Any Conservative who has been paying attention to politics for any length of time knows that one of the fundamental truths that applies to Progressive Democrats is that whenever they get caught doing something (fill in the blank – bad, illegal, unethical, repugnant, racist, sexist, etc.) their first reaction is to accuse Conservatives of (a) doing the same thing, or (b) doing something worse. The recent fabrication by the Left: the “GOP war on women” is just the latest example of this tactic.
So, is there really a “war on women”? And if so, who’s waging it? I would contend that the war actually started in the Obama White House.
In an excerpt obtained by The Post, a female senior aide to President Obama called the White House a hostile environment for women.
“This place would be in court for a hostile workplace,” former White House communications director Anita Dunn is quoted as saying. “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”
But of course, women White House staffers get paid the same as the men, so they really don’t have any room to complain — right? Wrong.
President Obama has been outspoken in his criticism of “paycheck discrimination” that has women earning less than men for the same jobs, but a new report shows that female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues.
According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, while the median salary for male employees was $71,000 — about 18 percent more, the Washington Free Beacon reports.
“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” former Bill Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Meyers told the New York Times.
But out in the general workplace, women have faired pretty well under Obama economic policies, right? Wrong again.
The recent jobs report from the Labor Department had some alarming facts. The number of women employed in America declined last month as many dropped out of the work force, giving up on looking for work altogether. Of the 740,000 jobs lost since Obama took office, 683,000 of them were held by women. That is unsustainable.
Across America, women are feeling the pain of the weak economy—in the job market and at the kitchen table. Wives are worried about shrinking wages and rising prices as they try to make ends meet. Mothers fear for their children’s futures as the national debt skyrockets and college becomes unaffordable. Businesswomen are frustrated by the regulations and economic policies that make hiring impossible. Fewer women are working, and more are living in poverty.
And finally, the attack on Ann Romney by Democrat hack, Hillary Rosen, will almost certainly endear Democrats to stay-at-home moms – NOT.
All this begs the question, what would Obama have to do to lose support among women?
How many of these MURDERD were women?
what party has this murder as one of their platforms……??
ANNUAL ABORTION STATISTICS
In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI).
You have to keep in mind that the Rose v Wade decision was made by 7-2 decision with five of the six GOP appointees voting in favor. Had the GOP appointees voted en bloc Roe v Wade would have never become law. But in contrast to what you have often stated Neocon all members of any party do not always share the same hard line ideology.
None of which has anything to do with the fact that with approximately 50 million abortions, approximately 25 million women had their lives ended prematurely.
Name any conflict (“war”) with 25 million casualties. (Other than Leftist dictator “wars” on their own people and political opponents, which have approached that number.)
I don’t remember neocon ever claiming that “….all members of any party …….always share the same hard line ideology.” On the contrary, I believe neocon and I share the observation that ideology is not always related to party affiliation, as shown by the ignorance of so many who vote Dem of the ideology that has taken over their party.
And the outcome if Roe v. Wade never passed? It would have remained a State issue–not outlawed. BTW, care to venture what ‘Roe’ (Norma McCorvey) of Roe v. Wade says these days?
Of course it does in your worldview. In a place where party is ideology then this has gravity.
In a world where people like the major pain ignore or dismiss what people tell them and simply invent things that support their own twisted perceptions, such as the strange insistence that on the Right, “…party is ideology..” anything can be claimed.
To make this bogus claim, the pain has to dismiss the six years of conservatives on this blog trying to educate the PL trolls about the DIFFERENCE between party and ideology, urging them to understand the underlying ideology of each of the two opposing political models in this country and base decisions on ideological commitment rather than party identification, telling them to step away from all identity politics and concentrate on what is really important (which is the best blueprint for how to govern the nation) and, of course, she has to ignore the ongoing criticism here, by conservatives, of the Republican Party and its drift from conservative ideology.
No, the pain illustrates the very core of the PL mentality——allegiance not to an ideology but against a poorly understood, invented, Other. And if this means flying in the face of oft-explained fact, and the invention of a convenient lie or two, well, it’s all part and parcel of being stuck in the emotion-based pseudo-political attack dog mentality that serves the Left so well.
dbschmidt,
And the outcome if Roe v. Wade never passed? It would have remained a State issue–not outlawed. BTW, care to venture what ‘Roe’ (Norma McCorvey) of Roe v. Wade says these days?
Not outlawed? Thirty states banned abortion under all circumstances just prior to Roe. Do you mean to tell me that each of these states would have had a motivation to allow abortion if the decision had been the reverse? Only four states allowed abortion upon request in 1973, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington and New York. The remaining 16 states made some sort of provision for rape, incest and to protect the health of the woman.
As far as Mrs McCorvey goes everyone has a right to change their minds.
From the same article:
“Dunn declined to discuss the specifics of the book. But in an interview Friday she said she told Suskind “point blank” that the White House “was not a hostile environment.”
“The president is someone who when he goes home at night he goes home to house full of very strong women,” Dunn added. “He values having strong women around him.”
So, which quote should we believe? Who did Dunn tell that the WH was a hostile environment? Would be nice to know.
FT/Velma,
Here’s what the author says:
Long list of awful things Republicans want to do to women (without a single link or attribution) deleted. See first sentence of main post//Moderator
You know, if Spook or any other moderator here does not like your response, they delete it. Way to go Spook. Do you really want links to the “awful things Republicans want to do to women” because they are out there, like it or not. Instead of deleting mitch’s response why don’t you refute it intelligently? This is so common on this blog – I don’t like what you wrote and I am the moderator, so I will just delete your response. Now that takes courage.
Velma,
Mitch engaged in the very tactic that I described in the first sentence and didn’t offer a single link or attribution. If you don’t like the policies of this blog, go somewhere else.
You know Spook, sometime I don’t like the way you and other moderators handle things on this blog and do go somewhere else for a while – like using a persons first name. Very mature. And yet there are times when CRAP is written for those of you who write for the blog that I feel the need to respond to. It is too bad you cannot handle the truth and feel it necessary to delete. So, you can continue to address me in a personal manner even though you do not know me – fine. I am a bigger person than you and believe that allowing a person to post under a name that allows one some privacy should be allowed for all who post here. However, that obviously is not the policy for someone who posts responses you disagree with. So be it. Have a great day.
You know Spook, sometime I don’t like the way you and other moderators handle things on this blog and do go somewhere else for a while – like using a persons first name.
Too funny, Velma. For several years you posted under your own name. Now you’re offended that we all know what it is? If you would actually post cohesive thoughts and ideas instead of snide and condescending responses to other posters, you would be treated differently, but I guess that just wouldn’t fit your pathetic, nasty personality, would it?
Velma,
Go to the dailyKos, democraticunderground.com or the pitchfork. There you can regurgitate dumbed down and brainless talking points without providing one shred of proof as to the veracity of your claims.
There you can insult all non-proggies to your hearts content with no rules to follow (except if you are a non-proggy) whatsoever.
Your incessant whining about deleting posts (even though they break the rules and its content is not accurate) is getting tiresome. It is really simple, follow the rules and your posts stay up…. break them and they are gone. It is not rocket science, but after reading yours, mitchie’s, watty’s the act of breathing might as well be rocket science.
What… using your name is immature? Really???? Why do you feel the need for several identities? I have used this one since I started coming here >5 yrs ago.
It is amazing that women who are constantly attacked by Democrats is not on your radar whatsoever, but the imagined “attack on women” by the non-proggies is your primary target. You have proggy pundits, politicians, comedians and bloggers who say the vilest things about non-proggy women, but they go unnoticed by ou mindless proggy drones.
Pathetic.
Spook, you cannot comprehend my responses? Funny, but I do not have that problem with most people with whom I communicate everyday. Maybe you could point out what is so difficult to understand, and which statements are “snide and condescending”. If that is a true prerequisite for being treated with respect please explain why you never delete posts by Amazona or Tired. I see that you do delete Neo’s from time to time, but for the most part, anyone who agrees with your positions is allowed respect and does not have their posts deleted, and being dressed down for stating their opinion on any given topic. I apologize if my posts are difficult to comprehend – I will attempt to write in a simpler manner.
One more thing, not one person I work with or socialize with have ever told me that I am “pathetic” or have a “nasty personality”. Go figure. If I am that awful, one would think at least one person would have pulled am aside and given me a heads up. (that means they would have told me that I am pathetic and have a nasty personality)
Vel, people seldom tell others that they are nasty and unpleasant. They just avoid them.
Your presence here has been one of unrelenting nastiness and hostility, and a relentless litany of baseless claims and accusations about those you despise. Which is to say, anyone on the Right, though you never find the integrity or intellect to actually DEFINE “the Right”.
Or your own political position, either.
You just snipe and snarl and lie and lie and lie.
When your lies are rebutted, you just come back and lie again.
And claiming that posts are deleted just because they do not agree with any particular moderator is just another lie. How do you account for all the posts which so strongly disagree with everything one might expect a moderator on a conservative blog to believe?
See, you not only lie, you tell stupid lies that are disproved on the very blog where you post them.
Spook, you cannot comprehend my responses?
Where did I EVER say that, Vel?
…it is a well known fact that Republicans want to redefine rape…
Well, “well known” to the voices in mitch’s head, perhaps.
But tell us, mitchie, just how do those wascawwy wepubwicans want to “redefine” rape?
Let’s make sure that everyone knows that the democrats think that Anne Romney has not worked one day in her life:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/debuts-on-twitter-to-counter-dnc-advisors-insult/
No so, Cluster. Do not make such a broad statement. Any mother who stays at home to raise children (and she has raised five sons) is a working woman. Just because one foolish person makes such a statement does not mean that every Democrat believes it. Being a homemaker is hard work and Ann Romney did a beautiful job of raising her children.
Good. I hope that Dem women understand the dishonesty and condescension in this comment.
And that they recognize the rancor behind it.
Amazona, that road travels both directions.
Huh??????? There is rancor in realizing how snotty a comment is?
Gee, Vel, looks like you need to see if they ever found your lost dictionary back at Bertha’s School of Hair Design and Law.
Cluster, what’s really telling about the ABC News story are the comments that follow. ABC stories usually generate mostly Leftist comments, but not so with this story:
Here are 9 of the first 10:
“the dnc and obama think raising 5 boys isn’t, not only 7 days a week of work but nights too. What clowns…”
Really???? And when did President Obama make such a statement? This statement is a pathetic as the one made about Ann Romney never working a day in her life. How and why does the president get bundled into these issues? He has never said such a thing and I don’t believe that he would ever say such a thing. The vitriol from the right is breath taking! And this person had the nerve to call someone else a clown?
This was not an insult. Ann Romney has never worked outside her home and does not have the credentials to speak for women beneath her in wealth in regard to their economic struggles. Mitt brought this issue of his wife as an expert to the table.
Gee, pain, thanks for stepping in to interpret “never worked a day in her life” by adding modifiers.
And for the explanation that you have to have suffered something to understand that it is a problem. Why is it suddenly necessary to have “credentials” based on personal experience to understand an issue? By that standard, Obama is not qualified to understand job creation or to be Commander in Chief.
By that standard, Obama is not qualified to understand job creation or to be Commander in Chief.
Obama is not qualified to understand job creation or to be Commander in Chief by ANY standard.
Amazona,
You have to admit that every new president elected is an amateur to the hardest job in the world.
The modifiers are what is understood by the intelligentsia.
Ah, so you identify yourself as part of the “intelligentsia” now, do you?
Which one of you? Or all of you?
Kind of odd to have such a high opinion of your own intelligence and still be able to post such nonsense (or lie) as claiming that Mitt Romney identified his wife as an “expert” on economic issues regarding women. You either cannot understand what is said, or you lie about it. Now it appears that you are going to stick to a claim of being super-smart, which by the process of elimination leaves you stuck with being a stone-cold liar.
Your choice.
And BTW, inserting arbitrary modifiers into a statement with the intent of changing the actual meaning of the statement is not a sign of being part of the “intelligentsia”. It means being part of, for lack of a better word, the “prevaricatsia”.
You ought to assign a couple of your identities to the study of Thomas Sowell’s book on intellectuals. He points out that to be an “intellectual” all you have to do is produce nothing but ideas.
It doesn’t matter of those ideas are stupid, or wrong, or disasterous. The only thing that matters is that you produce nothing else, and you get to claim the title of “intellectual” while being provably stupid and wrong.
I can see why you are so eager to lay claim to the title.
BTW, Pain, consult with others of the “intelligentsia” the next time you post. Perhaps at least one of these uber-brainiacs can explain to you that when you say “modifiers ARE…”: then you have to use another plural pronoun and go on to say “…what ARE understood…”
Need a little work on using those modifiers, eh, pain?
ama to bubblehead (pain): “Kind of odd to have such a high opinion of your own intelligence…”
You are aware that this “individual” believes he is a computer in the land of make-believe (the pitchfork or whatever they call it)?
These people of the “collective” (sounds Borg-ish “you will be assimilated” – which for them is very accurate) believe that they are dead. One believes to be a veteran of the Civil War – a woman disguised as a boy.
And we are to take these nutjobs seriously?
Oh, and the media are “baffled” as Obama’s ratings among women “crater”.
Guess women are not as dumb as you think they are, eh, Barry?
But hey, who wouldn’t like to be lumped into a one-size-fits-all demographic, and then clumsily pandered to by being fed transparent lies about how The Other really hates them and wants them to —–well, whatever the current meme may be, as long as it can be invented and then spun as “anti-woman”.
Women know that birth control access is not restricted or limited. They know because they can get birth control any time they want it. Even if they work for Cathoic institutions.
Women know that a woman smart enough and ambitious enough to get through three years of law school at one of the top schools in the country, one openly run by Catholics, is not going to suddenly be not only taken by surprise but actually reduced to a quivering puddle of bewildered helplessness when told she would have to pay for her own contraceptives.
Women are smart enough to know that Rick Santorum was talking about states’ rights and not a desire to outlaw birth control.
Take it from a woman—-girls and then women are routinely lied to their whole lives, mostly by men who want to get into their pants and sometimes by men who want to escape the consequences of getting into someone else’s pants, and we/they develop a pretty good sense of when someone is telling us something because they want something from us.
And let’s face it—-the Obamabots are really crappy liars. I don’t know why, as they get plenty of practice. I think it must be that they are so deeply embedded in their little bubbles of arrogance and assumed intellectual superiority that they just think they are so much smarter than everyone else (especially women and blacks and Latinos) that they can say just about anything and get away with it.
They are always so bumfuddled when it doesn’t work. Actually, when they are not snarling in resentment at being caught out, they seem to melt into quivering puddles of bewildered helplessness—-maybe that’s where they got the idea.
Amazona the proof will be how women vote in November.
Gee, I hope they can handle the stress of having to get themselves to a polling place and having to actually make a decision. I can just imagine Fluke types all over the country melting into helpless bewildered puddles of utter helplessness if someone doesn’t come and get them and carry them to the polls.
I’ll be they are the same ones who swooned from the unbearable joy of breathing the same air as The One We Have All Been Waiting For—in speech after speech, no less, always front and center, always fainting away at his feet. Or the ones who put Beatlemania to shame, shrieking in orgiastic ecstasy when they got a mere glimpse of TOWHABW.
Frontpage Magazine nails it in a new article this morning.
Mr Babcock how would define traditional values?
How would you define it, Major?
Mr Babcock they are your values are they not?
Mr Babcock they are your values are they not?
Yes, I’d like to think I’m a pretty traditional guy, but you will ridicule anything I say, so why bother. Besides, if you don’t know what “traditional values” are by now, you’re a hopeless cause.
JR
I think the role of women should be the role they choose for themselves. If they don’t want children they shouldn’t have any. But that means their choice of sex shouldn’t be determined by men. If they choose to use no protection and get pregnant and don’t want kids they should have abortion as an alternative to a life they don’t choose.
If a woman wants to have a career and kids they should be able to do that too freely with or without a husband and the workplace should aid in that decision as it does in places like Sweden.
Those are my values; that women have a right to self determination not just a place beside a man as a breeder and homemaker.
Mr Babcock no mattwer how outdated your values are, they are still your values. If you are ashamed of them then you may need to reevealuate them.
Awwww, lookie here—-the “intelligentsia” weigh in, but for some odd, far-from-intellectual, reason, choose to fall back on a tired old and clumsy tactic.
That is, to claim that JR is “ashamed” of his values because he won’t respond to a challenge to explain them.
By extension, then, by this metric, every single one of the Leftist posters here is “ashamed” of his or her her political philosophy, as for more than six years not one of them has been willing to explain it.
By extension, then, by this metric, every single one of the Leftist posters here is “ashamed” of his or her her political philosophy, as for more than six years not one of them has been willing to explain it.
Right on, Amazona.
If a woman wants to have a career and kids they should be able to do that too freely with or without a husband and the workplace should aid in that decision as it does in places like Sweden.
In other words, it is the responsibility of people who had no say in the “decision” to “aid” it by providing support for the person who was mature and responsible enough to take on the role of single motherhood but is not mature or responsible enough to actually DO it without other people having to step in, whether they want to or not.
OK. But it gets better—if by “better” you mean more irresponsible and more degenerate. Because Freddie here also says that killing unborn children is quite acceptable as a form of birth control.
Oh, yes! “His” definition of “choice” includes the choice to get pregnant by not using “protection” and then following that up with the “choice” to kill off the result of the first “choice” because actually going through a few finite months of inconvenience to carry the product of the first “choice” to term and putting it in a loving home does not comply with Choice # 3, which is “a life she doesn’t choose”.
Wow. So many choices.
At least Freddie is honest enough to admit what most of the pro-death crowd denies because they know how repellent it is to decent human beings—-that abortion is quite all right, really, as an alternative to pre-conception “protection”. (What decent human beings call “responsible” sexual activity.) But hey, once you get into “choice” as the sole criterion for anything, why not choose to be irresponsible as well?
BUT…..if MY “choice” is to carry a gun that just doesn’t fit, somehow, into the category of acceptable “choice” for the radical Left. What if I think I am perfectly capable of driving after six drinks? Shouldn’t that be my “choice”? What if I want to go to my local pub, eat a nice grilled bald eagle sandwich, toss down a few brews, and then shoot out the tires of the guy whose car is blocking my preferred exit from the parking lot? It’s all “choice”. Stay out of my life.
Whoa. Let’s back up. Eagle sandwich aside, the “choice” to drive under the influence can’t just be MY “choice” because it poses a risk to others, right? Kind of like the risk posed to the innocent child being killed because of a different “choice”?
Yeah. To decent human beings, the lives of others have to be taken into consideration. To others, like Freddie, there is no reason at all to be governed by anythi8ng other than total selfishness and irresponsibility. Screw at will, don’t bother with birth control, kill off the baby when it’s conceived, or keep it and make other people support you—it’s all 100% pathological selfishness, and defended by such as Freddie here. There is no requirement for personal responsibility, or even basic humanity toward others. It is self-indulgence taken to a new low, and promoted by people like this.
And this member of the intelligentsia mixes a singular noun, ‘A woman’, with a plural prounoun, ‘they’.
Verrrry impressssssive.
I’m getting more and more sure that Freddie is really Fredricka, perhaps Mr. Pain. But that means their choice of sex shouldn’t be determined by men. ??????? Yeah, Freddie, you just keep on with that keeping men out of sex thing.
And you keep on with that sense of such utter entiltlement that human beings should die so you can have fun. It’s quite endearing.
Our only entitlement is to assure that the civil rights of all Sentient beings are respected.
“Currently 41 percent of children are born to single mothers, most of whom are low-income women in their early and mid-20s. ”
Mr. Babcock, I agree that out of wedlock babies are a real detriment to our society. More of these children will live in poverty, will be lack the education to be self supporting, will have a much lower quality of life in all areas. I believe that children should be raised by two parents and that fathers should be as involved in the lives of their children as the mothers. But my question is this, do you believe that only those young women who consider themselves as more aligned with the Democratic Party are the majority of the unwed mothers? Most children born to unwed mothers are in the southern states and most southern states are predominately Republican. So the next question is, how do we change the mindset of these young women (and men) so they embrace the idea of marriage before having a baby? Is sex education a viable solution?
Is sex education a viable solution?
It’s been a long time since I had sex ed, and, when I did, it was primarily the biological aspects. I don’t have any first hand knowledge of current sex ed curricula, but, based on the statistics, I would say it’s not working too well.
I don’t think anyone ever claimed that women who have children out of wedlock are particularly political by nature, or have much in the way of political affiliation. What an odd and distorted effort to link illegitmacy to conservative politics. As a matter of fact, to anyone who actually UNDERSTANDS political ideology, it would make much more sense that women who are in favor of personal responsbility and a markedly reduced role of government in the financial support of citizens would be far less likely to engage in behavior so inclined to make them dependent on the government.
Naturally, an analysis based on actual understanding of political philsophy would not be comprehensible to Velma.
The link between political ideology and illegitimacy does, however, show up in a belief in big, powerful government and lots of lots of redistribution of OPM.
And lack of personal responsibility.
And less belief in traditional values such as the nuclear family.
And less respect for religion
Well, role models who promote sexual and social responsibility would be a start. Now girls are told by sexy Hollywood types that marriage is unimportant, that if you want a baby you just have a baby.
Respect for religion would help build a moral and ethical foundation that would make it easier to ignore messages like the ones given by our various media.
Support for and respect for the family would go a long way toward showing girls how a strong and functional family is necessary for the rearing of healthy and happy children. When we have an entire element of our society fighting with the family for authority and allegiance, such as telling young girls that if they get pregnant they should not turn to their parents, who will punish them, but to the State in the form of their school officials, who will be their friends, protect them from those mean old parents, and by the way help them kill off those inconvenient babies, we are officially undermining the family unit.
Removing the promise of state support for unwed mothers and their children would make the prospect less inviting.
Instead of teaching children how to put condoms on bananas, and that sex anywhere, any time, with any person or persons, is great, we could go back to basics and teach children that sex is far more than recreational feel-good stuff but is strong, powerful, and demanding of emotional and physical maturity—preferably in a strong committed relationship or more preferably within marriage. Instead of cheapening sex into nothing more than a good time, it could be elevated to something demanding respect and responsibility.
We could agree that yes, oral sex IS sex.
We could teach, over and over again, the three ways to almost guarantee the ability to stay out of poverty:
1. Finish high school
2. Do not have children till you are married
3. Do not get married until you have finished high school
There are some ideas to start with
Amazona, it is apparent that you never raised children. These girls who get pregnant before marriage are young, who believe that the boy who fathered her child loves her and I venture to say has no interest in furthering her education. Also, I would guess she goes to church on a regular basis and has no interest in political ideology. Her “ideology” is that she will have this baby, the boy will marry her and they will live happily ever after. Most of the time this doesn’t happen as so many young, unwed parents do not believe there is anything wrong with having children out of wedlock. And we, the tax payers, pay for her prenatal care, birth of the child and post natal care. There is no longer the negative stigma that goes with teen or unwed pregnancy. There are even designers who make maternity wedding dresses. There is a serious lack of parenting in so many of these situations.
Big sweeping generalizations, Velma, and mostly speculation. I see you agree that one has to have personal experience in an area to have any understanding of it.
Of JR’s figures are correct, and most illegitimate babies are born to young women in their early to mid 20s, then they have already finished high school, if they do at all, and probably so have the fathers. So this brings it down to narrowing sexual relations to being part of serious relationships, increasing the chances of marriage if pregnancy occurs.
Which takes us back to my comments on the cultural and societal components of sex and illegitimacy.
JR,
It might be working better than you think. Births among 15-19 year olds are down significantly over the past 70 years.
Here is question for the group. This is a quote and We, Ourselves, would like for you to guess who said it.
“Not at any time. I’ve never joined any organization—not even the ones I’ve organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it’s Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as ‘that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you’re right.’ If you don’t have that, if you think you’ve got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide.”
Here is question for the group. This is a quote and We, Ourselves, would like for you to guess who said it.
Sounds like something Saul Alinsky would have said. Is there a point to your question?
Sounds like something Saul Alinsky would have said.
For the record, J.R., the quote IS from Saul Alinsky. And, as for there being a point to the question, you should know by now that the Forkers rarely make valid points.
Ferd, births to unwed teen mothers are down and the birth rate of illegitimate babies is up. Why?
That is an Alinsky quote and here’s something else for you to consider. Mother Theresa and Saul Alinsky have something in common. They both were awarded the Pacem in Terris award by Davenport Catholic Interracial Council of the Diocese of Davenport. Alinsky in 1969 and Mother Theresa in 1976.
All this begs the question, what would Obama have to do to lose support among women?
Just Google “Obama’s support among women drops”, and you’ll see just how all over the place the various polls are.
I thought women just loved gay men…Uboma should do great if that is true.
What difference would it make if he were gay? Eventually, America will elect a gay president.
they already have schwartzputz, Uboma the usurper.
And the choice for a long time was between him and Hillary.
Across America, women are feeling the pain of the weak economy—in the job market and at the kitchen table. Wives are worried about shrinking wages and rising prices as they try to make ends meet. Mothers fear for their children’s futures as the national debt skyrockets and college becomes unaffordable. Businesswomen are frustrated by the regulations and economic policies that make hiring impossible. Fewer women are working, and more are living in poverty.
The story is never a simple as one might like you to believe.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/women-in-the-workforce/
freeloader
Fewer women are working, and more are living in poverty.
but MEN arent?
OOH thats right, the WAR against (white) men continues at full speed ahead.
Again, wishing for the death of another poster is not only verboten it will get every one of your posts deleted if you persist. This is the second warning in two days. There will not be another. //Moderator
bmitch
affirmative action is it’s self racist, so IF I speak against it, im racist?
GOTCHA!!!
when ya got no answers play the race card from the bottom of the slimy deck, alinsky 101
See deletion above. If you repeat what is deleted you will also be deleted as the goal is to remove the comment. //Moderator
neo, did you even bother to read Spooks blog above? Try it and see if you can come up with a more sensible response.
mod
I replied to the post before it was deleted and had no knowledge that it was going to be deleted…….but since it was aimed at me I responded and not in a nasty manor.
Just explaining why it was cut. // Moderator
There is no war against white men. This is just the first economic down turn in eighty years that actually bit into upper middle class salaries which are generally held by white men.
you are one dumb forker schwartzputz
construction jobs, “WHITE MEN NEED NOT APPLY” = Uboma administration
And there is no “war” on Christians or Christianity or the family or the constitution either. They just get treated like s**t.
You can thank your inept pResident and his pathetic policies for the poor economic conditions of ALL Americans and not just women.
Under his policies:
unemployment rising
food stamp usage rising
welfare rising
Wow what a record to run on! But he needs the distraction of the imagined “war on women” – that will put food on the table.
food stamp usage rising
USDA wants an increase in its food stamp program budget from the current $85 billion to $111 billion. Not to worry, the Buffet Rule will generate enough additional revenue to fund the program for 24 days each year. Well, that’s assuming all those rich SOB’s actually pay what they’re supposed to.
tired, do you think the administration in office prior to the Obama administration had ANYTHING to do with the economy for the past three years? Or did the economy crash upon Obama’s term and continue downhill since?
wow and there is velma mindlessly regurgitating the dumbed down talking point: “It’s Bush’s fault.”
Bush (if you can pin the bursting housing bubble on him with the DEMOCRAT policies of forced mortgages) has something to do with the economy BUT, obAMATEUR has put his fixes in place with lofty projected outcomes. THEY FAILED.
AT WHICH POINT, should obAMATEUR take responsibility for his failed policies? If you listen to him, NEVER. Remember, according to obAMATEUR, it is Bush’s fault, the Arab spring, the European Union, Greece, the coming bankruptcies of Italy, Ireland and Spain, the tsunami, earthquakes, floods, ATMs, service kiosks, credit cards used at gas stations, etc. etc.
NEVER EVER does he blame ANY PART of his policies. At some point, he must take responsibility for his mishandling of the economy, but his ego will never allow it.
And you drones, won’t either has evidenced by your posts.
Did you realize that Bush was responsible for the GSA blowout in 2010?
And velma again runs from the challenge.
There is another way to tell when you are wrong velma without you admitting it in a post.
You run away from the thread. You, of course, would pop up in another mindlessly regurgitating the same crap all over again.
Please answer the question…. At what point should obAMATEUR take responsibility for his poor policies that have hurt the economy more than helped it?
I won’t hold my breath for your answer.
Velma,
From your linked article:
That’s pathetic. It would be interesting to see a national poll, broken down by Republican/Democrat/Independent, and see how many believe that last statement.
so now the left after MURDERING 25,000,000 +++ women is suddenly concerned if they are unemployed?
How lovely of them……
meanwhile the feminazis throw men under the bus….EXCEPT for the lying, cheating, raping, adultering, DONK men.
Hey Spook, this article is from the Wall Street Journal. Isn’t that a reliable source?
Really? From the Wall Street Journal?
Then why does it claim to be from the New York Times?
You are too funny. You can’t even carry off a simple lie.
Hey Spook, this article is from the Wall Street Journal. Isn’t that a reliable source?
Not sure which article you’re referring to, Vel. The one YOU linked to is from the New York Times.
Just a little tip, here, Vel—read the article. Or, if you are too lazy to do that, at least read the link.
http://economix.blogs. nytimes com/tag/women-in-the-workforce/
Duh.
sorry Spook – I was wrong. (see I admit when I am wrong) – and I know that the NYT is not a reliable source for you. Stand corrected. And Amazona, can you be just a little bit nastier? Go for it.
Oh to be perfect like you Amazona and never make a mistake. But in your mind it is a lie.
Bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha
you cant make this SHIITE up……
Back in 2004, Rosen was interim director of Human Rights Campaign, following in her partner’s footsteps.
And, she’s done stints as commentator on CNBC and MSNBC.
So her social and political inclinations are well-documented. *** She’s a LGBT, or GLBT, activist.***
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/04/democratic_operative_criticizes_ann_romney_for_having_never_worked_a_day_in_her_life.html#ixzz1rqp6Hyvs
Vel, I was just trying to be helpful, keep you out of the weeds.
Gee, no good deed goes unpunished!
sorry Spook – I was wrong. (see I admit when I am wrong) – and I know that the NYT is not a reliable source for you.
Sometime it is; sometimes it isn’t. Too often the NYT get’s opinion mixed up with news. But when I see a statement like “But one thing that happens when you shrink government is that women lose jobs”, it could come from the most conservative source on the planet, and it would have zero credibility with me. I’ve got to ask you the obvious question: do YOU believe that women simply can’t make it without government help?
Spook, of course I believe women can make it without government help. My mother was left a widow at the age of 34 and three young children at home. She made it with no government help. I have made it all of my life without government help and all of my female friends have made it without government help. Most of us were or had been married for many years and had husbands that made a good living and the majority of the women have college educations. My mother was not one of those with a college education but managed to make it without government assistance. She worked hard – ran a farm and raised cattle. So I grew up working hard and have continued to do so all my life. I do believe the younger generation of males and females will have a harder time making it because they believe they should have everything now. They do not understand working from the bottom to achieve their goals. I also believe it is very important for all young people, male and female, to get some additional education beyond high school – be it specialized training, vocational training or college. I do not think a high-school diploma is enough any more. But I do not believe that those who take government assistance are necessarily of one political philosophy – as some here would like to believe. But, yes, I do believe that women can and do make it just fine without government help.
Spook said, “But when I see a statement like ‘But one thing that happens when you shrink government is that women lose jobs’, it could come from the most conservative source on the planet, and it would have zero credibility with me.”
Spook, I think you’re missing the point. About two-thirds of the job losses among women have come from women being laid off of government jobs. It’s not that women can’t make it without government help, it’s that they have been disproportionately affected by the elimination of government jobs at all levels. Presumably you are in favor of such reductions and think this is a good thing.
As for Romney’s claim that 92.3 percent of jobs lost since Barack Obama took office belonged to women, it’s just childish and dishonest statistical gamesmanship. See http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/04/lies-damn-lies-and-mitt-romneys-charts
But then, what else would we expect of Romney? He has demonstrated over and over again that he will say and do anything if he thinks it will get him elected. There isn’t one core, bedrock principle that he won’t turn his back on if it means a few more votes.
watstooge
we expect of
RomneyUboma? He has demonstrated over and over again that he will say and do anything if he thinks it will get him re elected. There isn’t one core, bedrock principle that he won’t turn his back on if it means a few more votes.fixed……..and add a good race war and flash mobs looting convenience stores.
Is it the role of government to provide jobs?
Or to govern in a way that makes job creation by individuals possible?
The wattle clearly thinks the former.
Conservatives believe the latter.
It is not a matter of how many jobs, but whether or not they should be part of bloated, overextended, intrusive government or in the private sector.
As I said, the wattle has made his preference clear.
Neocon can you define feminazi for me?
freddyschwartzputs
yes
And just what observation was Ann Romney allegedly not qualified to make?
“…my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.”
Wow—sure need plenty of cred in the workplace to realize that, eh, major pain? Can’t understand what women tell you if you haven’t walked in their shoes, eh, pain? Can’t be aware of the impact of economic issues on women if you haven’t been hungry, eh, pain?
OK—I can easily accept the implication inherent in your comment that for you, personal experience is necessary to be able to comprehend something. Guess you’ll just have to accept the fact that not everyone is as intellectually limited.
Funny stuff…..
Anita Dunn is one of SKDK’s “managing directors,” along with Rosen. You remember Dunn. She was the White House Communications
Director who was a fan of Mao.
sooooooooo according to painintheazz a lesbo with no kids is an expert on the difficulties of raising kids?
but a Mother who runs a household, more than likely pays all the bills, does all the shopping for furniture, clothing, cars, insurance, investing, who more than likely handles the millions her husband earns is not a business woman and cant relate to a 7-11 clerk?
the the AA Mooch who had DO NOTHING political “jobs” who is 75 lbs over weight and mad at the white world is also some expert on everything?
where the hell do these IDIOTS come from?
And you remember SKDK? They’re the PR outfit that was responsible for, (drum roll, please) TA DA – Sandra Fluke. Man, you just can’t make this stuff up. Pass the popcorn.
extra butter and salt JR?
“where the hell do these IDIOTS come from?”
D’oh!!
Why, Utopia, of corse.
Neocon, We Ourselves have two children and are lesbian by your definition but We do understand the plight of the poor far better than Ann Romney and her millions gleaned from marriage alone.
only two lesbos?
you need to recruit harder…….
seems Mrs Romney was born and raised with no money to speak of and put her self through college with small jobs and student loans.
Their first apartment was a three room $60.00 a month wreck.
They made their money LATER just like the (trailer trash)Klintoons and the AA (griftors) Ubomas.
I wonder if Hillary Rodham Clinton can understand the plight of poor women after getting her millions and her leg up in politics by marriage alone. I wonder if Michelle Obama can understand the plight of poor working women after getting her jobs through her husband’s political status alone and her bully pulpit the same way.
Sounds like someone is jealous of women whose husbands are, you know, men.
OT, but just too hilarious not to pass on.
A woman after my own heart. Bet she doesn’t need government to make it.
these classles, clueless, POS’s just cant STFU
First
ladyvacationer Michelle Ubama also injected herself into the fray, tweeting Thursday afternoon: “Every mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected.”gee we never would never have known that if the Mooch didnt tell us.
You have a right to speak and the First Lady has a right to speak. End of discussion.
Finally a smart post though being so really really really really really smart doesn’t make you the boss of me. Doesn’t make any or all of you the boss of me.
Or us.
Doesn’t make any or all of you the boss of me.
Or us.
Or we, ourselves.
Spook, of course I believe women can make it without government help. – freethinker
Then why does Sandra Fluke and other liberal women think that unless someone else pays for their contraception, they are at a disadvantage?
Across America, women are feeling the pain of the weak economy—in the job market and at the kitchen table. Wives are worried about shrinking wages and rising prices as they try to make ends meet. Mothers fear for their children’s futures as the national debt skyrockets and college becomes unaffordable. Businesswomen are frustrated by the regulations and economic policies that make hiring impossible. Fewer women are working, and more are living in poverty. – freethinker
All are very good reasons why we need to get rid of Obama. Thank you for posting this Velma.
After repeatedly saying she would NOT apologize to Ann Romney, Hillary Rosen has apologized. I especially liked the last line of her apology:
“As a mom I know that raising children is the hardest job there is. As a pundit, I know my words on CNN last night were poorly chosen,” she said. “I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended. Let’s declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance.”
Ya think someone above her paygrade got to her and did a little damage control?
spook
her pay grade is in the gutter, so the street sweeper got to her?
Just keep praying that the Hilary Rosens of the world keep opening thier mouths and inserting their stinking feet. I do not think they can stop themselves for the least bit.
Mitt won’t have to do much campainging at all. The donks will do it for him.
Amasorta said, “Or to govern in a way that makes job creation by individuals possible? The wattle clearly thinks the former.”
That’s not what I said. I said that the majority of the job losses experienced by women since Obama took office have been because they held a government job that was eliminated. Romney–and you–champions their job loss out of one side of his mouth and complains about it out of the other. He’s just being your typical, hypocritical Republican.
No watson, it’s because we understand that a bloated, unsustainable public labor force eventually hurts everyone. The way to really help women is to balance a budget and bring certaintly into the marketplace so that private enterprises can begin to expand and employ, and statistics show that a hard working woman is a very desirable employee.
Maybe if you would just stop looking for victims, you wouldn’t find any.
“I said that the majority of the job losses experienced by women since Obama took office have been because they held a government job that was eliminated.”
Really watty?
Please provide us with the government jobs that were eliminated under this pResident. Were these jobs that were …. let’s see how did the proggies put it (with comparison to green jobs – jobs were eliminated but green ones took their place)…. relocated? or new ones took their place???
Please provide us with a list of jobs eliminated and proper sources….
“Maybe if you would just stop looking for victims, you wouldn’t find any.”
Are you serious cluster? That is all watty does is look for victims of the “evil republicans”. “Victims” of the obAMATEUR’s policies are non-existant – he like obAMATEUR blames others for their “plight”.
It doesn’t matter which government jobs were lost under this president. The point is that there has been a significant loss of government jobs across the board–for which Romney cheers–and a disproportionate number of those individuals who lost their jobs were women. So when Romney criticizes President Obama for waging war on women because they have lost jobs, he’s just being a hypocrite. The reason they lost their jobs is because of policies favored by Republicans such as Romney. You know, that bloated, unsustainable public labor force and all.
I’m not even saying the women are victims, merely pointing out the absurdity of his argument. I guess if any victims need pointing out here, it is you for buying into his doublespeak.
and a disproportionate number of those individuals who lost their jobs were women.
So now you’re saying that the government is sexist? That’s hysterical. The Obama administration is touting the fact that they are advocates for women, while, at the same time, firing them in disproportional numbers.
The point is that there has been a significant loss of government jobs across the board–for which Romney cheers– – watson
Can you please show me where Romney has cheered the loss of government jobs.
watsondummy
I said that the majority of the job losses experienced by women since Obama took office have been because they held a government job that was eliminated
so you are saying the government discriminates against men by hiring women in stead of them?
do the women know about this discrimination? half of them should quit to level the playing field dont you think?
What the wattle SAID was “It’s not that women can’t make it without government help, it’s that they have been disproportionately affected by the elimination of government jobs at all levels. Presumably you are in favor of such reductions and think this is a good thing.”
Perhaps I jumped the gun and interpreted this to mean that he is not in favor of such reductions and thinks this is a bad thing.
OK, wattle, if you intended to agree that reduction in the size of the federal government is a good thing, I apologize for attributing the opposite opinion to you. Thank you for stepping, however briefly, into the light and understanding that jobs created by a bloated, overly expanded and powerful central government are NOT the answer, but that government which allows for business creation and expansion is.
From National Review Online:
Overall, total government employment has shrunk by 0.5 percent since January 2008. And the private sector has lost 7.2 million jobs, or 6 percent of its January 2008 workforce.
From an article by Conn Carroll in The Foundry, February 22, 2011
Since the beginning of the last recession (December 2007) the private sector workforce has shrunk by 6.6% while shedding more than 7.5 million jobs. Over that same time period, the federal government workforce (excluding Census and Postal workers) has grown by 11.7% while adding 230,000 jobs.
This trend has continued throughout the Obama Administration. Since President Barack Obama was sworn into office, the private sector workforce has shrunk by 2.6% while shedding 2.9 million jobs while the federal workforce (excluding Census and Postal workers) has grown by 7% while adding more than 144,000 jobs.
Now, President Obama’s FY 2012 budget proposes adding even more people to the federal payroll. Specifically, the President wants to create an additional 15,000 federal government jobs including 4,182 additional Internal Revenue Service employees 1,054 of which will be needed to implement Obamacare alone.
From the Washington Post, January 6, 2012
The federal government employs roughly 2 million civilian federal employees, with about 85 percent living and working outside the Washington area. The federal sector added about 2,000 new jobs in December, according to employment statistics released Friday.
From CNN Money, January 25, 2012
Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.
And so it goes………
watty: “The point is that there has been a significant loss of government jobs across the board–for which Romney cheers–and a disproportionate number of those individuals who lost their jobs were women.”
What does matter is whether or not your statement is true.
Again, provide the proof to back up your statement otherwise it is just baseless opinion, of which you are no stranger.
As usual watty runs from the challenge and proves once again that he is full of hot air.
gmb, it is a long time until the election and a lot of things can happen between now and then. I seriously doubt that you will find many Democrats who will be critical of Ann Romney. There is always some fool on each side that opens their mouth and inserts their foot. It is not a one-sided problem as we have seen for the past few months.
There is always some fool on each side that opens their mouth and inserts their foot.
Yeah, but this particular one is a frequent visitor to the White House.
velma gets it wrong again: “I seriously doubt that you will find many Democrats who will be critical of Ann Romney.”
Wow, velma. You are already behind the 8 ball!
You mean donkys like those folks who are insulting Anne Romney on twitter? I would leave you a link but I doubt the moderater would allow it stand.
Just how disgusting are you donkys anyway?
Wow……
Proggy talking point: Green jobs program eliminated some jobs, but those jobs were replaced by “green jobs” or created other ones!!! GOOD!!!!!!
Proggy talking point: Reduce the size of government, eliminate jobs. BAD!!!!!
Uh, can’t the same be true. Reduce the size of government, eliminate government jobs, won’t job creation in the private sector replace those jobs eliminated?
The proggies want you to believe both are true and that reducing government jobs can never be made up.
What happened to all those jobs “saved or created” Did they just suddenly disappear? Did barky outsource them to Austria via the intercontinental railroad?
I thought the donkys were professional vivtims?
Did barky outsource them to Austria via the intercontinental railroad?
Is that the railroad where the conductor and the porters speak Austrian?
“Is that the railroad where the conductor and the porters speak Austrian?”
I think we should ask the guy in the wheelchair to stand up and answer that question.
are the porters black?
i thought it was ebonics not austrian….who’d a thought.
maybe they need a breathilizer…
just stay off the train to Guam, the island may tip over any minute.
If it does, the people had better stay on the surface of the water, because just a few meters below the surface of the earth it’s like millions of degrees, and water boils at 212 F, so it could get pretty uncomfortable near the bottom.
You guys are talking about the transcontinental railroad
You guys are talking about the transcontinental railroad.
No, actually, we’re talking about the intercontinental railroad.
It is just one of a thousand liberal lies that working outside the home is more important thatn working in the home. The attack on Ann Romney is just part of this – by raising decent children, as Romney appears to have done, she has done more good for the world than someone who did anything else with their life. The most important thing a human being can possibly do is bring in to the world the next generation and raise them up to be good people. If we don’t do that, then nothing else we do will have any effect. But, to liberals, unless a woman becomes a corporate drudge, a tramp or a pseudo-intellectual, she hasn’t done anything. An entirely upsidedown world for our liberals.
You don’t own liberals so stop referring to an outlook as “yours”.
It’s smug, indignant, self-righteous and condescending.
“It’s smug, indignant, self-righteous and condescending.”
…like all you mindless posts.
You don’t have to own a liberal to be able to identify one even when you are all so ashamed of your political values you refuse to explain them.
The BLS doesn’t count stay at home moms as part of the labor force. Most economic theory puts zero value on stay at home moms. How is that a liberal position?
The measure of the man (woman) in both parties is how prosperous they are financially. The number one goal of the presidential candidates is never to lower the abortion rate. It is never to enlarge freedoms. It is always to make sure the ‘economy’ is humming along. Depending on if your team is in office the metric might be stock market, the unemployment rate, the home ownership rate, …
Mr Noonan in this you are wrong. It is the choice between what a man wants and what the woman wants which is what is of import. Every woman who has sacrificed a dream to stay at home has been the victim of a grave sin.
“Every woman who has sacrificed a dream to stay at home has been the victim of a grave sin.”
And I am accused of being dramatic!!
I hearby demote you from major to corporal pain.
LOLzer
And that is just where you are flat wrong – one can only be free in one’s own home. Only on property a person owns can a person do as they wish…as soon as you step outside your door, the chains start to be applied. Any woman who chooses to go work at a corporation rather than stay at home has immediately chosen slavery over freedom (of course, any man who chooses corporation rather than to work his own land also chooses slavery). A woman raising her own children in her own home has a freedom the highest-paid corporate CEO can ony dream of. Libearalism – being based, as I’ve long stated, on a lie – holds that slavery is, indeed, freedom…
But all of the major pains are really really really really smart and will tell you so
It’s hard to find a woman that carries a Bible to church, and knows how to cook this day and time.
Why? Well, the majority of them are the products of a society that’s culture has promoted lascivious dress and infidelity (irresponsiblity) since the 1960s.
Jeremiah, the very nature of a free democracy is the freedom from religion and the religious ideas of men that wish to restrict women from full freedom. To be an American you do not have to be a Conservative Christian. Since the 1960s your nation has created far more wealth than it had since 1783. Would you not call this progress?
Since the 1960s your nation has created far more wealth than it had since 1783. Would you not call this progress?
Only by the grace of the Almighty. God’s providence is the only reason America has made it as far as She has. It was not because of the casting down of prohibition, or the legalization of pornography, or the production of violent video games…these are the reason America is on its way out.
America, while on its way up, while reaching the pinnacle of wealth and prosperity turned their backs on the hand that provided the wealth and prosperity and in turn let in alcohol, drugs, pornography, etc…now She’s on Her way down, see…
While you have the freedom to deny and shun Christ away, we also have the freedom to say no to communist propaganda. And we’re supposed to teach our children the way God wants them to be raised…but instead, we let the State tell us how our children have to be raised. Which is? From the atheist bible, Marx, atheist based sex education, pornography (infidelity/promiscuity), murdering the unborn, getting drunk, poisoning the body with drugs i,e. cocaine, lsd, ecstasy, etc, etc.
Since the 1960s your nation has created far more wealth than it had since 1783. Would you not call this progress?
First of all, Major, I think it’s sad that you would measure progress by wealth creation, rather than by individual liberty and quality of life. Second, I don’t have the time or the inclination to do the research, but I’d be willing to bet that if you subtract public and private debt from public and private assets, and factor in unfunded future obligations, you’d discover that the wealth of which you speak is just an illusion and can be destroyed with the stroke of a pen.
Spook,
That is entirely true – the unfunded liabilities of the United States are, by some estimates, in the $100 trillion range. Certainly they are several times annual GDP. We once upon a time built up real wealth…but ’round about 100 years ago we started to move away from wealth creation and started to live on fiat money and credit. It took a long while – about a life time – for the process to be complete, but completed it was…right around 1998-2000. Since then, we have not really created any wealth while the debt and devauled currency necessary to preserve the illusion of growth have risen to astounding levels. Until we get back to an economic policy which has at its core the making, mining and growing of things, we’ll just be wasting our time. Don’t tell me what the GDP “growth” rate was last quarter…tell me: did we make more, or less, steel last quarter than the quater before? Unless it was more, we regressed. Same with iron ore mined; wheat grown; lumber producted, etc, etc, etc.
Spook
well said,
I have actually seen research done that it costs MORE than most women earn to take a full time job outside of house.
When transportation, clothes, meals, day care etc are all added up it is a loss fininacially to the family.
I am not talking single moms here, but it would explain why many single moms are on assistance while working full time.
A FOOLS game sold to them by leftists.
The very nature of a free democracy has nothing to do with the form of government of the United States. It is not a free democracy, has never been a free democracy, and in spite of the efforts to rule it by mobs it never will be.
The idea of freedom FROM religion is a new one invented by enemies of religion. It is not and never has been and never will be part of our constitution.
Maybe you are not as smart as you claim to be.
I wonder how the WH press secretary said this with a straight face. And I loved Allahpundit’s take on it:
I wonder how many Andy Sterns and Richard Trumpkas Jay knows.
“I wonder how the WH press secretary said this with a straight face.”
Lying while keeping a straight face is a talent exclusively to the proggies – no surprise there.
As one of the commenters at HotAir said, “I personally know 72 Jay Carneys, and they are all virgins.”
LOL
Fredrick and Diane and the major pain, what about the ideology of Obama do you think will appeal to the independent voters? What about the political agendas of Obama, past and present, do you think will sway those independents in the direction of the Dems?
What about his record do you think will convince these independents that they want more of the same?
You see, the United States is still for the most part a meritocracy. That means that people look at the track record of a product, a program, or an idea to see how well it works before buying another one. And for the most part it is a nation which dislikes being lied to. If it is sold a product based on false claims (as happened with Obamacare, which managed to become law without even convincing the public that it should) they are likely to remember this the next time the same huckster tries to con them again.
Thsi will be a campaign based on ideology. Even Slo Joe said so, proving that even a blind pig will find an acorn sometimes. And unless and until your side figures out what its ideology IS, and then gets enough people to commit to it, define it, and defend it, you are stuck with the Same Old Same Old of personal attacks and sleight of hand efforts to divert attention away from the fatal flaws in your system.
asked and ignored in a previous thread, so let’s give the forkers another chance to actually say something instead of just tossing out irrelevant sound bites. tick tock tick tock
chirp chirp, tweet tweet
Zzzzzzzz
Yeah. If you want the trolls to run away, hit them with the first two paragraphs of this post.
I’d be delighted to address each of these questions.
Fredrick and Diane and the major pain, what about the ideology of Obama do you think will appeal to the independent voters?
I feel that the President’s freedom to be himself without the fear of facing another campaign will make a huge difference to both moderate GOP voters and to Independents. It is well known that the politics of No could only last the GOP until this election. The Right in the House, assuming the House is kept by the GOP, cannot continue to stonewall or they will be drummed out in 2014. I think moderates of all stripes are terrified of Romney having the Oval Office and the rubber stamp of a GOP House and possibly Senate.
What about the political agendas of Obama, past and present, do you think will sway those independents in the direction of the Dems?
The agenda from the outset for the Obama administration has been to right a sinking ship that was passed to him. Now I’m sure most of you don’t want to hear that but it happens to be true that the housing crisis wasn’t anymore the creation of the Obama administration than it was the Bush administration. The near collapse of the global financial markets created the worst economic conditions in the United States since the Great Depression and despite everyone wanting a quick fix 8 million jobs cannot be created in an hour, a day, a year or five years for that matter. I’ve heard that as many as 2 million of those jobs will never be recovered. Welcome to the new normal of unemployment above 6% for the long term. That said, it doesn’t mean that America cannot reinvent itself. The Health Care Act is a major step toward giving middle class and working class Americans a fighting chance in the new economy. Green jobs will catch on as this technology becomes more economically viable than continuing to rely on fossil fuels and assuring the social safety net stays in place for those who need it is paramount to the plans that Obama can and will implement if he has a Democratic Party majority in the House by 2015. Moderates get this because they want results rather than to be stroked as being good little ideologues.
What about his record do you think will convince these independents that they want more of the same?
See the 3 million jobs recovered by the US economy since 2009.
If this campaign is based on ideology and not the facts on the ground in November Amazona the GOP loses for sure. Between June and October the US economy will add over 1 million jobs and that will drive the unemployment rate down below where it stood when Obama took office. That being the case on election day– game over.
In response to the question “…what about the ideology of Obama do you think will appeal to the independent voters?” Freddie says:
I feel that the President’s freedom to be himself without the fear of facing another campaign will make a huge difference to both moderate GOP voters and to Independents.
And this is ideology—how?
It is well known that the politics of No could only last the GOP until this election. The Right in the House, assuming the House is kept by the GOP, cannot continue to stonewall or they will be drummed out in 2014. I think moderates of all stripes are terrified of Romney having the Oval Office and the rubber stamp of a GOP House and possibly Senate.
Again—what does this have to do with political ideology? Do you even know what ‘ideology’ MEANS?
“What about the political agendas of Obama, past and present, do you think will sway those independents in the direction of the Dems?”
No need to fill this space with more words which have absolutely nothing to do with a political agenda of a president. Wade through it yourself, above.
“What about his record do you think will convince these independents that they want more of the same?”
See the 3 million jobs recovered by the US economy since 2009.
Oh. How about comparing it to the millions LOST? Intelligent people will look at the net gain. As I have said before, Leftist economics is like the guy who goes to Vegas with $5000, loses all but $50, wins back $2000, and claims he won $2500 because that’s what he comes home with. NET GAIN, Freddie.
If this campaign is based on ideology and not the facts on the ground in November Amazona the GOP loses for sure
Really? So you are claiming to understand the ideology of the Right when you don’t even seem to know what the word MEANS, as shown in your non-response, above? If you don’t know the ideology of the Left what makes you think you understand the ideology of the Right?
What is it about believing that the United States of America should be governed by the Constitution of the United States of America that you think will drive voters away from the Right? What is it about demanding a federal government restricted in terms of scope and power, according to the law of the land, and keeping authority primarily at the state and local levels that you think will lead to the defeat of the Right?
Never mind, Freddie. You are either as bone-deep ignorant of the very basics of political discourse as you seem to be, not even capable of outlining the philosophy of your chosen political team, or you do understand its ideology and agendas and also realize that when openly and accurately described they are repellent to most Americans.
In either case you have effectively disqualified yourself from actual political discourse. Ignorant or ashamed, it doesn’t matter, if all you can do is spout inane talking points and a wistful wish list.
And the record stands. Not one, NOT ONE, Leftist has been able or willing to define the Leftist agenda and defend it.
That Amazona is a farce because there is no “Leftist agenda” that is something that is made up in the minds of fearful conservatives and their angry bulldogs who want to control how others live. Here’s a word you don’t hear here very much anymore Libertarian. You know why? because they are too close to the center for the Right to be tolerated. Liberals and Progressives want to live within the Constitution as well we just don’t want to force our personal views on those who might choose not to live by our beliefs on guns/abortion/religion/race/glbtq issues. Got that? is that clear? We want people to be free to make their own choices. Love G-d? Serve him. Don’t believe in G-d? That’s cool. Want a social safety net? It’ll be be there. Think that’s a waste? Opt out? Same with single payer health care, which I have warn you is coming by 2015 if the GOP loses the House big in 2014.
Ideology, lady I’ve got a full understanding because I read more conservative sites and I cannot miss your ideology. You want lower taxes, smaller government more state control, marriage defined in federal law as only being between one man and one woman, abortion sent to the states, Planned Parenthood stripped of goverment funding, the budget deficit reduced without reducing the military budget or touching “entitlements” and last but not least more drilling on Federal lands for oil.
Am I close? Oh yeah the Constitution should be followed to the letter without any flexibility for the modern age. I dance this dance everyday Amazona.
“See the 3 million jobs recovered by the US economy since 2009.”
I see Freddie is an utter mindless drone. Apparently, Freddie like the BLS is ignoring the millions of people who are no longer looking for work because they have given up!
By why quibble about facts that will skew the numbers the wrong way for an incompetent incumbent candidate. Without those “massaged” numbers then drones like freddie won’t have anything positive to say about this poor excuse of a pResident.
The more people that fall out of the calculation not because they have jobs but because they have given up looking will artificially lower the unemployment number.
obAMATEUR’s rear end must hurt something fierce since he had to reach way up there to pull out that 3 million figure.
Tell us freddie, which obAMATEUR will run for pResident, the obAMATEUR as president or the obAMATEUR as a candidate from 2008? Those are two different personalities – the candidate was the hopey changey guy you drones fell in love with, while the pResident is a whiner and blames others for his failures.
Who will it be?
Okay let’s put the whole statistics thing to bed. The BLS has been tracking discouraged workers since 1967 and in 1994 the discouraged workers were added to the U4 unemployment metric. As of March 2012 with the discouraged workers the rate of unemployment was 8.7%.
I like the U6 metric better because it include part time workers that would rather have full time jobs as well as marginally attached or causal workers. That rate as of March 2012 is 14.5%
Both of those are down from the U4 peak of 10.6% in October 2009 and the U6 peak of 17.2% in October 2009. Now those numbers might not be dropping fast enough for you but they are dropping. it took seven months to go from U4 9.7% to 8.7%. That trend continues and you are back to 7.7% U4 in October 2012 and that number is significant because? It was the December 2008 U4 number. Which would put official unemployment U3 at 7.3%.
Wow freddie since when is following the intent of the Constitution an ideology?
Your denials of a “leftist agenda” is pure comedy especially from a mindless drone.
I’m only going to say this once. I haven’t called you any names and I’m not a drone. I am being civil and I expect the same from you. I realize you might be the kind of person who has to take a lot of crap on your job or in your family and this is a nice little time to get a little of your own back but in this case not so much. We are discussing ideas enough of the tough conservative bulldog crap.
The Constitution doesn’t protect you from being offended yet it does protect you from having your civil rights violated. The desires of the Left to ibclude all peoples some of whom do and say things you don’t like doesn’t mean there is an agenda. yeah i know if you don’t teach kids about sex we can all go back to the wonderful days when everyone waited until their wedding night. Well here’s a newsflash for you tiredoflibbs that’s not going to happen–ever. The jinn is out of the bottle dude and it’s too late to put it back. You have right to worship as you please and I would fight for that right but you don’t have the right to want that religion to become the religion of the state no matter what you think the founding fathers believed. You have a right to bear arms but you don’t have a right to an arsenal in your home. “Following the Constitution” becomes an ideology when it becomes code for a frightened set of people who have been hoarding ammo since October 2008.
Sorry Freddie, but obAMATEUR’s own economists say unemployment is where it would be if he did nothing. His policies are a failure and he has contributed nothing to the recovery, but prolonged it with his pathetic economic and energy policies.
Btw, labor participation rate from October 2009 till March 2012 has dropped from 65% to 63.8% – the lowest rate in 30 years. The labor participation rate keeps dropping and the White House and their loyal drones need to keep up the spin and playing with numbers.
Not quite 3 decades tired, the last time this level, 63.8% or lower, was seen was may 1983 during the Reagan administration. The participation rate rarely passes 67% it is a very tight measure.
Well, knock me over with a feather. The picture is beginning to get clearer. Who has been using the term “war on women” more than any other individual? Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Who is a senior advisor to Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Hilary Rosen.
I was going to borrow that feather, being so surprised at a Lefty actually responding to a challenge to describe the ideology that will bring about an Obama victory, etc.
Never mind. It is as if I asked for the sum of 4 and 4 and was told “yellow”.
Fred uses 500 nonsenseical words when he could of just said, ” I want my nannys, king putt and quenn mooch, to take care of me. I don’t want to ever have to think about ANYTHING. Thinking hurts!!”
what would you expect from a short, balding, gay (by his own admission) cab driver from new yoook who thinks he is a demon…..get this journalist……LOL
who lives in a cheap basement apartment in a slum.
Ama….at least he didnt call you a C**T AGAIN and get banned (not yet) any how.
GMB are you going to refuse Social Security or Medicaid? I didn’t think so.
GMB didn’t you cheer the “troops” who saved you from The Muslim Terror Machine? I thought you did.
Fred, my religious beliefs preclude any acceptance of ss or medicaid. I will never use nor see any money from either of those programs. You would know that if you paid attention in class.
“GMB didn’t you cheer the “troops” who saved you from The Muslim Terror Machine? I thought you did.”
This makes absolutely no ense whatsoever.
Having been a member of the United States Army I need no reason to cheer for them. I cheer the fact that my brothers and sisters serve so people like you can insult them.
FOAES You know that acronym stands for right?
Ideology Amazona is only important to ideologues. Progressives have an ability to apply their ideas to problems not their ideals. Applying moral and belief strictures to secular government, or appealing to the “us against them” tribal methods of division has always failed and always will. To have progresss, one must be Progressive.
Bubblehead: ““us against them” tribal methods of division has always failed and always will”
So obAMATEUR’s tactics of
rich vs poor
black vs white
old vs young
non-Christians vs Christians
Etc. etc. etc
will fail?
Then why do it?
The obvious and factual answer is that he has NO positive record to run on.
Non-secular government? Hmmmmm….. Try reading the essays, speeches and other writings from the Founding Fathers.
Your memory is obviously corrupted.
I thought she was the employee of CNN
That was a completely vapid response from Frederick, almost embarrassingly so, and yet he’s the “smart one” of the forkers. I loved this line:
The Health Care Act is a major step toward giving middle class and working class Americans a fighting chance in the new economy.
This line means and says nothing, but definitely paints a picture of “victims” doesn’t it? And you know how liberals love victims.
“And you know how liberals love victims”
I would add that the liberals highest goal in life is to be a victim. Sad
GMB,
give it a rest buddy. Conservative’s highest goal in life is to be a victim. otherwise, how can you explain all that talk about how the big bad media is out to get them!
its never occurred to you that maybe, just maybe you’re completely off the reservation, and that when someone tells you so…..its not a bias…its reality.
anywho, like the previous poster said…there are 6 posters on this blog…they all reinforce their own beliefs. Its like Bill Maher said…dispatches from the bubble.
4 more years!
Dream on James. People like you have created a sad situation where a progressive cloaked as a republican will become President. 97? and counting!!
Fore!!!!
You ignored repeated warnings about your various forms of bigotry. No more chances. Everything after 19:29 deleted. //Moderator
Keep it James. I don’t accept food stamps.
Stop posting on this blog? Why would I ever do that?
Mitt Romney is going to toasterize barky come november. Get used to it my friend. And enjoy it. I would love to see the look on your face when madcow announces the results. Hope you look outdoes koeppels the night RR cremated jimmuh.
You ignored repeated warnings about your various forms of bigotry. No more chances. Everything after 19:29 deleted. //Moderator
Don’t pay any attention to polls. Yours or so called conservative polls. They mean less than nothing. The only one that interests me is going to happen on Nov 6.
Polls had jimmuh trouncing RR as late as the last week in october.
Der Panzerbär? lolzer
It was so much worse than vapid. It was an acknowledgement that he has no clue about the meaning of the word “ideology” much less the definiton of his chosen political side.
It was so clueless and off the wall, he actually seemed to think he was answering the question as he meandered on in a daze, doing everything BUT.
If I had written it, it would have been a biting parody on the political illiteracy of the ardent Pseudo Leftist, but as it was, it was a complete indictment of them.
You n eed to go back up the post and read what I wrong and put that big cup of I’m so smug down.
LOL! Another gem from the “you-can’t-make-this-stuff-up” file: turns out that Obama pays a lower tax rate than HIS secretary.
You ignored repeated warnings about your various forms of bigotry. No more chances. //Moderator
Isin’t it vacation time? He has been working himself to deat with all those fundraisers and campaign events like 40k a plate dinners with hollywierdos and such. Since he is not nowhere near as taxed as he shoild be coulld he not pay for his own vacations?
Airforce One or Southwest coach class, hmmmm?
Once again, the PL trolls leave us with the ongoing question: Are they really that dumb, or do they just lie?
Take the tax rate, for example. How many times have we explained the different tax rates to the dupes? To quote doof, at least 100. So when “James” whines about tax rates, that same old question pops up. Is he really so profoundly stupid that he does not understand the difference between the tax rate on dividends and that of earned income? Or is he smarter than he seems, does know it, but just refuses to acknowledge it, prefering the taste of lies?
If Warren Buffett got paid a salary, he would be taxed at a much higher rate than his secretary. Buy he has structured his income to come from dividends on his stock, so he pays less.
That’s fine. What is not fine is that he understands this, and he understands why this tax rate IS lower, and he still postures in a series of lies. Most of the nation looks at Buffet repeating this dishonest nonsense and feels contempt for him and his lying and his toadying and his complete lack of character. But Buffett doesn’t care—he has the adoration of the OWS types, and that seems to be all he needs.
That and his vast riches, which by the way he holds onto with great ferocity.
Sure, we could raise the tax on unearned income—-and throttle investment in publicly held business, choking it off and further destroying the economy.
I sure am glad these guys are not anti-private property anti-capitalist Marxists, as they insist they are not. This does leave us with only two alternatives, though—-a level of stupidity so deep that it completely defines them, or a level of dishonesty so pervasive that it orives they are completely morally corrupt.
Though, as we can see with “James” the two are not mutually exclusive.
“Am I close? Oh yeah the Constitution should be followed to the letter without any flexibility for the modern age. ”
Flexability??? LOLzer ther Fred. Its called the amendment process. You aught to look it it up. It’s in the(badabing!) constitution.
Kind of interested here Fred. Just what kind of “flexibility” do you want?
I was referring to conservatives GMB in how they would prefer to live by “the letter of the Constitution” when that’s what’s been happening for centuries amendment process and all.
“Flexibility” to the modern proggies is what they call a “living” Constitution. They expect the Constitution to “change with the times”. Of course the “change” they are looking for is what they say it is through the courts and judicial activism.
How many amendments since 1789 (16) in how many years (182) after Amendment XXVI was certified in 1971). Amemdments don’t happen that often so it’s better to have the SCOTUS use judicial review so matters that affect all Americans can be resolved without hauling out state legislatures or trying to get the Congress (No!) to work to solutions.
Only as long as they agree with your personal point of view right?
Nope, the will of the people my friend. That’s a sword that cuts both ways. Back in 1920 an unlikely coalition of the Klan and women made the country dry. In 1933 Progressives seeing that such a rule created more crime than it save lives from temperance reversed it. I love amendments they just take quite a bit of time to get done.
“the will of the people my friend.”
Better be careful there. At one time slavery was the will, at one time universal suffarage was not the will. People are fickle, thier will can change at any moment.
Just the kind of thing our constitution was designed to prevent. Slavery being outlawed and the granting of universal suffrage are now enshrined in our constitutuion.
“the will of the people” Just not a lolzer but a guffaw to go with it.
Please say hi to che for me.
Democracies mature GMB because that is the nature of democracies. Slavery was the will of the people in the first seven decades of the Union but better people, better citizens saw it as a scourge. And the problem was solved, poorly, but it was solved. Now what didn’t come after slavery was abolished was real full citizenship and reparations for those who had suffered. That was a bridge too far for the South then and for conservatives now. In more prosperous times those reparations will come and it will be a boon to business in America. Quite possibly a new golden age in America will come out of that.
Ah a golden age, a euphoric utopia in the land. I colud mention that the United States is not a democracy but you know that? Right?
I do not owe any reparation to anyone. You want to pay, fine and dandy. You want the tax payer to pay, fine and dandy again. Pass a law and see if it survives the court challenge.
You need some dancing lessons
freddie the forker: “In more prosperous times those reparations will come and it will be a boon to business in America.”
Hmmmm….
Who will pay and who will receive? The slaves are all dead and so are the “owners”.
Reparations is part of the leftist agenda to keep African-Americans on the Democrat plantation.
We, Ourselves agree that reparations for the black community in America have been long overdue. However, in current times the global economy is too fragile to seek that repayment. Maybe in a decade or two that historical slight can be righted. The payment should come from the modern incarnations of the insurance companies that held policies on slave vessels. The research would be quite easy to accomplish. The last figures I’ve seen would be a payment of about $67,000 per black person over the age of 18 or roughly $2.6 trillion. Now that would be an economic stimulus.
Would our “white” black president receive just half of that?
President Obama would get a full measure as being biracial in America makes him black.
We, Ourselves agree that reparations for the black community in America have been long overdue.
And you, YOURSELVES, are a bunch of loony tunes, who, correct me if I’m wrong, don’t even live in this country.
Why is this such a bad idea JR? All the recipients are going to do is spend the money, mostly locally. And an influx of that much spending would actually create jobs. Some economists estimate that such a reparations package could create as many as 3 million jobs.
Frederick,
So a bi racial person is considered black? Why does the black race trump the white race? In fact, why does Obama consider himself black when in fact he is half white and was raised by a white family?
JR,
The formers need to be a collective, because on their own, they couldn’t manage their way out of paper bag.
It trumps it because in the not so recent past that was the law Cluster. Also, in a white dominated society like America they make the rules of perception. Ever heard of the one drop rule? A quote from Langston Hughes should clarify:
“You see, unfortunately, I am not black. There are lots of different kinds of blood in our family. But here in the United States, the word ‘Negro’ is used to mean anyone who has any Negro blood at all in his veins. In Africa, the word is more pure. It means all Negro, therefore black. I am brown.”
$2.6 trillion in reparations
3 million jobs
That’s only $1.2 billion per job which is pretty good when you use liberal math. Well done Freddy.
I’m sure that there are 3 million people out there in America that would jump at a chance for a full time job today. To them this would be not be such a bad idea.
Again, bubblehead, who will pay and who will receive slaves and owners are long dead?
Not everyone in this country are descendants of slaves or slave owners – so who specifically is going to pay and who will receive?
Why should anyone receive reparations for a era long since gone?
Again, reparations is a tactic used by Democrats to keep the African-Americans on their plantation.
From what I’ve been told and what I’ve ready 70% of the money would come from insurance companies like Aetna who are the only company to admit they insured slave ships, rum distillers like DeWolf, banks like Bank of America, The Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia Bank. The list of the modern versions of legacy enterprises that profited heavily from slavery is staggering. Why should anyone pay reparations? Because it is the moral and ethical thing to do.
Why not make today’s slavers (all of them could be found in Africa just like 150 years ago) pay reparations? Those companies you listed – those responsible for their actions are long since gone.
Again freddie, who would receive these “reparations”?
Not all African-Americans in this country are descendants of Colonial Slavery.
ObAMATEUR surely wasn’t one of them.
Moral and Ethical? Are you kidding from a proggy? I have been to the Pitchfork. I have read the crap there. Also, those pushing for reparations are far from moral and ethical as well as their beliefs.
These are the same people who want to keep today’s African-Americans on the Democrat “plantation” and reparations is another link in the chains.
I think slavery was more than what ended in the post bellum 19th century. What followed Jim Crow et cetera was equally if not more viscious. I think black Americans are still scarred by those events and the modern history that followed.
freddie the forker: “President Obama would get a full measure as being biracial in America makes him black.”
Really?
Of course he would. But Zimmerman was a white hispanic!
Now for the details….
Why would obAMATEUR receive any reparations being from a white family and a Kenyan father whose family was not a slave in this country?
More than likely, he would have to pay since he is half white from an American family and his grand-mother was a “typical white person”.
Again, drone you cannot think for yourself. You just go along with the mindless talking points.
Since there is no way to repay those who died on the Middle passage I think everyone subject to the brutality of white bigotry in America, that pool would all people who are considered black by the government, should get a full share. I don’t think anyone in the US considers Barack Obama the 44th white president of the US, but rather the first person of color elected to the highest office in America.
You again dodge the obvious. Blacks are not the only ones to suffer bigotry anywhere in this WORLD.
Your excuses are getting more and more pathetic. Again, you proggies want something for nothing.
Of course not I’m a Jew and my people got paid by the Germans, twice.
There’s that magic 3 million jobs number again……
So stealing $2.6 trillion out of the private sector to give to African-Americans who have never been slaves will create 3 million jobs?
You are right cluster. There is that progressive math again – creating something from nothing.
I’ve spoken to quite a few economists who say this would be the case. It deserves more discussion even if it isn’t a present day solution.
I love to watch racist liberals do mental gymnastics to give their blatant racism some kind of cover. And tired you beat me to the Zimmerman reference of where I was going. Funny how his Hispanic heritage has never been mentioned.
Liberals, including Frederick, have zero intent of ever getting to that place that MLK dreamed of so long ago.
Cluster I do recall the media mentioning that Zimmerman’s mother is latina and his father is white. I think when someone murders a minor that race really shouldn’t be the focus. Justice should be.
King’s dream still lives it’s just that the obstacles have taken different shapes than in the 60s 70s and 80s.
You think that race should not be involved? Can you then explain the democratic congress people who have taken the floor in our capital calling it a hate crime, saying that Trayvon was killed because he was WWB, and hunted down like a dawg?
Why would responsible elected officials do that?
That’s because, Cluster I feel that if Trayvon been a short blond 17 year old kid George Zimmerman would have backed off. I don’t know Zimmerman and I wasn’t there so I don’t know but I do know that a mother is without her son because of the actions of one person who decided to be judge jury and executioner when he could have simply walked away.
Fredrick,
If you actually knew anything about the Constitution you would realize that most of the founders already realized that slavery was wrong but needed to comprimise in order to get it passed at the time. BTW, the first free slave became the first free black man to own a slave. Where does that fit into your narritive?
Maybe you should learn some history before misrepresenting it.
As should be expected I think you are oversimplifying to normalize current social correctness to fit the values of the founders that you hold dear. The 3/5ths compromise was about keeping the union together. Had these men wanted to abolish slavery they could have over time. They didn’t because it was more important at the time to keep the going concern of America, going.
Frederick,
Your response does not address the blatant racism that politicians you support are engaged in. So again, why do democratic representatives feel the need to turn this into a race thing? Why have they used their position as an elected official to foment racial discord?
They didn’t Cluster they turned it into a Justice thing. If you want to see the worst case of pandering in the history of American politics take a look at the moving of mountains done by GOP lawmakers in the Terri Schiavo case. You can’t compare the two.
Frederick,
Now you’re just being dishonest. Why do you hide from reality?
Cluster your reality is different than mind. Take off the milk colored glasses pilgrim.
The whole reparations thing is insane.
If an argument is going to be made that a 20th or 21st Century person descended wholly or in part from Africans brought here against their will 200 years ago are still suffering due to that historical event, then it would be necessary to objectively evaluate the damage done TO THESE PEOPLE by being born here, in the United States, instead of their ancestors’ native lands.
We cannot compensate those who suffered directly, and even if we could, according to the rule of law the responsibility would have to be allocated according to responsiblity for the act. That is, some to the Africans who captured the people sold into slavery, some to those who transported them, some to those who presided over their sale, and some to those who bought them and used them as slaves.
As every single one of those who participated in the culture of black slavery in the United States is now long dead, this would be a foolish enterprise, even if it were possible.
So the next thing would be to evaluate the harm done, generations later, as the direct result of those people being enslaved and brought here two centuries ago.
Fine. We have DNA testing now. We can probably determine the general area of Africa from which the ancestors were taken. Then it would be a simple matter to compare, in general terms of course, the average quality of life of one born in any given year in the past 75 years, say, in an identified nation with that of the descendant born in the United States that same year.
If it is determined that there was an advantage to being born in any of the native African lands—-better access to nutrition, education, opportunity, or even in the case of so many African nations the simple ability to survive—-then it would be time to evaluate the nature and extent of deprivation experienced by the descendant as the direct result of being born here instead of there.
Why don’t you guys get to work on that, and get back to us?
“Still suffering?” The Japanese weren’t still suffering and they got paid.
Are you kidding? Digging up poor Terri Schiavo to roll around on her corpse for a while?
All anyone wanted to do was extend the right to life to a woman whose ability to communicate had been severely damaged, probably by the same man who then insisted on the help of the State to finish killing her.
After he succeeded, aided by the ghouls who howled for her death, the autopsy (lyingly misstated by those trying to justify their bloodthirstiness) showed the area of the brain which controls speech and voluntary movements was severely damaged, but the part in which resides comprehension and understanding was nearly intact.
In other words, the testimony of the nurses who said she panicked and fought them when they removed her feeding tubes as if she knew they were preparing to starve her to death was supported by the findings of the pathologist. She knew and understood the meaning of the removal of the tubes, she was terrified, and she was helpless.
This is the stuff of nightmares, analogous to being buried alive, and this is what some ghouls still celebrate as a victory, while they lie and claim that efforts to simply extend to her the basic right to life was some kind of political manuevering they were obligated to thwart.
Amazona it was a political ploy to deflect attention from the Iraq war which was in freefall at the time. It was red meat for the Right and it worked as your voluminous answer shows.
In other words, Fred, you are not addressing any of the facts I laid out, merely dismissing them as too wordy.
Quite analytical.
And then you fake-respond by reciting some silly Leftist talking point about IRAQ, of all things!
Allow me to insert a fact here. It was, first of all, not a political matter. It was a simple civil matter. A man wanted to kill his wife, and had the legal authority to do so, based on his claim that she was nothing but a “vegetable”. Her family disagreed, saying that while her vision and speech were severely damaged, they believed she could not only recognize them and respond to them and show that she was still alert, they believed that therapy (which had been denied to her by her husband) would lead to improvement in her condition.
The argument on the husband’s side was basically “Just look at her—she ain’t right!” and the opinion of a couple of hired guns who wrote her off.
The arguments on the family’s side were that she convinced them that she recognized them and valued their company, responded to them with the impression of intellect and understanding, that when the caretakers had ignored the instructions of the husband and provided theraputic treatment she had responded and improved, that her caretakes testified that she did recognize people and could swallow and indicate taste preferences, the testimony of an expert in physical therapy who had examples of people in her condition who had made dramatic improvement, and the desire of the family to assume all responsibility for her care including all medical costs.
It grew into a national awareness of the significance of allowing one person to put another to death based on inconclusive evidence, and this evolved into taking sides, which basically put right-to-life people on one side and kill-em-if-they-don’t-meet-our-criteria on another.
People ignorant of the actual meaning and defintion of politics, who can’t even be bothered to study and learn the factual differences between Left and Right and are quite satisfied with the superficial labels fed to them by their chosen talking heads, will assign terms like Left and Right to this tragic case.
And now these talking heads have evidently decided to expand the strident demand for legal extermination of those who cannot defend themselves to a sinister political conspiracy.
Oh, my. The willful gullibility seems infinite.
No a man who had the right to end his wife’s suffering did so it was a private matter until the GOP made it national news by trying to use the power of government to intrude in the daily lives of private citizens. All the examinations of Schiavo have shown her brain was nearly half liquid. You bought into the sparkle pony show Amazona, but it’s okay.
“Still suffering?” The Japanese weren’t still suffering and they got paid.
Oh, my goodness, Fred, you need to learn the Rule of Holes.
Beloved Lefty icon Franklin D. Roosevelt (and this is a factual description, not a silly superficial identity thing—study HIS ideology and his administration for an analytical look at the man and his politics) arbitrarily imprisoned American citizens, stripping them of their homes, their businesses, their personal property, and forcing them into prison camps where they lived lives of misery.
In 1968, nearly two dozen years after the camps were closed, the government began reparations to Japanese Americans for property they had lost.
In 1988, the U.S. Congress passed legislation which awarded formal payments of $20,000 each to the surviving internees —60,000 in all. This same year, formal apologies were also issued by the government of Canada to Japanese Canadian survivors, who were each repaid the sum of $21,000 Canadian dollars.
Read more: Japanese Internment in World War II — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/internment1.html#ixzz1s2244nAq
And your point is? Why weren’t reparations paid to black former slaves in 1898, or 1908 or 1928 for that matter?
Oh, Freddy Freddy Freddy—do pay attention to that Rule of Holes advice.
You need to realize that those talking heads who fill you full of crap and sent you out to be intellectual cannon fodder don’t CARE that you make a fool of yourself! You don’t matter to them. Your sole purpose is to provide noise.
You claim the GOP made it national news by trying to use the power of government to intrude in the daily lives of private citizens.
OK, I can accept your contention that the only people who believe in Constitutional protections are the GOP. If that’s the way you see it that’s the way you see it. And you may very well be right.
And if you think enforcing the rule of law, such as the basic right to life of an innocent person who has committed no crime is an “intrusion in the daily lives of private citizens” then you get to have that odd conviction. It says a lot about you, but then so does your conviction that no female should ever have any responsibility for her sexual activity, should not only be given the “choice” to screw recklessly without making any effort to prevent conception but should then be allowed to kill the result of this recklessness.
(Didn’t you claim in another thread that you have a moral core? Looks like it’s time for another definition.)
To paraphrase Obama, an unelected man made the decision to end the life of a possibly sentient human being who had committed no
crime, denying even a complete evaluation by objective professionals not committed to killing her, and ignoring sworn testimony by professionals and caregivers who testified that she was sentient.
All the examinations of Schiavo have shown her brain was nearly half liquid.
No, they didn’t. This is what happens when you trust your minders to send you out with facts. They pack your head with lies.
i read the patholgist’s report on Schiavo’s brain, and I referenced it accurately. You get to choose toxic Bill Maher as your go-to guy for facts, but he lies.
What about the internment camps in WWI under Wilson which housed nationals of Germany, the Austro-Hungarian and Turkish empires. Oh, yeah, and those that just disagreed with his policies of all nationalities including American born citizens.
Freddy, digging frantically away, bleats And your point is? Why weren’t reparations paid to black former slaves in 1898, or 1908 or 1928 for that matter
Gee, Freddy, I don’t know! Why don’t you hop into your WayBack machine and go ask them?
Funniest thing about this country—one of its founding principles was that of personal responsibility. That is, each person is responsible for his or her decisions.
And a founding principle of the Left is that of collectivism. Our very own President has said that his salvation is dependent upon the salvation of the nation.
So instead of arguing about whose descendants should pay for whose ancestor’s sins, why don’t we eliminate the confusing details and talk about individual vs collective guilt, responsibility, and redemption?
I know, I know, that skirts way too close to that ‘ideology’ thing that spooks you so, but it lies at the heart of the issue.
King’s dream still lives but now it lives in the hearts and minds of white people who still believe in a colorblind society where a man is judged on his character and not on the color of his skin.
….it’s just that the obstacles have taken different shapes than in the 60s 70s and 80s. Yes—now the obstacles are those created, fostered and promoted by black people who encourage other black people to engage in thoughts, beliefs and actions that will forever block their access to the American Dream, and will lock them into a stereotype of mindless savagery and ignorant prejudice.
“milk colored glasses ”
Racist code for “white”
“pilgrim”
Racist code for people whose ancestors did not come here on slave ships.
Freddy, Freddy, Freddy, you bigot and racist you! For shame!
Frederick displays the classic liberal mindset and that is of an avenger of all victims, perceived or real. Without victims, there is no liberalism, thus keeping people on the plantation for them to “protect” is essential to their existence. It is a revolting form of bigotry.
It is, Cluster, the shortcut to the Higher Moral Ground.
It requires no effort, no action, no personal sacrifice, no personal responsibility, to be able to preen over the imagined moral superiority of being “FOR” something that, superficially, might appear to be generous or tolerant.
And it carries with the the bonus of assuming that those who do not agree with your conclusions are, therefore, AGAINST the good, AGAINST the generous, AGAINST the tolerant. This has the added advantage of widening the perceived moral gulf, making the FOR people even better than the AGAINST people.
It is analogous to voting for Obama not because of belief in the ideology he represents as the best way to govern the nation but to make a statement of being FOR acceptance, diversity, tolerance, whatever. And of course anyone who voted for McCain had to be equally driven by emotion, never by an objective analysis of political philosophy, which in the simplistic mind of the HMG people means we were AGAINST. Not against a collectivist political model based on expansion of the federal government and it scope and power, but against tolerance, diversity, and basically All That Is Good.
Have you ever used the posterizing ability of some programs like PhotoShop? You scan in a picture, and no matter how complex and nuanced and detailed it may be, this application will reduce it to four or five colors, with no subtlety or detail. When I look at the primitive and limited analysis of events and politics that the Left constantly exhibit here, I am always reminded of this function, and the way they posterize everything into just blobs of general perception.
Being “scarred” by something that did not happen to you is a choice.
I am sure that I had Irish family members enslaved by raiding Britons, and that I had Russian family members raped and killed by rampaging Cossacks. I’ll bet some Czech ancestors suffered at the hands of both Germans and Russians.
More recently, I have had bad things happen TO ME. I have been denied good well-paying jobs because I am a woman, I have had people I trusted lie to me and steal from me. I have made the choice to move forward, to learn from my personal experiences but not let them define or restrict my iife, and certainly never considered nurturing grievances based on what other people did centuries ago.
Too many black people have had the same attitude, looked at themselves as individuals and not defined by anything but their own characters, intellect and ambition, and succeeded quite well, for the imbedded victimhood mentality of others to be very convincing as legitimate explanations for their conditions or their pathology.
Those with a hive mentality, looking for excuses to justify negativity by becoming part of a surly and resentful collective, unable to break free unless some collective penance is paid, are making the choices to be hate-filled, angry, and to be losers.
I am starting to wonder if all of Freddy’s declared persona is bogus. Sure,the silly letters after his name are nothing but juvenile posturing, and are meaningless, but the claim of being a Jew while being such an apologist for black racism, and a name that means “black” leads me to believe that while his defense of black racism is legit the rest if his story is BS.
So hard to tell with these demons with so many lives. Is he dead now, or just was dead? Is he black in this life, or a past life? How many of the people he is/was are writing now? Do any of them have a clue?
?????????????????
ROTFLMAO………LOL LOL
In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery “a moral and political evil.” Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.
The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country’s leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.
The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.