wins Va.
I did not know that. Maybe that will keep FSU from trying to go to the SEC; them boys are brutal. Looking forward to an old rivalry.
So,
How many are influenced by them?
Zero.
Basically you are saying Obama can count on 5 or so votes.
Back in John F. Kennedy’s day an endorsement from him meant something to people.
Not these Kennedy’s.
And, isn’t Ted dead?
Or is it another Ted, even less influential?
@Nan G: Now that Teds dead he gets to vote twice.
Ted is one of the few reasons I wish I could buy into religion, the thought of him spending eternity trapped in a submerged car, in the dark, struggling to make an air pocket last makes me smile every time. At least I’m sure he’s secure enough the worms won’t get sick from eating his sorry a**.
Nan#32 Spoken like a true Repub.lol Kennedy family support was a major factor in BHO securing the nom. over HRC. What’s your prediction on outcome of Prez.,Senate and House? Or you jus hopin and prayin?
Aqua Romney could win Fla. He must also win Ohio and Va. Don’t think so.
Brown has a chance but strong Obama turnout in Mass. should barely carry Warren.
Kaine beats Allen in Va. a key state for BHO
Certainly hope FSU stays put in ACC. Can anyone beat Bama? Strength of schedule between Oregon and FSU will be key to #2 if both can stay undefeated.
@Richard Wheeler:
I have an interactive map on my ipad I play around with. I think Romney wins Va., and I don’t think it’s going to be as close as everyone thinks. Ohio is going to be close. But I also think Nevada swings to Romney and there may even be a chance the NM swings as well. Allen is going to beat Kaine, but it will be a tight race and will unfortunately depend on Romney’s coattails. As for Warren, I just don’t see it happening, but then again I’m not a Mass liberal. There is just no figuring them out.
Alabama looks tough. They still have to go through Mississippi State and Auburn. Miss State is 4-0 and they play the SEC games tough. Auburn could be 0-10 and play Bama like there was no tomorrow.