Saturday, June 13, 2009

Sarah Palin And The Wolves

David Letterman's recent nasty insult to Sarah Palin and her family has me wondering just what is it that the liberal hounds of hell have against that woman.

Sarah Palin is a conservative. She's pro-life, pro-gun rights, supports the traditional family, and doesn't believe in big government social programs. Lots of women share those views, yet Mrs. Palin alone is a lightning rod for hateful personal attacks from the hateful Left. Why do the progressive wolves hate her so?

I think liberals hate Sarah Palin so much precisely because she's a woman. Liberals believe that certain constituencies belong exclusively to them. Women are one of those constituencies. Not only do leftists believe that they alone care about women, they also believe that women owe them blind allegiance. If a woman starts to think for herself and dares to step off the liberal/feminist plantation she will have hell to pay. Just ask Sarah.

For the Left, Sarah Palin isn't just a person, she's a symbol of all those independent thinking women--and other minorities--whom the Left strenuously tries to marginalize. Minorities who don't toe the leftist party line are a grave threat to progressives because they undermine one of the Left's main sources of power: obediently liberal minorities. That's why liberals are so committed to identity politics.

In order to win, liberals need the minority vote and to get that vote they need for minorities to think primarily in terms of racial or gender self-interest. When women or Blacks go into the voting booth, liberals need for them to ask, Which candidate will do the most for me as a woman or a Black person. That question must overrule all other concerns the female or non-White voter has. If that happens the liberal candidate--usually a Democrat--will get the minority vote because liberals have convinced minorities that they are the only ones who can deliver the racial or gender goods. Also most minorites have been convinced that voting Democrat is crucuial to being an authentic member of their respective groups. And then along comes Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin is a feminine rebel, a woman who doesn't let her genitalia determine her politics the way the Left says they should. She chose her own opinions, values, and beliefs and apologizes to no one for doing so. Mrs. Palin's courageous conservatism tells other women that they, too, can escape the ideological/political prison of the Left. And that's why she's such a threat to the progressives. The insults and nastiness spewed against Sarah Palin and her family are liberals' desperate attempts to destroy her and protect their power. Sarah Palin, though, is strong; being a conservative woman in these politically correct times proves that. She will stand firm and she will prevail, of that I have no doubt.

Sarah Palin, 10; the wolves, 0.

38 comments:

Jane said...

Why do you consistently make things into something they are not?

Most Liberals, if you read any liberl blogs, agreed that Letterman went to far. The Left and Right are in agreement there. But what the right fails to do is recognize the fact that Sarah Palin was being unproffesional when she grabbed the attention of the media and called Letterman "unsafe to be around Willow". She was also wrong to make such a big deal about this, she doesn't care for the safety of young women concerning rape and sexual assualt if she did she wouldn't be billing victims of rape for gathering evidence in the case, and she wouldn't oppose abortion even in extreme cases such as rape and incest. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the reason she made such a big deal out of this was for the welfare of women everywhere, that is just insanity, it's an attention grab and nothing more.

As well don't kid yourself about the left being against Sarah Palin because she is a woman, the left is against her because she is first and foremost an idiot, and secondly because she is a conservatives. Last time I checked Conservatives and liberals don't exactly share beliefs.

And it is a two way street, how sexist was the right when Clinton was running? And than all of a sudden when Palin entered the race they were so against sexism and all to easily labeled any critism of Palin as sexism. You're acting like a mouth piece for Fox News.

This shouldn't even be an issue, you are deliberatley polarizing the issue, you should know that most of the left agree with the right that Letterman went to far but you deny that fact and post this ludicrous article.

I said I wouldn't post on this blog anymore but I had to post this, and as long as I don't stoop to a personal level again I will continue to post.

And while I'm on this issue I would like to address another of your accusation. That one being that the left are anti-American. It is my belief that the right really doesn't care if people are anti-American, they use it as a claim to try and smear the other party, I believe this because of their complete lack of response to Sarah Palin's message to Alaska's independence party and her husband being in that party. Imagine for one second that Obama made a message to a Hawaiian independence party and that is wife was a member of this organization. I know they aren't Hawaiian but just theoretically speaking. You would be under the belief that they were anti-American, can you admit that?

Skunkfeathers said...

I don't agree with you on much, Jane; we've already established that. So, based on what you just said, does that mean that I should brand you an idiot?

Of course not; we just disagree on a number of things, ideologically and philosophically.

So how is Sarah Palin -- with whom you obviously disagree -- an idiot?

You say she is, because you listen to the organs of liberal hate, just as you accuse Seane-Anna of being a mouthpiece for Fox News, which you consider to be a source of conservative hate.

Personally, I'd stack up Fox News and MSNBC, and see where the real hatemongering exists. And I'll bet you and I would still disagree on that.

Bottom line, and as you say, things cut both ways, and the blade you deployed against Seane-Anna here, cut you as well.

You don't think that Sarah Palin had a right to defend her daughter against such baseless, tasteless, and uncalled-for comments by Letterman; that's your opinion (you did say that Palin was wrong to make such a big deal about this). But I think I can say something here you will agree with, after reading your missive: Dave Letterman behaved like a moron on this.

And you know what? If Rush Limbaugh made the same kind of comment about one of Obama's daughters, he'd be the same kind of moron. And much of the Right would be as offended by his stooping that low.

The abortion debate is something outside of this; making jokes about rape of 14 year old girls -- or women in general -- just don't get it done in civil society, Jane. Agreed?

JMK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JMK said...

I LOVE the new look Seane-Anna.

And yes, this is a fine, reasonable and well-constructed argument.

I believe you're correct that, "I think liberals hate Sarah Palin so much precisely because she's a woman."

She was the ONLY one of the four major Party candidates that actually connected with middle America - sharing not only the bulk of their views (pro-gun/pro-self defense, largely pro-life and pro-USA) but their working roots, as well.

She was the only major candidate whose family actually worked (her husband STILL works)...in the REAL world.


SF, that was a very well thought out and constructed analysis on your part. It IS odd that while Conservatives rarely seem to mistake disagreement for either delusion or intellect, far-Left Liberals routinely DO.


And Jane;

The "mainstream Left" (which unfortunately today is pretty much the extreme Left) has a history of being vile to blacks and women who they see as "heretics to Liberal orthodoxy".

Both Mike Steele (a very bright man), Ward Connerly (another brilliant black conservative) and Sarah Palin are all proof of that.

The Daily Kos, quoted liberally (no pun intended) by the NY Times and MSNBC wrote a slanderous piece about the possibility of Sarah Palin being Trig's grandmother.

Sadly the "journalistic geniuses" at D-Kos overlooked the FACT that Bristol Palin was actually pregnant when Trig was born.

Yet even when that libel was proven some media outlets (MSNBC) still ran with it.

And Bill Clinton NEVER dealt with any actual "sexism". In reality, he was guilty of that charge, if anyone ever was.

His sexual peccadilloes were no different than any other fifty-something executive pressuring younger, more naive and powerless women into giving sexual favors.

If it's wrong for a Tire Company Exec to pressure a young secretary to "put out" in order to keep her job, it stands to reason that it's equally wrong, perhaps even more egregious for the POTUS to do the same.

Palin was right to challenge the adle-brained Letterman on his perverse humor.

14 y/o Willow was at that game with her Mom, so Letterman's joke was about a 14 y/o getting "knocked up" NOT 18 y/o Bristol (as he later claimed), though that would have also been hideously egregious.

With that line, the loopy Letterman offhandedly inferred that "pedophilia (sex with a 14 y/o is pedophilia) is no big deal" and that no remark is too demeaning, or too revolting for female and black conservatives.

I don't want anyone implying that females and blacks in particular owe any sort of allegiance to modern liberalism.

That's not merely a quaint (out-dated and old fashioned) notion, it's quite corrosive in today's climate.

In point of FACT, neither women, nor blacks owe modern liberalism much of anything.

Let's be honest about that.

Jane said...

"So how is Sarah Palin -- with whom you obviously disagree -- an idiot?

You say she is, because you listen to the organs of liberal hate, just as you accuse Seane-Anna of being a mouthpiece for Fox News, which you consider to be a source of conservative hate."

Sarah Palin isn't an idiot because of her beliefs but because of intelligence, or lack thereof, and ignorance. Such as geographic illiteracy, her horrific performance in interviews (I know, blame the liberals for the tought questions, but she still gave terrible answers).

In fact, I'll take back the word "idiot", she is just a regular woman who isn't qualified to be a big time politician, she doesn't have the experience and she is out of her league.

The reason I called SA a mouthpiece for Fox news was because this is the exact topic they were talking about yesterday and all the main points they bring up are featured in this blog post.

No, I don't think Sarah Palin is an idiot because liberals told me to, that is an opinion I formed on my own, along with millions of other Americans, a lot of them Republican who jumped shit because of McCain's cheap attempt at getting the female vote.

In my opinion McCain alienated the moderate republican base and insulted their intelligence. My dad is one of those republicans that jumped ship and I have many close friends and other family members who did the same, citing the same reasons.

"Personally, I'd stack up Fox News and MSNBC, and see where the real hatemongering exists. And I'll bet you and I would still disagree on that."

You're right, MSNBC has been incredibly dissapointing lately, they've certainly gone the Fox route. Did you see Contessa Brewer's interview about the whole Sarah Palin/Letterman debacle? I found it out of line and many other liberals did as well.

MSNBC and Fox news exist for ratings, and they air whatever will boost their ratings, and sadly people just don't want the truth, they want entertainment so they both appeal to the people of the low end of the intelligence pool in both parties. Which explains why Fox news has higher ratings.

If you want the truth you must go online to a variety of sources, I get news from various countries: UK, Canada, US, France, and so on. Don't trust the mainstream televised media, their purpose isn't to inform you.

"You don't think that Sarah Palin had a right to defend her daughter against such baseless, tasteless, and uncalled-for comments by Letterman; that's your opinion (you did say that Palin was wrong to make such a big deal about this). But I think I can say something here you will agree with, after reading your missive: Dave Letterman behaved like a moron on this."

Of course she does, and I think the initial message she posted along with her husband was enough. She shouldn't have made it into the big mess that she did. And she did this for one reason: ATTENTION. She just wants publicity. She took it too far and that is where I draw the line.

"And you know what? If Rush Limbaugh made the same kind of comment about one of Obama's daughters, he'd be the same kind of moron. And much of the Right would be as offended by his stooping that low."

And now you understand my point, the left and right are in agreement on this subject and SA is trying to polarize it. Letterman was tasteless, Palin countered, and that should of been the end of it, but it isn't.

"The abortion debate is something outside of this; making jokes about rape of 14 year old girls -- or women in general -- just don't get it done in civil society, Jane. Agreed?"

I don't think the abortion issue is outside of this, because it shows Palin's hypocricy, as well as her making rape victims pay for the forensics of the investigation. It shows that Palin is making this a bigger deal than it is on purpose.

Other than that I don't think there is much we aren't in agreement with on this subject.

Jane said...

JMK, I meant Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

And I disagree with your claim that the Left thinks of blacks and women as heretics. It certainly isn't mainstream.

And white supremacists, xenophobes, and racists usually come from the right wing. And I disagree with you that SA made a well rounded and good post, all she has done is polarized an issue to try and start a fight on top of all the other messes Liberals and Conservatives are having.

elwoodin said...

Hey, great post....but I know why they attack her so badly. It is for the reasons that you stated, but it goes farther than that. Because of her independence, and her Conservative ways and her spunk for not backing down when they attack, comes the last reason they attack her so. It is because the woman scares the heck out of them, and they do not know how to handle that....especially from a woman. All I can say to Sarah Palin is this......keep making them be afraid of you. It will only help you and our country too.

JMK said...

"JMK, I meant Hillary Clinton in the primaries." (Jane)
<
<
Hillary wasn't attacked "from the Right" during the Primaries.

She ran TO THE RIGHT of Barack Obama!

She was slimed and smeared by the demented and deranged Left, led by those kooky and creepy EDPs at the D-Kos.
<
<
"she wouldn't oppose abortion even in extreme cases such as rape and incest." (Jane)

That's a valid viewpoint,one shared by a HUGE number of Americans. Today, some 51% of Americans oppose abortion on demand and over 2/3s oppose late term abortions.

Palin's answers to questions on the issue were clear and well reasoned;

Q: Do you think there’s an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

A: I do. Yeah, I do.

Q: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

A: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric Oct 1, 2008
<
<
Abortion should be states’ issue, not federal mandate

Q: Why is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?

A: I think it should be a states’ issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I’m, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, it’s no secret that I’m pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that’s what I would like to see further embraced by America.

Ironically enough, virtually ALL legal scholars agree with that view.

Roe is "bad law", as surely as the 1973 decision (overturned less than a decade later) that outlawed Capital punishment in all fifty states.

BOTH are "bad law" because those are clearly State decisions, NOT federal ones.

Today almost no one sees Capital Punishment as "cruel and unusual", which is a testament to the educating of the Amercan people.
<
<
"white supremacists, xenophobes, and racists usually come from the right wing (Jane)

Quite the reverse.

David Dukes was a long time and original Democrat and in recent years returned to the Democratic fold. He IS a registered Democrat.

Adolph Hitler was an avowed "utopian socialist". On May 1st, 1927, that vile Liberal scum dared tosay THIS; "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." - Adolf Hitler

Forget everything else about Hitler and this one statement says it all....only the most debased and perverted of men could rail so passionately against LIBERTY, the freedom of human action that inevitably results in wide disparities in income, wealth and living standards based on the value of each free individual's skills.

People who rail against Capitalism are railing against FREEDOM/indiidual Liberty and that is the most misanthropic of views!

Hitler was a Leftist, no question about that. He was an ardent animal lover (and like most devout "animal lovers," he was a people-hater), he was an ardent environmentalist, an anti-smoking zealot before it was fashionable and an avowed gun controller.

Ted Bundy was an ardent morl reativist and a self-professed "Liberal". John Wayne Gacy had his picture taken with Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter, at a Democratic fund raiser.

So, your basic premise here is deeply flawed.

Jane said...

"Hillary wasn't attacked "from the Right..."

Are you being willfully ignorant? She was attacked and smeared by right wing pundits all the time.

"That's a valid viewpoint...."

I was talking about Palin's views on incest and rape. And those are insanity

"Palin's answers to questions on the issue were clear and well....."

What every politician says to avoid controversy, doesn't change the fact of what she did in her own state. I don't support her personal views.

As well you are going off on a tangent that I never talked about. I oppose Palin's own personal extreme views on abortion, including rape and incest.

"Today almost no one sees Capital Punishment as "cruel and unusual", which is a testament.."

That is quite an absurd standpoint. The majority of Americans would rather a murderer spend his entire life in jail than be executed.

And it may not be thought of as "cruel and unusual in the US" but in the rest of the Western World it is, making your statements invalid.

"Quite the reverse.

David Dukes was a long time and original Democrat......"

We're talking about the right wing and left wing, not Democrat and Republican. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican but he was the progressive, the people against him were the xenophobes and those who opposed the abolition of slavery. All right wingers. And you fail to mention that David Duke switched to the republican party in 1988 because he felt the party more accompanied his views.

"Adolph Hitler was an avowed "utopian socialist". On May 1st, 1927, that vile Liberal scum dare....."

Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems, throughout history they have been used by both right and left wing governments. Scholars say that nazism took ideas from the left and right wings of government but predominantly from the right, where he got most of his support. It isn't the opposite and you know it. Here in the US right now most racists belong to the right wing, it's so blatant.

What Hitler instated was not socialism, and it is absurd to think that the democrats are trying to install socialism here, perhaps by right wing standards, but by its true definition, not at all.

"Hitler was a Leftist, no question about that. He was an ardent animal lover (and like most devout "animal lovers," he was a people-hate......"

Wow. You're implying that animal lovers and environmentalists are like Hitler. That is insanity, I must call it when I see it. I hope you don't actually believe this and are just getting desperate. First of all, the very first enviromentalist in the US who started the wonderful creation of national parks was a republican. Enviromentalism and being an animal lover have nothing to do with being a liberal or a conservative. Hitler also hated gay people (wonder who that reminds me of)

The funny thing you didn't mention about Hitler was his hatred of communism and his willingness to label things as communist, Hitler's fear politics. And what nutjobs in the US do the exact same thing? You know the answer.

Some of the first victims of nazism were the liberals.

"Because of this views, leftist political dissidents were the first victims to be targeted by the Nazi regime, much before Racial discrimination was applied, on the basis of the Reichstag Fire Decree."

So are you going against historians and scholars at large who label nazism and Hitler as right wing?

Skunkfeathers said...

Hitler's an interesting aside on the issue of abortion and Sarah Palin, but I'll weigh in here: JMK was more correct on Hitler than some of the scholars you've chosen to ally yourself with, Jane.

In order for Hitler to achieve his ends, he had to overcome and overpower both the Left and the Right in his country: in his eyes, the Right was the military, the Church, and Big Business.

A good read for you on this would be The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, probably the best analysis on the Third Reich and Hitler's rise and fall that exists.

It is true that Hitler used Communism for a 'fear factor' to excuse some of his actions to seize full powers of government, once he was appointed chancellor by President Hindenburg; but once Hitler got his full powers -- many based on the very constitution he swore to destroy -- Hitler established a regimented, top-down socialist state that was, in more ways than not, the very essence of communism. Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union was hardly a quest to destroy communism, once and for all. Hitler and his cronies admired many of the aspects of communism, and freely utilized them in Nazi Germany (the police state, informants, the Peoples' Court, concentration camps (what the Soviets called gulags, and had for their own).

Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union was based on his racial hatred of the Slavs, his "unshakeable belief" that the Slavs were "subhumans", and that the superior German was entitled to greater "lebensraum" -- living space -- for the betterment of Europe. Such ideas he'd espoused in his book, Mein Kampf (My Struggle) back in 1925. Had more scholars put some time into parsing and closely studying that book, world leaders might have had a far different answer to Hitler, than the ones they employed in the '30s, the answers that brought on the bloodiest war in world history.

But we're off-topic.

You insist Sarah Palin is an idiot for her words and beliefs; I repeat that the same could easily be applied to you for your words and beliefs, if we want to lower the standard of debate here. Palin wanted the issue of abortion decided not by the Feds -- there's not a word about it in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, and like other personal issues, it has no place on the Federal level -- but by the states.

Now, you may think that taking it from the Feds is bad for women and the Left, but since 6 states have, of their own volition, chosen to legalize gay marriage, I submit to you that a number of states would take a more liberal view of abortion rights, too. Palin's thinking in this regard is NOT outside the mainstream as you wish to claim. Certainly JMK is right when he says fully 2/3s of Americans stand solidly against partial birth abortions.

And on the death penalty, American opinion is more evenly divided than you claim as well.

I'm done on this one. I'll enjoy sitting back and reading what follows now.

And I still think you should start your own blog, Jane, considering to what lengths you're willing to comment here.

JMK said...

“I was talking about Palin's views on incest and rape. And those are insanity...”
<
<
No it’s not, UNLESS you’re judging “anything you disagree with as “insane”.

You don’t have the professional standing to make such judgments.

Judgments on sanity/insanity require a dual M.D./PhD., I know that as I’ve tried to get an exception based on the fact that I have a virtual photographic visual memory and numerous affidavits attesting to my “impeccable and flawless judgment” and my “calm under the most extreme of circumstances”. No such luck on the exception...so far, but those are indeed the required qualifications.

Moreover, THOSE views you deride as “insane” are EXACTLY those of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church defends those views this way, “As Pope Benedict XVI said in poetic fashion in his most recent encyclical on human life: “All human beings, from their mother’s womb, belong to God who searches them and knows them, who forms them and knits them together with his own hands, who gazes on them when they are tiny shapeless embryos and already sees in them the adults of tomorrow...” (The Gospel of Life, #61).

“In other words, human life is sacred, inviolable. It only makes sense, then, for the Church to reject all that violates this sacred gift, beginning with the direct destruction of innocent human life which is abortion.

“But the Catholic Church’s pro-life teachings are based not only on sacred Scripture about the divine creation and the divine destiny of human life. They are also based upon what is commonly called "natural law," the divine law written in our hearts and knowable by human reason. You might say that because of natural law, a person doesn’t have to be Catholic, Christian or even overtly religious to understand that human life is special among all creation and should not be violated by abortion. It is self-evident.”

“Many question why the Church won’t make specific exceptions for abortion when unborn children are conceived in rape or incest, or are disabled. They also feel that the Church is being unduly hard when it makes no exceptions for situations in which a mother will have her mental or physical health taxed as a result of carrying a baby to term and/or rearing the child. But consider the implications of making such exceptions. It would send them the message that people’s value depends upon their physical condition, the circumstances of their conception or others’ perception of them.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0898.asp

Whether one agrees or disagrees (I disagree, at least on first trimester abortion), that viewpoint is certifiably “sane” and mainstream, given that today, polls show 51% of Americans opposing abortion on demand.

JMK said...

<
<
"Today almost no one sees Capital Punishment as "cruel and unusual", which is a testament.." (JMK)
<
<
“That is quite an absurd standpoint. The majority of Americans would rather a murderer spend his entire life in jail than be executed. (Jane)
<
<
Your statement is not only factually WRONG, but woefully misguided, Jane.

Fortunately I can provide you with the proof of exactly where “the majority of Americans” stand on that issue;

“Overall, the data show that 67% of Americans supported the death penalty for convicted murderers in 2001. This percentage increased slightly to 71% in 2002, before dropping back to 67% in 2003. Results for this year show essentially no change since last year.”

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/gallup-poll-who-supports-death-penalty


“Since the late 1960s, public support for the death penalty has experienced significant rises and dips, but surveys show it has never fallen below 50%. In fact, during the past 40 years, support for capital punishment has remained relatively high, reaching a peak of 80% in 1994...

“...After peaking in the mid-1990s, the percentage of Americans in favor of capital punishment dropped, leveling off after 2000. Indeed, Pew Research Center surveys show that support for the death penalty for persons convicted of murder has fluctuated within a relatively narrow range of 62% to 68% since 2001, while opposition has ranged from 24% to 32% during this time.”

http://www.pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=272

SO, given that I’m right and you apparently were unaware of the facts in that instance, isn’t it more likely than not that such is the case in virtually all our exchanges???

It would certainly seem so.

JMK said...

<
<
For instance, fact is, David Dukes switched Parties so he could run in a weak Republican Primary.

Moreover, Hitler’s eugenics were born of and, ironically enough, REMAIN to this day a decidedly Left-wing viewpoint. Eugenics was favored among “progressives” in Britain, France and the USA. In the U.S. Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) was an avowed eugenicist.

She famously said, “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

"Lothrop Stoddard was on the board of directors (of Margaret Sanger's Population Association of America) for years.... He had an interview with Adolf Hitler and was very impressed by the German leader. His book, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, was written while he served on Sanger's board. Havelock Ellis, one of Sanger's extra-marital lovers, reviewed this...book favorably in The Birth Control Review".

At a March, 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man, far from being a Nazi or Klansman, was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Today Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are they being targeted?

Some HAVE gone so far as to have called that genocide.

For whatever reason, the fact is that today, blacks are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant.

Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today?"

Sanger and other “progressives” in America and elsewhere greatly admired their fellow traveler Adolph Hitler.

Hitler turned to Corporatism, rather than emulate the failed socialism that mired Stalin’s USSR in a veritable Third World poverty. Instead, Hitler emulated Mussolini’s Corporatist economic system.

It’s instructive to note that Benito Mussolini had been the head of Italy’s Socialist Party before leading Italy as a fascist.

JMK said...

“Wow. You're implying that animal lovers and environmentalists are like Hitler.” (Jane)
<
<
Whoa! The folks in domestic terror groups like ALF and ELF are in some ways, WORSE than the likes of Hitler and Stalin!

While BOTH Hitler and Stalin were merely dipshit utopians, the bestial humans in ALF and ELF revel in and celebrate EVIL and laud attacks on productive humans.

Again, the vast majority of rabid/devout “animal lovers” are also avowed “people haters”.
<
<
And finally, “the Right” had no reason to attack Clinton during the Democratic Primaries, they rightly wanted BOTH candidates to do as much damage to each other as possible.

So who DID attack Hillary Clinton?

Yup, the far-Left!

“It started the day Hillary announced her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination. Far left Democrats in New Hampshire, specifically Belknap County chair Lynn Chong and state representative Beth Arsenault, came out publicly to proclaim Hillary’s campaign DOA. The reason? Hillary’s refusal to “repudiate” her vote on the Iraq war.

“Just yesterday, that bastion of liberalism, The Washington Post, ran a column by Dana Milbank accusing the New York Senator of being trivial and trite. Milbank labeled Hillary “Candidate Cliché,” citing phrases from her March 8 speech at the Center for American Progress.

“Milbank failed to mention that Hillary had also made a substantive proposal, the “G.I. Bill of Rights,” which was reported by Associated Press, Newsday, The New York Sun, and the Los Angeles Times.

“There can be little doubt that this negative coverage from so-called “progressives” and liberal media outlets is payback for Hillary’s refusal to morph into John Edwards...”

http://rakesprogress.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/far-left-continues-attack-on-hillary-clinton/

Jane said...

"You insist Sarah Palin is an idiot for her words and beliefs;"

I already said that "idiot" was a strong word. I know many conservatives and republicans and I don't think they are idiots for their beliefs. I thought John McCain was a decent enough pick but he chose a poor running mate, and a lot of moderate republicans were alienated by his choice and the same goes today, it's why on some 20% of the population will call themselves republican. The GOP isn't accomodating of it's moderate base. Palin is not experienced or suited to become a president, maybe a seat in congress.

Regarding Palin's view on abortion, I'm against her personal views, her view that abortion shouldn't be allowed in cases of rape and incest. I'm also against her making Alaskan rape victims pay for their own investigation. I was trying to point out her own hypocrisy.

" I submit to you that a number of states would take a more liberal view of ...."

I think we just had a misunderstanding, I called Palin's belief that abortions shouldn't be allowed even in the cases of rape and incest. I didn't call pro-lifers insane.

"Fortunately I can provide you with the proof of exactly where “the majority of Americans” stand on that issue;"

Again you misinterpreted what I said. What you said is true and what I said is true as well. I just had a Criminal Law class and got my information directly from there.

"The majority of Americans would rather a murderer spend his life in jail than be executed. Also in the recession when it was found out that it cost tax payers more for a murderer on death row than it did for a murderer sentenced to life a large shift in opinion occured. In fact many states are looking to abolish the death penalty in their particular states, and not just blue states.
SO, given that I’m right and you apparently were unaware of the facts in that instance, isn’t it more likely than not that such is the case in virtually all our exchanges???

It would certainly seem so."

You weren't right, you simplified what I wrote and gave me facts supporting what I already claimed. I said that public opinion in America for capital punishment is high but the majority would RATHER life in prison. I also said that most western countries do view the death penalty as inhumane.

Concerning Hitler, like I said nazism took elements from the right and left, but got its support from the right. Liberals in Germany were the first targets of Hitler. This is all known and accepted facts, and the vast majority of historians label Hitler right wing.

But this is actually beside the point,we are talking about American politics and the American right and left wing. So it is irrelevant what Hitler's politics were because they are so far removed from anything in the US or in any other political ideology in Europe or the western world.

And finally regarding Hillary Clinton. She was and is attacked by right wing "pundits" and they are usually sexist in nature. The examples you gave me weren't even sexist, they were just criticism. Is that how right wingers label criticism of women, automatically sexist?

Skunkfeathers said...

Actually, Jane, you have a significant number of leftist pundits who scream "sexism" when Hillary is criticized, or Sonya Sotomayor is criticized; but they have no problem jumping all over Sarah Palin, or the former Miss California. Sexism is NOT restricted to The Right, and your inference that it is a right wing thing is silly and totally insupportable.

As for Hitler targetting primarily the Left in Germany, your chosen sources disingenuously spinning and slanting that argument to try to make Hitler another right wing whacko. But you miss the bus by trying to ride this argument, especially if you're touting such "historians" as Howard Zihn and Noam Chomsky, two proven Leftist historical revisionists and haters of all things conservative and capitalist. Hitler's support did not spring from just the Right, since he suppressed and undermined much of the Right in Germany as he did the Left, to get and maintain the firm grip on dictatorial power -- The Fuerher Princip -- that he obtained. Hitler went after the Right in his country with equal fervor, and adopted most of the tactics of socialism, communism, and the "whacko" elements of the Left in this country, to build, cement, and keep his power in Germany. And a large number of Hitler's followers were, themselves, socialist and liberal at heart, and believed that his program would rein in Big Business, the Jews, and bring them better lives. Again, if you want the real story on Nazi Germany, read Rise And Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer. You'll find it illuminating.

And you did say that Sarah Palin's ideas on abortion were insane, plain and simple. Whether I agree with her views on abortion or not, Sarah Palin isn't insane. I don't think you're insane, either, though I disagree with a number of your fundamental premises. Perhaps you think I'm insane because I don't see things your way? Of course you don't; but when you say that Sarah Palin's ideas on abortion are insane, you open a can of worms you can't defend or substantiate. You're better off to say that you fundamentally disagree with Sarah Palin's views, and why you do.

It'd be like me saying that Obama is insane for his foreign policy overtures to radical Islamists; Obama isn't insane, but I do believe in my heart that he is wrong-headed and we will pay a price of his naivete in foreign policy. But that doesn't make him insane.

Seane-Anna said...

Jane! I was very surprised to see you again. And I see you haven't changed a bit. You say you don't want to stoop to personal insults, but you said that AFTER calling Sarah Palin an idiot. Typical.

I'm not going to say much as JMK and Skunky are doing a better job of, ahem, handling you than I would. I will say this, though.

You claimed that Lincoln was a "progressive". I assume you say that because you think Honest Abe was on the same side of the slavery/race issue as modern liberals like to think they are. But dear Jane, you're wrong.

Abraham Lincoln wasn't quite the man most of us were taught to admire in school.

Lincoln did oppose slavery, but he was willing to accept it in some capacity if that's what it took to save the Union, his true objective. And in pursuit of his true objective Lincoln resorted to drastic measures.

He suspended habeus corpus rights for AMERICANS, not foreigners captured on the battlefield. He closed down opposition newspapers and he imprisoned thousands of his critics during the war. In short, Lincoln trashed the Constitution in order to win the Civil War.

Lincoln did all of the above, yet today he's considered a hero by most Americans, most notably your president. And therein lies the problem for you liberals.

If you're going to regard Lincoln as a hero despite his trashing the Constitution, then you have to lay off Bush, who didn't do half the unconstitutional things Lincoln--or FDR, another liberal god--did during war time. Intellectual honesty demands nothing less. Do you have that, Jane?

Jane said...

Thanks SA for the......history lesson but you aren't telling me anything I don't know.

I know Lincoln's personal views on slavery and his views on race, etc. But by those days standards he was progressive.

I find it funny that you WANT me to know that Lincoln was a racist/for slavery so you can claim him a conservative. Says a lot about you!

And yes I have come back and yes I called Sarah Palin an idiot, which I have numerous times now said was to strong. She is out of her league.

Jane said...

Skunky,

If my statements about Sarah Palin's views on abortion came out the way you are interpretting them it wasn't the intention.

All I meant to do was call her personal view on abortion insane, the part about rape and incest. That is all and nothing more.

"Actually, Jane, you have a significant number of leftist pundits who scream "sexism" when Hillary is criticized, or Sonya Sotomayor is criticized; but they have no problem jumping all over Sarah Palin, or the former Miss California. Sexism is NOT restricted to The Right, and your inference that it is a right wing thing is silly and totally insupportable."

Agreed. I think that the right and left both do it, just another side effect of the severe polarization of America. I never said sexism is not restricted to the right and nor is racism.


BTW SA,

Of course Lincoln was a great president! You act as if you have uncovered something amazing about him and that disproves all the wonderful things he has done. And are you really trashing FDR? God, you lose more and more credibility with every new word you spew.

Ignore my last post I think I misinterpreted what you wrote, perhaps it eluded me because of the weird angle you chose.

Seane-Anna said...

"I find it funny that you WANT me to know that Lincoln was racist/for slavery so you can claim him a conservative. Says a lot about you."

Ok, I was trying REALLY hard not to do this Jane, but you leave me no choice. DUMBASS!!!! No, wait, DISHONEST DUMBASS!!!!

When did I ever claim Lincoln as a conservative? YOU claimed him as a progressive. I just pointed out the intellectual dishonest of that. Lincoln was willing to tolerate slavery and believed Blacks were inferior to Whites, which was the majority view of his time, yet you say his views made Lincoln progressive. WTF?! John Brown was more "progessive" on slavery than dear ol' Abe.

And yes, I did criticize FDR. Where is it written than I can't?

The problem, which you refuse to see Jane, is that you liberals--indeed, most Americans--have made heroes out of men who are guilty of far more egregious civil rights abuses than George W. Bush, yet you've made Bush into the devil. That is inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus rights for AMERICANS, closed down opposition newspapers, and threw THOUSANDS of his critics in jail. FDR instituted severe censorship during WWII and put OVER ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Japanese, German, and Italian Americans and legal residents into detention camps for the duration of the war. FDR paid no attention to those people's habeus corpus rights.

You might argue that Lincoln and FDR did good things and that their unsavory acts should be seen in their proper context. Fine, but it's only fair that you do the same to Bush, which you won't because you're a liberal hater who doesn't have fairness in you when it comes to conservatives/Republicans.

Yes, I called you a hater. That's a more accurate designation for you, Jane, than dumbass, which I now rescind. You're not dumb, you're just a hater, and I think you always will be. Sigh.

Jane said...

SA,

I already said to ignore that post, misunderstanding and why do you have to make everything so childish.

"DISHONEST DUMBASS" in all caps even, am I supposed to get angry about this or feel sorry for how pathetic you can be?

"When did I ever claim Lincoln as a conservative? YOU claimed him as a progressive. I just pointed out the intellectual dishonest of that. Lincoln was willing to tolerate slavery and believed Blacks were inferior to Whites, which was the majority view of his time, yet you say his views made Lincoln progressive. WTF?! John Brown was more "progessive" on slavery than dear ol' Abe"

Lincoln was a progressive and a liberal for the time. If you look at the demographics of the time, Lincoln was strongly favored in the north, what has always been a liberal stronghold, and in the south he was hated and by conservatives as well. Yep, the slave-holders were against him as well, and the anti-immigration voters.

"And yes, I did criticize FDR. Where is it written than I can't? "

You can, but you're going to lose a lot of credibility if you do, FDR is always chosen as one of our best presidents, not by liberals, but by historians. Citing his handling of the depression and his handling of WWII.

They also cite Lincoln as one of our best, if anyone else was the president at the time we would most likely be two separate countries today.

"The problem, which you refuse to see Jane, is that you liberals--indeed, most Americans--have made heroes out of men who are guilty of far more egregious civil rights abuses than George W. Bush, yet you've made Bush into the devil. That is inconsistent and intellectually dishonest."

Like I said you lose more and more credibility with every new word...

If you are going to compare Bush II to FDR by those days standards obviously you can make anything possible.

I mean its incredible you are trying to tell me FDR was worse than Bush. How am I supposed to take you seriously, are you just yanking my chain?

"Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus rights for AMERICANS, closed down opposition newspapers, and threw THOUSANDS of his critics in jail. FDR instituted severe censorship during WWII and put OVER ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Japanese, German, and Italian Americans and legal residents into detention camps for the duration of the war. FDR paid no attention to those people's habeus corpus rights"

You mean these men weren't without faults? I thought they were supposed to be Gods *rolls eyes*.

You will do ANYTHING to fight, and you just come off as an....wait I promised I wouldn't say it.

Lincoln put the opposition in jail?

You mean because their was a war going on and they were most likely spies for the Confederacy?

You mean FDR put 1,000s of people in camps because of their race? Because at the time it was segregation was the norm and blacks were being lynched, etc. You would think America at that time would be more enlightened!

You are so stubborn you think historians' opinions are flawed because they are "liberal" and that you with your quick conservative thinking are more correct. IDI....oops almost let it slip :)

Anonymous said...

After reading some of your posts over the last couple days, all I can say is:

for the sake of all that is good in the world, I hope with all my heart that you have not reproduced.

Seane-Anna said...

Anonymous, FUCK YOU!

JMK said...

“I thought John McCain was a decent enough pick but he chose a poor running mate, and a lot of moderate republicans were alienated by his choice and the same goes today, it's why on some 20% of the population will call themselves republican. The GOP isn't accomodating of it's moderate base. Palin is not experienced or suited to become a president, maybe a seat in congress.” (Jane)
<
<
There is no “moderate base” of the GOP.

The GOP is comprised of appx 85% of Americans who are largely Conservative, what is commonly called the GOP’s Conservative base and about 15% “Moderate Republicans”, also called “the Rockefeller-wing” or “Country Club Republicans”.

Those Country Club Republicans were the original “Progressives” in America. Herbert Hoover, was in fact, the FIRST “Progressive President of the USA”. Hoover, inanely believed in the view that “Every problem has a scientific solution, best implemented by a powerful and benevolent government”.

That is not only a crazy idea, it’s a failed one as well.

Moreover, it’s the Moderate-wing of the GOP, the Rockefeller-wing that lost in 2008! McCain, like the Doles, Whitman’s and Bush’s, was a very Moderate Republican. 2008 was a repudiation of Moderate/liberal Republicanism.

Consider that since Dick Cheney’s taken to vocally criticizing the Obama administration’s return to the failed “criminal justice approach to terrorism”, his approval numbers have gone from 27% while in office to 38% today.

That seems to indicate that a lot of Americans are angry with Republicans who’ve failed to challenge liberal policies.
<
<
<
<
“Regarding Palin's view on abortion, I'm against her personal views, her view that abortion shouldn't be allowed in cases of rape and incest. I'm also against her making Alaskan rape victims pay for their own investigation. I was trying to point out her own hypocrisy.” (Jane)
<
<
Again, as I showed, Palin’s view on opposing abortion even in cases of rape and incest is EXACTLY that of the Catholic Church.

I don’t see any hypocrisy here.

Sarah Palin supported her own daughter having a child out-of-wedlock, which is completely consistent with her pro-LIFE views.
<
<
<
<
"Fortunately I can provide you with the proof of exactly where “the majority of Americans” stand on that issue;" (JMK)
<
<
“Again you misinterpreted what I said. What you said is true and what I said is true as well. I just had a Criminal Law class and got my information directly from there. "The majority of Americans would rather a murderer spend his life in jail than be executed. Also in the recession when it was found out that it cost tax payers more for a murderer on death row than it did for a murderer sentenced to life a large shift in opinion occured. In fact many states are looking to abolish the death penalty in their particular states, and not just blue states.”
<
<
Not at all.

I showed you the polls that proved that around 2/3s of Americans still support Capital Punishment.

While I agree with some, like Virginia Senator Jim Webb, that prison should be reserved for violent criminals, some crimes (murder, child rape, etc.) warrant the death penalty.

What I and many of the rest of that 2/3s of Americans who support the death penalty would like is a change to the way death penalty cases are dealt with; (1) DNA proof would be REQUIRED in ALL such convictions and (2) in light of that DNA evidence, appeals would be limited to a maximum of one appeal...and things like “diminished mental capacity” would NOT be grounds for such appeals – nearly all violent criminals are illiterate, most are severely emotionally disturbed and some even mentally ill, BUT the U.S. justice system merely requires that a person knows the difference between right and wrong, which allows the illiterate, the emotionally disturbed and many mildly mentally handicapped to be executed...I really can’t imagine many sensible people having a problem with that.

JMK said...

“...regarding Hillary Clinton. She was and is attacked by right wing "pundits" and they are usually sexist in nature.” (Jane)
<
<
The Right DID NOT attack Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Primaries! Conservative pundits savaged her (rightly so) virtually all other times, because she's a lightening rod for Conservative revulsion....whatever works and the name "Hillary" works at firing up the base!

Bottom-line, Hillary Clinton is RIGHTLY a hated and reviled figure among even moderate Conservatives and she is considered far worse than that to very Conservative people.

Hey what can you say?! They hold a grudge against her Imelda Marcos-styled “Hillarycare” and her inane "vast Right-wing conspiracy" charge.

Hillary was SLIMED and SMEARED during the Democratic Primaries by the far-Left, which was a sound political strategy in my view.
<
<
<
<
“The examples you gave me weren't even sexist, they were just criticism. Is that how right wingers label criticism of women, automatically sexist?” (Jane)
<
<
What?!

Every lathario knows that the best way to get chicks and make them completely dependent on you is to constantly criticize, demean and make them feel insecure about themselves...most liberal and conservative guys know that.

Of course, I’m way too nice a guy to have ever engaged in that strategy, effective as it seems to be, but that strategy is so widespread that many people refer to it as "just a guy thing" now-a-days.

But the fact is, Hillary Clinton went out of her way to anger and alienate Conservatives with her “Hillarycare” and her “vast Right-wing conspiracy” comments. Turns out that was a poor strategy, given that in virtually all polls Conservatives outnumber Liberals by 33% to 19%.

But during the Democratic Primaries, Conservative pundits didn’t really address EITHER Hillary OR Obama very much, hoping that both would mortally wound each other...a sound strategy that failed because, among other reasons, a Moderate (Country Club) Republican (McCain) ran a pathetically uninspiring campaign.

Anonymous said...

No thanks, S-A. I'm sure you're pretty lousy in the sack.

JMK said...

"FDR is always chosen as one of our best presidents, not by liberals, but by historians. Citing his handling of the depression and his handling of WWII." (Jane)
<
<
Lincoln (saving the Union), Jefferson (expanding America and confronting enemies abroad - the Barbary pirates), Teddy Roosevelt (Trust Busting and expanding America), Washington (shunning the imperial Presidency and setting the two term example) and James K Polk (expanded America to the Pacific Ocean) are usually the Preidents few disagree on their greatness.

FDR is NOT among those.

Under FDR the Depression worsened UNTIL WW II which put some 14 MILLION American men "back to work" killing Germans and Japanese - "Not bad work if you can get it", as they used to say.

Yes, on the plus side, he DID intern thousands of pesky Japanese-Americans, German-Americans and a number of Italian-Americans as well, but it was (1) "all in good fun" and (2) done in light of some very serious national security concerns.

FDR continued the alphabet soup begun under Hoover (the first "Progressive" U.S. President) and he also continued Hoover's flirtation with Corporatism. Alfred Sloan, then CEO of GM eagerly embraced a partnership with government and it paid off with the federal government eradicating competition out of that marketplace (see Preston Tucker) one of his cars can be seen here: http://www.150.si.edu/150trav/imagine/m611.htm

That Corporatism culminated in the near two decade reign of Keynesianism that ran from LBJ's tenure, which began in late 1963 thru Jimmy Carter's tenure that mercifully ended in 1981.

During that period inflation grew steadily, as did unemployment and interest rates, culminating in the WORST U.S. economy since the Great Depression - the STAGFLATION (double digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates) Jimmy Carter presided over.

Jane said...

JMK,

no moderates? There are moderates in both parties, maybe their aren't anymore moderates because of alienation but there used to be. And I'm talking about the here and now, not historically.

Regarding the Deathy Penaly.

yes, in fact the number of American support for the death penalty is decreasing, which shouldn't be surprising with the current demograhic trends. And yes, not only blue states are looking to abolish the death penalty but some red states as well for economic reasons.

My personal view on the death penalty:

I think it should be illegal, not because it isn't ethical but because I believe it is more of a punishment to spend life in jail than it is to be executed. My belief has only strengthened after it was revealed that the death penalty cost more than life in prison.

Oh and what you said about McCain, yep, he tried to appeal to more conservatives members of his party but picking Sarah Palin. Hence alienating a lot of his party.

"Consider that since Dick Cheney’s taken to vocally criticizing the Obama administration’s return to the failed “criminal justice approach to terrorism”, his approval numbers have gone from 27% while in office to 38% today."

Dick Cheney's approval rating would be rising almost no matter what, it is a known fact that most officials out of office gain some respect back, especially from their own party who is upset with the current administration. Forgetfulness mostly.

Seane-Anna said...

Now to you Jane, 'cause you're more important than some cowardly libtard who won't even leave his/her/its name.

Jane, I'm beginning to think that you insist on calling Lincoln a progressive simply because he's presented as a great president and a great man and you're desperate to claim someone good as being on your team. But here is wisdom, Jane, if you can handle it.

Accepting slavery and believing that any race is inferior or superior to another race are NOT progressive opinions in ANY place or time. Lincoln believed both those things. If that makes him a progressive then Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and other key Confederate warriors and politicians were also progressive because they believed the same thing Lincoln did. And no, I don't expect you to grasp that.

And if Lincoln was hated or opposed only in the South, then why did he close down NORTHERN newspapers? Why did he imprison 13,000 NORTHERN critics? Oh yeah, those people were all Confederate spies. I forgot. Silly me.

And just how do I lose credibility by criticizing FDR? Remember Jane, it was YOU who, on Jean's blog, extolled the virtues of criticism. You claimed that criticizing America was the ONLY way to be a good citizen. What happened to that song and dance, Jane?

The hard, cold truth is that FDR and Lincoln both violated Americans' constitutional rights in far worse ways than Bush.

Lincoln closed down newspapers that opposed him. Bush closed down NO newspapers, even when they revealed our strategy against our enemies.

Lincoln put 13,000 Americans in jail for criticizing him. Bush put NO ONE in jail for criticizing him.

FDR put over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Japanese, German, and Italian Americans and legal residents in detention camps, without due process, during WWII. Bush did NOT round up 100,000 Muslim Americans and throw them into camps just for being Muslim like the 9/11 terrorists.

You tell me, Jane. Do you really think that waterboarding 3 Muslim nutjobs is worse than imprisoning over 100,000 men, women, and children for the "crime" of being the same ethnicity as the people we were at war with?

Jane, if you're going to cut FDR some slack because he did his unsavory deeds during wartime, then fairness demands that you do the same for Bush because he authorized waterboarding during war time.

And if you say that waterboarding is different because it violates America's values, well, so does throwing 100,000 people, including children, into camps without charge. That's what FDR did and he's a god. Bush waterboarded 3 terrorists, and he's the devil. Yeah, Jane, there's something a tad bit Orwellian about that.

Jane said...

"Jane, I'm beginning to think that you insist on calling Lincoln a progressive simply because he's presented as a great president and a great man and you're desperate to claim someone good as being on your team. But here is wisdom, Jane, if you can handle it."

No, because it's historical fact. I mean, in your face historical fact.

"Accepting slavery and believing that any race is inferior or superior to another race are NOT progressive opinions in ANY place or time. Lincoln believed both those things. If that makes him a progressive then Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and other key Confederate warriors and politicians were also progressive because they believed the same thing Lincoln did. And no, I don't expect you to grasp that."

Your a cherry picker, he was a progressive by those day's standards just like Jefferson was a progressive AND a slave owner!

Lincoln is also consistently ranked the best president in our history!

He cherished the Union more than he cared for the end of slavery. If it meant keeping slavery to uphold the union he would do that. This doesn't make his actions any less great.

"You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it."

"I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist."

"Now I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil..."

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling"


SA you have no argument against Lincoln or FDR for that matter. For their greatness outweighs the bad and historians agree which is why they have monuments and are used as role models to current politicians.

"And if Lincoln was hated or opposed only in the South, then why did he close down NORTHERN newspapers? Why did he imprison 13,000 NORTHERN critics? Oh yeah, those people were all Confederate spies. I forgot. Silly me."

There was a war going on, one of the most serious conflicts our nation has ever faced and he had to do what he thought was best and I think he accomplished that. I am not going to have a debate about past presidents, their actions have already been set in stone, you can't change my opinion.

"FDR put over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Japanese, German, and Italian Americans and legal residents in detention camps, without due process, during WWII. Bush did NOT round up 100,000 Muslim Americans and throw them into camps just for being Muslim like the 9/11 terrorists."

The world was a vastly different place and yes because of progressives we have moved away from all of that, just like blacks don't drink from separate fountains etc etc.

FYI there were MANY conservatives who would have loved to see muslims put in such camps. Thank god Bush had past lessons to learn from!

Stop trying to make comparisons between two entirely different points of history.

Bush will forever be known by historians as a greedy, war mongering, irresponsible idiot who helped cause all of the problems we are in to day. All the human rights violations will be an added bonus. I can almost guarentee you this.

Skunkfeathers said...

Yes, Jane, YOU could guarantee your hate-filled scree on Bush if YOU were writing his historical footnotes. But you aren't. History a generation from now will do that, and will take a more level-headed, even-handed look at the man, the politics, the times and the results. I don't reckon he'll wind up as our greatest president by any stretch, nor in the top 10; but I don't expect he'll be as slimed as you have portrayed him. As you said about Lincoln, there was -- and is -- a war on, and Bush did what he thought was best. I don't like everything he did, but we did not get attacked again under his watch. I know you'd like to overlook that, but that is, as you like to put it, an "in your face fact" as well.

Deep breath and relax, Jane.

Seane-Anna said...

Jane, like I said, you are a rabid hater who's view of Bush is perverted by your crazed animous much like the way the Nazis' view of Jews was perverted by their equally crazed anti-Semitism.

I understand now that you will NEVER be fair to Bush because your entire moral foundation hinges on hating the man.

Jane, you don't want to debate past presidents because doing so exposes you as a rank hypocrite.

You excuse the human rights violations of Lincoln and FDR on grounds that they occurred during wartime. Well, Bush's hard decisions were also made DURING WARTIME, yet you cut him no slack at all. And when I say wartime, I don't mean the Iraq War, I mean the jihad that Islamic fundamentalists have been waging against us at least since the 1979 Iran hostage crisis.

Jane, you are hopeless. You've given yourself over to hate. I really don't know why you come to my blog since you obviously don't come with an open mind. I'm not saying I don't want you to stop by and comment, I'm just saying I don't understand why you do. But hey, keep coming if you want. I'll definitely be here to put you in your place.

Jane said...

"Yes, Jane, YOU could guarantee your hate-filled scree on Bush if YOU were writing his historical footnotes. But you aren't. History a generation from now will do that, and will take a more level-headed, even-handed look at the man, the politics, the times and the results. I don't reckon he'll wind up as our greatest president by any stretch, nor in the top 10; but I don't expect he'll be as slimed as you have portrayed him. As you said about Lincoln, there was -- and is -- a war on, and Bush did what he thought was best. I don't like everything he did, but we did not get attacked again under his watch. I know you'd like to overlook that, but that is, as you like to put it, an "in your face fact" as well."

No, history will tell the true story and Bush will forever be known for what he truly is. I'm sorry but that is just common sense.

"Deep breath and relax, Jane."

Lol, I'm relaxed.

"Jane, like I said, you are a rabid hater who's view of Bush is perverted by your crazed animous much like the way the Nazis' view of Jews was perverted by their equally crazed anti-Semitism"

LOL, this is just getting really silly.


"I understand now that you will NEVER be fair to Bush because your entire moral foundation hinges on hating the man."

I'm entirely fair in my judgement, I see him for who he really is, just like most of the worlds sees him for who he really is save for a small sliver of the American population who believes against all facts that he was a good president.

"You excuse the human rights violations of Lincoln and FDR on grounds that they occurred during wartime. Well, Bush's hard decisions were also made DURING WARTIME, yet you cut him no slack at all. And when I say wartime, I don't mean the Iraq War, I mean the jihad that Islamic fundamentalists have been waging against us at least since the 1979 Iran hostage crisis."

No I didn't excuse their human rights violations because it was war time, I didn't excuse their human rights violatiosn at all. And it wasn't their way of thinking but EVERYONE'S thinking, it was the way it was back then.

Lincoln was against slavery but he had racist beliefs. That was forward thinking back then considering most looked at blacks little higher than brutes.

Truman sent thousands of people into camps, as did the Canadian govt. Would you expect anything else? From a country that segregated it's population? Turned a blind eye to sufferings of its minorities?

Yes, what they did is awful by today's standards and it's good that you can recognize it as such but that doesn't mean they weren't good presidents.

Oh and back on topic:

Please watch this video about Palin's crazy fan boys and girls and try to tell me in all honesty it doesn't make you a little sick.

http://wonkette.com/409245/the-letterman-protest-nuts-youve-been-hearing-about

Skunkfeathers said...

Jane, you're wrong about Bush, and that is what history will say; but I'm sure you'll find yourself a hysterian who'll call it the way you want it to be. That's your baby.

It appears your idea of what is common sense, and mine, will be forever at odds, especially since your idea of common sense is ideological, and mine is practical.

Jane said...

"Jane, you're wrong about Bush, and that is what history will say; but I'm sure you'll find yourself a hysterian who'll call it the way you want it to be. That's your baby."

History will serve as the ultimate judge and I am pretty confident the world's opinion will not change.

Jane, you're wrong about Bush, and that is what history will say; but I'm sure you'll find yourself a hysterian who'll call it the way you want it to be. That's your baby.

"It appears your idea of what is common sense, and mine, will be forever at odds, especially since your idea of common sense is ideological, and mine is practical."

That's a very false accusation. My statement about Bush is clear, he was a BAD president and history will see him as such. But for some reason you believe that Bush will be known as a good president. Fine, whatever. It doesn't come from common sense, that comes from ideological ties.

Skunkfeathers said...

As I said, you believe me wrong, and I believe you wrong. Impasse. One the next generation will have to settle, when the current day events have played out, and their historical implications are no longer implications, but demonstrated history.

Jane said...

Correct!

Skunkfeathers said...

We agreed on something? LOL..the Apocalypse must be here.