Dems “want to destroy” Republicans because of pro-life positions
Democrats formed the KKK and assassinated Republicans because they hated them so much and they’ve been trying to destroy the Republican Party ever since.
Why?
Because the Republican Party stood against people forcing someone else to be their subject.
Democrats want to destroy the Republican Party because of their pro-life stand.
Why?
Because the Republican Party stood against people forcing unborn children to be subject to death.
~ Alfonzo Rachel providing historical context for the animosity between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party, via PJTV’s ZoNation, February 28
BONUS: Zo defends the biblical basis for being anti-abortion in spite of the word “abortion” being absent from Scripture.
Videos at the links.
Mar.01, 2013 6:00 am |
Political anti-life bias |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Two words.
Southern Strategy.
It won’t work any more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
You know MP, when you think about it, it seems to me your average “slack-jawed” Southerner would take a million black Alfonzo Rachels over any white, Anglo-Saxon progressive man in a heartbeat. Looking at sheer numbers, between Democrats supporting slavery, forming the KKK, crime-infested inner cities and now supporting abortion-on-demand, the most dangerous threat to a human being of African descent has been the Democratic Party for 150+ years now.
It takes two parties to make this government work. Right now, one of them is virtually dysfunctional and we know which one that is.
Do you mean the one that creates vast new programs based on the assumption that the next generation will be large and prosperous enough to pay the debt accrued in creating them, and then advocates for forcing people to pay against their will for the destruction of that next generation? Wouldn’t the definition of a functioning political party be one that has a sustainable plan for governance and long-term success? Or do you define a functioning political party as one that wins, no matter what the human cost?
The economics of Mises and Hayek–that’s what you’re talking about–is a dead end.
Oh, well. Have a good day.
No, population decline and stagnation are dead ends. No economist can whisk away reality. See E.U., Russia, Japan, etc.
Check it out MP, even Slate (certainly no Austrian school rag) covered this: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.single.html
Quotes like this does nothing to advance the conversation, does nothing to bring understanding, does nothing to heal wounds, does nothing to promote a cause. It is largely ignorant and self-serving. I mean, what is the goal of this quote? Who does this help or enlighten? Anybody with any sense of history knows that this is too simplistic of a picture.
Again though, this strategy of division and pushing people off – is that really the goal?
Poor mp. You can ignore the white rich Christian conservatives forever, because we don’t count. But when black folk start getting a clue and even risk their ghetto cards by not towing the company line, it gets a little scary.
EGV,
Simplistic is indeed correct. I can also understand how for you this doesn’t “heal” but really bites instead. The KKK could be more accurately described as the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party.
It should be mentioned who also instituted and ran the segregated south and vehemently opposed Civil Rights. Bingo.
Luckily Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, himself having used deragatory language in reference to black Americans, had the Republicans to help him pass the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, as Democrats were too busy filibustering, or black Americans would have spent a lot more time at the back of the bus.
BTW you’re aware that the late long serving Democrat senator Robert Byrd was a former klansman who vehemently opposed Civil Rights, correct EGV? Interesting that Democrats, black or white, never made any very serious attempt to unseat him, I mean, who knows how many blacks he may have terrorized and lynched. I often wonder how different the reaction to his presence in the senate would be if he had been Republican and I have no doubt many liberals and/or Democrats wished he was.
http://www.dradamfisher.org/legacy_ncc.asp
Also, some history on gun control, which shock, had racist underpinnings.
http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/racial_laws.html
Anybody with any sense of history knows that anybody who says it is “too simplistic of a picture” is just trying to protect their agenda.
EDIT:
OMFREAKINGGOODNESS, WHAT THE *FREAK* IS UP WITH THE COMMENTS LATELY?! THIS BITES!
Mary – and they are all white men – so maybe all white men are evil. And the history of the KKK is primarily in the south – so maybe all southerners are evil.
It’s a stupid argument, which is why you only typically hear it being made by pseudo journalists and people who can’t make better arguments. If you have to go back many decades to try to draw an association, you must not have much of an argument for the present.
Again though, what’s the point of the quote in general? Is it to try to draw people to the pro-life side? It’s just a divise statement that makes pro-lifers look stupid and mean, not loving and helpful.
EGV,
Not quite. There was also the women’s auxilliary of the KKK which Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger went to great trouble to address. How nice the ladies could take a day off from terrorizing black citizens and burning crosses to attend. Also, the KKK extended throughout the United States, not just the south.
KKK activity isn’t exactly ancient history. I can well remember their murderous activity during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.
Come on EGV, if this was the history of the Republican Party, your reaction would be entirely different.
Mary -
You can go through my many quotes through time – I don’t believe I have gone back decades and decades to try to makes associations with the Republican party now. It just makes no sense, and serves no purpose. And in general, calling the opposition nazis, racists, or any other name like that isn’t going to do much in making your side look attractive.
“Yes, we love you all so much, and want to help you out – plus, anybody who doesn’t agree with us are racists because look what they were 60 years ago!”
Come on, I mean, see how that loses the appeal?
EGV,
We’ve covered historical topics galore on this blog, old and more recent. The topics have included slavery, the Civil War, the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War, various presidents, medical practice old and new, etc., etc. Posters have contributed thoughts, opinions, and information. There’s always something to learn.
No one is calling anyone Nazis and pointing out the racist history of any organization, be it PP, the Democrat Party, or the KKK, and their past and present connections to each other, is simply stating historical fact, not being mean and nasty. IMO, these connections are very relevant, if in your opinion they are not, fine.
Does Alfonzo Rachel not realize that the Republican and Democrat parties traded ideologies between the establishment of the KKK and now? This is regularly taught in high schools, right? I remember my history teacher emphasizing repeatedly that if you’re talking about pre-1930 American history, always switch the political parties in your head if you’re looking at ideologies and not labels.
Republicans used to be the progressive/liberals, and Democrats used to be the conservatives.
People know this, don’t they? Why doesn’t Alfonzo Rachel?
http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/edgeofthewest/2010/05/20/when-and-to-an-extent-why-did-the-parties-switch-places/
Alfonzo Rachel
Ella Rae,
Please name for me one Democrat segregationist who turned Republican because the ideologies of the two parties supposedly switched. Former KKK member Democrat Senator Robert Byrd certainly didn’t.
Did the ideologies really switch, or do liberals and/or Democrats want to cover up a rather embarassing history?
Kindly click the first link in my 6:45PM post
”If you have to go back many decades to try to draw an association, you must not have much of an argument for the present.”
You don’t have to go back many decades to look at the current state of Detroit, Oakland, or Camden to see the effect of Democrats on the African American population. They’ve ruined African Americans more effectively by claiming they’re doing them a favor than they ever could have with weapons and intimidation by the KKK.
“Does Alfonzo Rachel not realize that the Republican and Democrat parties traded ideologies between the establishment of the KKK and now? This is regularly taught in high schools, right? I remember my history teacher emphasizing repeatedly that if you’re talking about pre-1930 American history, always switch the political parties in your head if you’re looking at ideologies and not labels.”
Sounds as though you’ve been successfully indoctrinated by a liberal school teacher. Congrats.
If you’d like to break your programming, read this:
http://misfitpolitics.co/2011/11/the-magical-myth-of-the-switching-political-parties/
xalisae –
And you believe the African American population is without problem in Republican strongholds? Looked at any healthcare and income, stats from Mississippi lately?
Again, if the goal is to figure out how to persuasively argue a position, calling people racists and nazis is typically not going to be the way to go. Maybe pro-lifers want to ‘win’ the long term argument by making the tent smaller…but that typically doesn’t work too well. Ask Mitt Romney.
“Looked at any healthcare and income,[sic] stats from Mississippi lately?”
They weren’t too hard to find. And once found, mostly accounted for by educational discrepancies between blacks and whites:
http://www.mississippi.edu/urc/downloads/africanamerican_economic.pdf
but that must just be because mean ‘ol Republicans block the doors to the universities there and won’t let black attend. Oh, wait, THAT was Democrats, too.
But, your point really is moot, since if you actually looked at voter registration, on the local level, Dems are still kinda running things down there:
Because the state of Mississippi does not offer registered voter statistics by party, we must judge either from primary elections (to see how many voters their are from both parties) or from general elections. Through primary elections we conclude that Mississippi is a state dominated by the Democratic Party. In the 2007 Mississippi Governor election, the Democratic Primary had a total of about 450,000 voters compared to about 197,000 voters of the Republican Primary. Also, in the 2008 Presidential Election, the Mississippi Democratic Party Primary had a total of about 429,000 voters compared to about 145,000 voters of the Republican party.
Maybe pro-lifers want to ‘win’ the long term argument by making the tent smaller…but that typically doesn’t work too well. Ask Mitt Romney.
*rimshot*
No, Ex-RINO. I want to make the tent BIGGER by convincing people that they have the capacity to enter the tent whenever they want to all by themselves instead of thinking that standing outside the tent in the rain with a crappy umbrella the government gave them is preferable. I’m trying to show the people outside the tent that the circumstances the government gives them is not preferable to being inside the tent. It’s just politics-playing, “gotcha!”-calling iceholes like you that interpret that as “You must not want them inside the tent if you think they’re so bad for standing outside of it.”
xalisae -
And the numbers in Detroits and other places mentioned aren’t at all able to be attributed by education? Numbers are numbers, you can’t just say “well, in this case, it is all the fault of a political party, but the numbers over here are clearly their lack of education”. Come on.
Mississippi consistently trails the pack on just about every health care measure imaginable. This affects people – their life and general wellbeing.
My point is not that blacks are infinitely better off in Democratic states – my point is that your comment that blacks in those cities mentioned are worse off because of Democratic policies – it is simply unfounded.
Also, your statement that the state is a Democratic state is laughable. First off, you quote a stat about primaries and voting in one primary (which is going to be massively slanted based on if a person is running with or without opposition).
Mississippi is as GOP as it gets - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states
x – you probably have more credibility than most on this board based on previous statements against almost all types of spending and subsidies – even those that support corporations, big oil, and such. In fact, based on your comments about not spending if we have to borrow, my strong assumption is that you were against the Bush tax cuts and both wars we launched oversees (Iraq and Afghanistan).
In general, I agree with your statement.
But
There’s a huge difference in saying “hey, we have job training programs, places to watch your kids, and services to lead you to a state of self sustainment” vs saying “well, good luck to you, I hope you find what you need and figure out a way to survive, but we’re not going to help at all in hopes that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”.
I fear your actual support is for the second one, not the first.
oh my goodness, Ex-RINO…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Mississippi
The shift to Republicans in The South didn’t start large-scale until roughly the mid-’90’s, dude. That is DEFINITELY recent, DEFINITELY more recent than the supposed “shift” that Dems try to tout as starting in the 1960’s, and Dems STILL have a stranglehold in many places down there. I know-I’M FROM THERE.
Laugh all you want, them’s the breaks.
I appreciate your appraisal of my credibility. I was against the Bush “tax cuts” because they weren’t really “tax cuts”. Even though it was to my benefit, I didn’t think handing a bunch of money out to people who didn’t earn it was a reasonable thing to do, because I knew the positive effect it might bring was merely temporary, and that it would put us exactly where we are right now. The fact that Obama has not only adopted this policy himself but seemingly dropped a lead foot on the pedal into spending oblivion “FORWARD” is beyond troubling. I was also against NAFTA back when I was in 6th grade, too. The answer to our problems is not handing out Uncle Sam FunBucks and shipping our jobs overseas. My dad has always been a huge history buff. I remember watching documentaries about pre-war Germany. Women taking wheelbarrows full of deutschmarks to the store to buy a single loaf of bread. We’re on our way. I swear, move after move with our government, it seems like they’re actively trying to hyperinflate our currency, and it’s working. I was also the sole kid in the back of the class in 8th grade decrying the increase in the Minimum Wage for this very reason. I wasn’t very popular.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
I was, however, supportive of the military action in Iraq, less so Afganistan, but still am somewhat. That was only galvanized after being the wife of someone who served two tours of duty in Iraq, and hearing what Iraqis themselves had to tell my now-ex-husband. He was put on duty guarding the interpreters regularly, so his relationship with them was rather close. It hurts that we abandoned them when they still needed us, and the sacrifices my family made that feel like they were all for naught now is personally hurtful. Also, with the way things have been going with Iran, a long-term/permanent base there would’ve been strategically advantageous, and absolutely invaluable. Aiding the Iranian student uprising along with helping to turn Iraq into a Westernized world participant (along with Afganistan, eventually) and example for the entire Middle East would’ve been a slow, yet overall more peaceful solution to what I am afraid is destined now to be a disastrous, bloody conflict with Iran and Iranian allies.
There’s a huge difference in saying “hey, we have job training programs, places to watch your kids, and services to lead you to a state of self sustainment” vs saying “well, good luck to you, I hope you find what you need and figure out a way to survive, but we’re not going to help at all in hopes that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”.
Then you absolutely haven’t been listening to everything I’ve said about public assistance. Ex-RINO, I’ve BEEN on public assistance, man. That’s how I know it sucks and provides no long-term solutions, or any real aid to help get out of the situation that requires it!!! At least not where and when I was last enrolled. College enrollment being a detriment to receiving public assistance was one particular subject I know I have ranted about here. Also, the sham of a “job training program” I sat through for a week or so about 8 or 9 years ago has also been mentioned. Things might be different now-I hope they are!-but I’m just speaking from my experience. We’ll see.
x -
Ha – Obama had been in office for about 4 minutes before the GOP started blaming him for everything – Mississippi has had a GOP governor for all of four years since 1992 – they can take the blame.
Regardless, thanks for your post – very interesting reading.
I’m not convinced that we’re headed towards destruction simply because this country has too much creative power, natural resources, and economic diversity. With that being said, I sure wish that I had a better feeling that politicians in general had a plan of how we were going to deal with this. I prefer to do what is needed to get the economy strong, and then attacking the deficit. Currently, the country looks like a very poorly run country – I mean, if your job was working for guys who behaved like those in charge, would you expect the company to last long? It is embarrassing. I don’t think they all know who they work for.
On the war in general – my job works with those in the military, so I have massive respect for what they do and have been through. I simply felt like from the beginning, the mission was unclear, and that we were funding the war on the backs of our kids rather than paying for it as we fought it.
On your last paragraph – thanks again for the insight and your experiences. I don’t believe the government should just hand out money. I believe some programs work, and some don’t. I think there are some who believe we should just throw money at any problem, and I reject that thinking. On the same way, I think those that demonize social programs in general don’t realize that some things do work. We’ll have some that will never be able to help themselves, and we need support there. But everywhere else, the goal should be to help provide a path. I don’t have much time for those who abuse the system. I also don’t have much time for those who demonize those who need help and assistance. The personal stories of people, and life in general, is far too complicated for the generalities.
Sorry for babbling here – your post was a good one.
EGV,
LOL. Obama is starting his 5th year in office and Democrats are still blaming Bush. Also, Detroit has been under Democrat rule for 50 years. Do you think they can take the blame for the city now circling the drain?
Stuff like this is why I don’t like the Zo dude. He just says party-line stuff and gets patted on the back for it. It adds little value to anything.
Hyperinflation isn’t possible in a liquidity trap.
Skyrocketing interest rates aren’t possible in a liquidity trap.
Interest rates have been at historic lows for the last 5 years of this crisis and that was predicted.
Comments like these are the reason I like this Zo dude. He knows how to re-unite the Republican party and focus it on values that should transcend party lines, and unite all people of good-will. He wasn’t attacking Democrats as much as he was warning his fellow conservatives about the bad effects of breaking up the Republican party because of the more progressive tendencies of some of its members. In short, he reminded Conservatives of the obvious – a smaller Republican party is party that is easier is beat.
Tyler – love it! I’m all in favor of the GOP making their party as small as possible!
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/can-democrats-turn-texas-and-arizona-blue-by-2016/
Ex-GOP, I had not seen that. Thanks.