A comment worth repeating


April 26, 2013 by Julia

So this is a nice reminder that Democrats are big fat hypocrites (surprise).  However, what I want to repeat is this comment, from someone calling him- or herself Laka:

If there were such a thing as a thinking racist, he would enthusiastically support most Democratic policies because they (1) deprive minorities of education (in the name of supporting unions,) (2) increase violence in minority communities (in the name of gun control and criminal’s rights,) (3) increase unemployment in minority communities (in the name of regulating employers,) (4) increase despair in minority communities ( by promoting victim-status consciousness-raising,) (5) increase social chaos by redefining marriage (in the name of equal access to government benefits,) and on and on and on.

If there was such a thinking racist, you might be able to recognize him if he promotes such policies for others, but avoids the harmful consequences for himself. Just like Terry McAuliffe is doing for his own children.

If Republicans were really racists, as we are so often accused of being, we would be Democrats.

If Republicans were really racist, we would, in fact, be Democrats–you know, like the founders of the KKK and inventers of Jim Crow. 

Might I recommend purchasing Runaway Slave?
EDIT: Speaking of Democrats who love racism, President Obama had this to say to Planned Parenthood this morning:

“As long as we’ve got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way,” said Obama. “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

Our president wants God (presumably the Christian God) to bless an organization founded for the express purpose of decreasing the numbers of poor and minority children by killing them in their mothers’ wombs.  An organization that undeniably fails to report the statutory rape of children.  An organization that knew Kermit Gosnell subjected women (mostly poor and minority women) to dangerous conditions, risking their lives and slaughtering living babies after they were born, and didn’t tell a soul.  An organization that makes millions of dollars by ouright lying to women about basic science and the psychological ramifications of their sacred “choices.”
And yet, it is the Republicans waging a war on women, the Republicans who are racist.  Look in a mirror, Barack Obama.  If Republicans were

really racist women-haters, we’d look an awful lot like you.


7 thoughts on “A comment worth repeating

  1. Null says:

    Insightful comment, but it missed a big one: (6) promote eugenics (by supporting legalized abortion, which is disproportionately used to murder minority babies).

    • Julia says:

      It’s funny you said that, because I just logged in for the express purpose of adding this nugget as an update:

      “As long as we’ve got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way,” said Obama. “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”


  2. Ish says:

    I take exception to Laka’s fifth point, increasing access to government services is a key part of the Democratic Party’s socialist wing (Pliven-Cloward anyone?) but I continue to see LGBT marriage as a conservative issue: ain’t none of nobody’s business if two consenting adults enter into a marriage contract, even if they’re both “innies” or “outies.”

    But, I also feel the same way about employment contracts and real estate transactions.

    • Julia says:

      A “marriage contract” (two individuals privately linking themselves) or a private commitment ceremony of whatever flavor is separate from the government acknowledgement/recognition/etc. thereof.

    • Stuart the Viking says:

      Maybe more of a libertarian issue. Of course, that might be the same thing depending on how you define conservative. Anyone counting on the “conservatives” in the supposed “conservative party” (republicans) for this issue to move forward is going to have a hell of a long wait. The Democrats at least pay lip service to the idea.

      I disagree that this topic should be lumped into a rant on racism. As far as I see, it has little to do with race.

      I also disagree that giving same-sex couples the right to marry would cause such social chaos. I think that the American people would just shrug and move on. Sure, there would be a few malcontents who would want to stir up trouble, but they are already busy at the stir stick. Who cares if they wear themselves out trying to “stir harder”. That said, when I see “in the name of equal access to government benefits” in that statement, it makes me realize that it isn’t so much about social chaos anyway. It’s about money. Filthy lucre. An argument that denies rights to one group of American citizens that is enjoyed by another group of American citizens purely on the basis of monetary cost is a failed argument in my book.

      I find a lot to agree with in statements 1-4. Unfortunately, number 5 ends it all with a sour note.


      • Ish says:

        It’s not something we make a big deal about, but its hardly a secret either, that between us Julia represents the more traditional, mainstream Republican Party axis of conservatism while I am our resident Wookie-suited libertarian (although I prefer to self-identify as a minarchist. A distinction that matters to all forty people that know what that is. 😉 ). So I am not going to pretend that there is a one-size-fits-all definition of conservatism.

        I am familiar with and can understand the reasoning behind the “traditional marriage for tradition’s sake” camp… I’m just not swayed. I just think the inherent evil of using state force to limit the freedom of consenting adults to do as they wish without harm to others trumps the good of preserving a state-sanctioned form of a traditional practice simply because a plurality wants to.

      • Julia says:

        I’m so traditional that I am a Burkean monarchist . . . but sssssh, don’t tell anyone or I will never win an election if I ever run 😉 (I exaggerate a bit–I am in favor of a constitutional, non-hereditary monarchy with extremely limited spheres of influence; most governing in my fictitious country would occur at the local level, with my monarch responsible for national security and only a few other things)

        I have zero problem whatsoever with people arranging whatever private relationship structures they feel like. I oppose sodomy laws, DOMA (which is blatantly unconstitutional), and a federal marriage amendment. However, I also oppose creating federal constitutional rights out of “penumbras,” the intellectually dishonest conflation of “tolerance” with “acceptance,” schools countermanding what I teach my children, political correctness, and the way that the leftist gay rights folks try to intimidate people. I would hang out with the people from GOProud, but not the leftists who hate free speech.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

The Ministry of Nerds

We're nerds . . . who talk politics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: