Posted by Tina
What? She actually said that? In essence she did. Her name is Hilary Rosen and she is a lobbyist and Democrat operative. Her lobbying firm advises the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and she was speaking about Mitt Romney’s wife Ann in typical feminist form. Quotes from the CNN Rosen interview at Daily Mail:
‘What you have is, Mitt Romney running around the country saying, ‘Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues,’ she said. ‘And when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.'”
‘Guess what: his wife has never really worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kind of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future.’
She continued: ‘There’s something much more fundamental about Mitt Romney.
‘He seems so old-fashioned when it comes to women, and I think that comes across, and I think that that’s going to hurt him over the long term. He just doesn’t really see us as equal.’
Ms Rosen’s comments are inappropriate and offensive, as David Axelrod in full damage control mode, frantically tweeted following Rosen’s snide remarks. However, the damage has already been done. Ms Rosen’s remarks denigrate women generally. Women should take note; there is a strong attitude of disdain for women who stay home and raise children in the Democrat Party that began with the feminist movement and it is destroying our country.
Women once played an extremely important role in the home. In fact, I assert there is no job that is more difficult or important than raising future generations of citizens to become honest, productive, responsible, contributing members of society. Since the feminist movement began our nation has experienced a rise in dysfunctional and attitudinal problems at home and at school; rising crime; increased alcohol and drug use; gang activity, and failed marriages. It may be time to take another look at the value of motherhood and stay at home moms. Motherhood, in terms of creating a society of citizens able to contribute, produce, and care for themselves, rather than depending on government handouts, is PRICELESS. The value is immeasurable!
A webpage entitled mommyish:
Imagine if Rush Limbaugh said women’s opinions on the economy are worthless if they’re stay-at-home moms. Imagine if he said that women who raise children to adulthood “never worked a day” in their lives.
Indeed!
There is so much more to discover in this story…I hope the researchers in our Post Scripts family will go for it.
This is nothing new. John Kerry’s wife said the same thing about Laura Bush not ever working. But Laura Bush was a librarian, so of course they were wrong.
Rosen’s point was that Mitt Romney’s wife never had to work unlike mothers who struggle to balance jobs and family because they can’t afford to live on only one income. So why did she have to frame it as “never worked a single day in her life.” Ridiculous.
I just don’t understand why the fight for these elections has to go after the family. Why can’t these pundits leave wives and children alone?
If you are not reading James Taranto, you are reading squat.
The Battle Of All Mothers
Hilary Rosen and the misogynistic foundation of contemporary feminism.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577339852145321024.html?KEYWORDS=The+Battle+of+All+Mothers
Re: “Rosen’s point was that Mitt Romney’s wife never had to work etc.”
Rosen’s “point” was what she said, not what you imagine she said.
http://www.alexashrugged.com/2012/04/war-on-women-like-ann-romney.html
Princess: “Rosen’s point was that Mitt Romney’s wife never had to work unlike mothers who struggle to balance jobs and family because they can’t afford to live on only one income.”
That’s what I got from it too. It was wrong of Rosen to say that Ann Romney has never worked, because that’s obviously not true. But right after saying that, she clarified what she meant when she said that Romney has “never really dealt with the kind of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future.”
That’s not an attack on Ann Romney for being a stay-at-home mom; it’s a reminder that Ann Romney had a lot of privileges in her life that most moms, stay-at-home or not, do not have. That doesn’t make her a bad person, Rosen is just saying that these experiences put her out of touch with most American women. Not because she’s a stay-at-home mom, but because she’s incredibly wealthy.
But Rosen shouldn’t have brought Romney’s wife into it in the first place.
If you watch the whole segment, not just one sentence, the subject was about struggling families and how Ann Romney doesn’t know what it is like for a mother to struggle. I am not imagining the conversation, I watched it happen.
If we continue to reduce conversations to one single sentence we are no different than the left. Rosen was still totally disrespectful and way out of line. But it doesn’t change the fact that families are struggling, and they can’t get by on one income these days. Every working mother I know (including myself) would have rather stayed home with their children than work outside the home. It just isn’t an option many of us have. The right alienates these families when we start implying that women work for luxuries. We work to pay mortgages, PG&E, cable, gas, and other bills. I don’t think very many conservatives would argue that the Romney family hasn’t exactly struggled the same way many of us have throughout the years.
The whole pundit news thing is just bizarre to me. Hilary Rosen is a washed-up pundit who worked on Clinton’s failed campaign for president. She and her buddy Carville are nobodies. So why does CNN think they need so much air time giving us their very important opinions as “news.” Every network does this. The same jack-asses are on every night as “experts” on every single subject. Their opinions are not exactly news, and because this is what passes for journalism there is no investigating or reporting of actual crimes anymore.
Princess: “Rosen’s point was that Mitt Romney’s wife never had to work”
I don’t think so and this point is incredibly important because the Romneys had no money when they started out. They were students working on their degrees. They also “started out” through thr seventies when inflation was outta sight…stay at home moms were wrestling with food and energy prices putting big strains on the family budget. To say she “never had to deal with the kind of economic issues…” shows she said this without any knowledge about the Romneys early life. It also shows a mean streak and a terrible attitude toward a family that gives and gives. Hating the rich or being envious is just stupid and petty.
“Why can’t these pundits leave wives and children alone?”
Good question.
Hilary Rosen is an adviser to Barack Obama.
Hilary Rosen sought to degrade Ann Romney and thought that was a valid political point. Of course, the notion that Ann Romney does not know, and can not know what it means to be a working mom trying to make ends meet is absolute nonsense. Anyone who spews such nonsense is operating on pure conjecture. Or at least thinks it plays to some dope class of Americans who they imagine might swallow such egregious class warfare canards. (Oh wait, that is what progressives do, excuse me.)
Keep up the spouting of DNC talking points Princess, like your wincing, vomit inducing tripe that “The right alienates these families”. Obviously that is where you excel.
And tell us Chris, just EXACTLY why should we be reminded that Ann Romney has had a lot of “privileges”. When Senator Obama was drawing over 100K a year his wife was making three times that in a cushy job created the old fashioned Chicago Way Democrat party machine. Where were you with the reminders? Eh?
Chris, do we actually need to be reminded of that or did you just forget to mention it?
Pie Guevara: “Rosen’s “point” was what she said, not what you imagine she said.”
Funny you say that to Princess, but not to Tina, whose headline for this article is pulled completely out of her imagination. Rosen never said “Moms are idiots and shouldn’t participate,” or anything close to that. Claiming that she said this is not just a display of imagination–it’s a flat-out lie.
Tina: “I don’t think so and this point is incredibly important because the Romneys had no money when they started out.”
I was surprised to find out that this is true, since Mitt’s father was very wealthy at the time. Yet when Mitt and Ann first married, they lived in a small basement apartment. Mitt also served as a missionary and lived in pretty bare conditions during his service. Much of what I read about Mitt Romney during this period of his life shows that he has some very admirable qualities.
Ann Romney has also worked with many volunteer organizations. There’s no question in my mind now that Rosen’s statement was morally wrong as well as factually incorrect. She has since apologized for it, or so I have read.
“Hating the rich or being envious is just stupid and petty.”
I don’t see hatred or envy toward the rich in Rosen’s comments. She was saying that the Romneys’ wealth makes them out of touch with the hardships of Americans. Looking into their young adulthoods, it seems they may know a bit more than Rosen (and myself, and many other liberals) first thought.
Romney still makes a lot of oblivious statements which make him look very elitist. Rosen could have focused on these, but instead decided to drag his family into it. That was wrong, and she made herself look foolish.
Pie: “And tell us Chris, just EXACTLY why should we be reminded that Ann Romney has had a lot of “privileges”. When Senator Obama was drawing over 100K a year his wife was making three times that in a cushy job created the old fashioned Chicago Way Democrat party machine. Where were you with the reminders? Eh?
Chris, do we actually need to be reminded of that or did you just forget to mention it?”
No, I have no problem with you pointing out the connection between wealth and power among most of our elected representatives, on both the left and the right. I think that is a huge problem and it’s one I am glad is getting more attention lately, due mostly to the efforts of Occupy Wall Street.
Re: I have no problem with you pointing out the connection between wealth and power among most of our elected representatives, on both the left and the right. I think that is a huge problem and it’s one I am glad is getting more attention lately,
************************************************
due mostly to the efforts of Occupy Wall Street.
************************************************
Not thanks mostly due to “progressives”?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks, I needed that grasshopper.
Funny this. Chris and I can’t even agree on grammar. Is it *due mostly* to his foolish youth, or *mostly due* to my curmudgeon annoyance of foolish youth?
Here Chris may have it right.
Do we *boldly go* or *go boldly*?
Captain Kirk (and Gene Roddenberry) got it wrong.
Princess: “I don’t think very many conservatives would argue that the Romney family hasn’t exactly struggled the same way many of us have throughout the years.”
This just isn’t true. The Romneys were not rich when they were young and they experienced the same kind of struggles that any other family faces.
Rosen is an advisor and as such should be aware of the background of the candidates enough to know better than to say something so ntotally wrong and petty to boot.
Chris: “but not to Tina, whose headline for this article is pulled completely out of her imagination. Rosen never said “Moms are idiots and shouldn’t participate,” or anything close to that. Claiming that she said this is not just a display of imagination–it’s a flat-out lie.”
Is it?
I didn’t pull the headline out of my imagination and in my next breath I said she said that “in essence”. Why did I think she said it?
She was referring to comments made by Romney:
And then she said:
If that isn’t an implication that as a stay at home mother she has no business advising her husband about economic issues that mothers care about, I don’t know how much clearer she would need to be. “In essence” she was saying if you have never worked in your life you don’t know anything and therefore you have nothing to contribute on economic issues.
Time for Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Lest we forget, it was Obama who launched the attack on Ann Romney —
Obama might suck as a president, but when it comes to campaigning and message discipline, this White House knows what it’s doing (it doesnt hurt to have the MSM carrying your water, either). Speaking of his wife Michelle just a few days prior to Rosen’s attack, President Obama launched a little theme that should sound familiar after last night’s fireworks:
“And once Michelle and I had our girls, she gave it her all to balance raising a family and pursuing a career–and something that could be very difficult on her, because I was gone a lot.
Once I was in the state legislature, I was teaching, I was practicing law, I’d be traveling, he said. And we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/12/Obama-Started-Attack-On-Ann-Romney
Tina,
Do you have the same respect for Welfare Moms, who don’t work to care for their children?
Tina, I think it’s very clear that Rosen was not criticizing Ann Romney simply for being a stay-at-home mother, but for being a very WEALTHY stay-at-home mother. She makes that clear when she talks about the economic issues she thinks Romney has never faced. Most stay-at-home moms of course have to deal with the issues Rosen mentioned.
But again, I agree that her comments were wrong and inaccurate. Practically the whole Democratic Party and their mothers have all apologized now.
I do think it’s interesting that, from what I’ve seen, Rosen’s comments are getting way more attention in both the conservative and the mainstream media than what Allen West said the other day.
West said, I believe theres about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party that are members of the Communist Party.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-democrats-are-commies-20120411,0,1232324.story
This absurd, false accusation was IMO far worse than what Rosen said. Is West lying, or is he actually stupid enough to believe this? Either way, as the LA Times article points out, it’s only a small step away from most of the rhetoric coming from the right wing these days.
We all must demand more honesty and dignity from both sides of the aisle if we want to have a healthy democracy.
Pie Guevara, that’s some imagination you have.
You say the comments were wrong but you sure do carry her water. So I guess they were not too wrong, right?
Jim: “Do you have the same respect for Welfare Moms, who don’t work to care for their children?”
Jim this is an excellent question. Why does the left seem to revere women on welfare but not wealthy Republican women? Why do they praise as brave women like Elizabeth Edwards who faced cancer but denigrate Ann Romney who faces both cancer and Multiple Schlerosis? Why do leftist feminists attack with such ugly venom, Sarah Palin, who worked, raised a family, served in her community, and had great success as the governor of Alaska but fall all over themselves to praise Hillary Clinton who achieved much of her status by being the wife of Bill Clinton? As for me…
I try hard to avoid evaluating people according to class or status. I know of a welfare mom who is perfectly capable of working yet has made it her life’s work, as did her parents, to access government assistance to live. She has seven children, all by different men. I don’t appreciate this woman’s ethic in any way shape or form. She has lived her life as a bottom feeder taking from those who work and using men as sperm donors to line her pockets. The role of husband is played by a generous but distant government bureaucracy…no responsibility and no committment involved. On the other hand I know there are women who are on welfare and want to do better. Whoopie Goldberg was this woman. She had a strong ethic of personal responsibility and found a way to make it on her own. There are also moms on welfare that are working hard to lift themselves out of government dependency and I’m certain that they are nothing less than heroic. So I guess the answer to your question is, it depends.
Ann Romney didn’t start out in her marriage as a wealthy woman. She and her husband worked together as a team to raise and care for their family and, as we have discovered, no matter what their success they also contributed personally to the lives of others. Ann Romney did work outside her home. She worked as a volunteer which is certainly equivalent to holding a paying job in terms of experience. Of course she is aware of the different economic challenges that families, including working mothers in every class, are facing in this horrible economy.
And that is the larger point here isn’t it? Financial status does not determine a persons awareness, intelligence, value, creativity, work ethic, or any other aspect of their being. The lefts constant barage of class warfare, their incessant efforts to label republicans as rich and uncaring is deplorable and meant for only one thing: divide and conquer. They have used it to buy votes.
I have criticized our welfare system. I criticize it because it is structured to encourage generational dependency and because it is padded with duplicate programs that require big, inefficient bureaucracies. That means a lot of tax money that could be spent to actually lift people out of poverty is instead simply wasted. It means that democrats have the opportunity to paly the class warfare game and use the system and our tax dollars to create a loyal voter block. So you could say that they need people to remain ignorant and dependent and that disgusts me. Too many Americans are duped by the we are the compassionate ones rhetoric and that disappoints me. Americans used to be more wiley that that!
There are a few people in DC that are sincerely attempting to turn the monstrous hungry beast of government around but not with enough passion and certaqinly not enough backing from the people. We want government to be fit, lean and strong…a government more fitting our American tradition.
I know that’s a lot more than you asked for, Jim, but I hope somewhere in that diatribe you got your excellent questioned answered 😉
Chris to Princess: ” Rosen is just saying that these experiences put her out of touch with most American women. Not because she’s a stay-at-home mom, but because she’s incredibly wealthy.”
I disagree but, if that is what she was saying it is really dumb!
It does expose how progressive people think. They have put a lot of distance between themseves and the sentiment in MLK’s DREAM speech where he hoped for the day when his children would be judged by the content of their character. Progressives don’t think in terms of character but in terms of groups. People are not individuals but members of classes, groups, and cliques.
Progressives see that Ann Romney is in the wealthy group. Therefore she no longer has the capacity to care or notice the conditions that exist in the world. They have relegated her to some subhuman form. As a wealthy person though she has endured hardships like cancer, multiple schlerosis, a child with a high fever, people around her that have great need she is no longer a sister. Her wealth removes the human capacity to have empathy and the common sense to know that prices are going up on everyday items like gasoline, bread, milk, cheese, and meat.
In truth the Romney wealth is irrelavent except for the fact that they don’t NEED this job for personal gain on any level.
Chris: “This absurd, false accusation was IMO far worse than what Rosen said. Is West lying, or is he actually stupid enough to believe this? Either way, as the LA Times article points out, it’s only a small step away from most of the rhetoric coming from the right wing these days.”
I wouldn’t have said what he said withoutnproof in hand to back it up.
However…if we judge our congress persons on what they do and what they believe we should do as a nation I think a cvery good case can be made and has been made that Marx is the man they admire and wish to bring to our shores. I think their methods have proven to be near exact replicas of revolution waged for social change that has always been the basis of Marxist politics.
No I don’t thin his remarks are more outrageous.
“We all must demand more honesty and dignity from both sides of the aisle if we want to have a healthy democracy.”
In general I agree. I have to say that honest discussion and dignified adherence t agreements made have not been among the arrows in the democrat quiver. I’m not holding my breath.
Pie re Breitbart vid…she and the President certainly have benefiited from both political and government largess to get to where they are now. How is their “experience” different from the Romneys earning their way to position and wealth?
Shall we count the ways?
Toby, excellent point!
Tina, Thank you for your thoughtful response.
It’s rare that you run into someone who has never held a job. I worked part time as a teenager, and worked my way through college. I know a single mom, who is working her way through college in engineering, which I find very impressive. Of course not everyone is capable of doing this.
About 80% of moms work. Long gone are the days where one paycheck can support most households. So Ann Romney’s situation is unusual. Few have that luxury these days.
I’ve notice many on welfare are the kind that have a hard time finding a job. In this economy it’s hard for many people to find work. Your example of the welfare mom with seven kids is very unfortunate. However what did you expect her to do, get abortions when she became pregnant?
The situation of people on welfare is complex. However we need to keep in mind that welfare is there to support the children. As a society we have decided that we don’t want kids to live in poverty. We feel that the kids deserve food, shelter and medical care. I’m proud that we live in the kind of country like this.
Tina: “No I don’t thin his remarks are more outrageous.”
Of course you don’t. He’s a Republican. He could have accused Barack Obama of being a serial child rapist and you still wouldn’t think the accusation more sinister than a Democrat using a red toothbrush.
Even if you believe that horsepucky about “bringing Marxism to our shores,” Marxism is not Communism. And even if West had simply called people Communists, that could be justified as being his opinion; an uninformed, idiotic opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.
Instead, he said that about 80 Democratic members of Congress were actual members of the Communist Party. That’s not an opinion; that’s an assertion that can be easily verified as either true or false.
The fact is that not a single member of Congress is a member of the Communist Party. Not. One.
Either West was too stupid to research this claim before he repeated it in public, or he was flat-out lying. Actually, either way, he is stupid; these days it is more politically damaging to be accused of being a McCarthyite then to be accused of being a Communist. West’s false claim echoes back to a very ugly period of witch hunts in our history. I know that you and other conservatives have tried to rehabilitate McCarthy as some kind of patriotic hero–part of the ongoing effort to justify the continuing use of paranoia and fear as your primary political tools–so I’m going to nip that nonsense in the bud before you even start in on it.
The Venona papers do not exonerate McCarthy, according to Prof. Harvey Klehr, the foremost expert on the Venona papers:
“Virtually none of the people that McCarthy claimed or alleged were Soviet agents turn up in Venona. He did identify a few small fry who we now know were spies but only a few. And there is little evidence that those he fingered were among the unidentified spies of Venona. Many of his claims were wildly inaccurate; his charges filled with errors of fact, misjudgments of organizations and innuendoes disguised as evidence. He failed to recognize or understand the differences among genuine liberals, fellow-traveling liberals, Communist dupes, Communists and spies distinctions that were important to make. The new information from Russian and American archives does not vindicate McCarthy. He remains a demagogue, whose wild charges actually made the fight against Communist subversion more difficult. Like Greshams Law, McCarthys allegations marginalized the accurate claims. Because his facts were so often wrong, real spies were able to hide behind the cover of being one of his victims and even persuade well-meaning but nave people that the who le anti-communist cause was based on inaccuracies and hysteria.”
http://tfninsider.org/2009/10/29/rehabilitating-joseph-mccarthy/
“In general I agree. I have to say that honest discussion and dignified adherence t agreements made have not been among the arrows in the democrat quiver. I’m not holding my breath.”
You continue to only demand honesty and dignity from Democrats and not from Republicans. I wish you’d some day recognize how clearly hypocritical this makes you, but I’m not holding my breath.
Toby, I’m not “carrying water;” I’m explaining that the characterizations of Rosen’s comments here and at many other right-wing sites are inaccurate. What she said was bad enough without the over-the-top exaggerations.
Why is my position so hard for you to understand? I guess for people who will literally say anything to destroy their political opponents and defend their allies, it might be difficult to comprehend a position with even the slightest bit of nuance. If an opinion doesn’t fit into a talking point, what use is it to you?
Jim: “Your example of the welfare mom with seven kids is very unfortunate. However what did you expect her to do, get abortions when she became pregnant?”
I’m not sure you understood the example and I assure you this is a real example. This woman got pregnant over and over by different men on purpose so she could get more money and services from the state. She is not alone. Our system encourages women to be irresponsible.
I share the pride you feel for our nation that cares about children but I think that we have failed children in more ways than we have helped them. Since its inception Welfare, along with other policies and attitudes, has contributed to the break up of the family and that is very unfortunate. The family unit is the strongest foundation a nation can have.
Americans have also spent trillions of dollars in schools to educate our children but our achievement levels are falling. I think the break up of the family has made educating children more difficult as we now have more children with social and attitudenal problems.
We have also spent money poorly both at the services level and in our schools. Too much of it is lost to bureaucracy. A failure to prepare students to be contributing members of society equals growth in dependency on the state. Without change it will only continue to get worse. It’s time to acknowledge the failures of the models we currently use and have honest discussions about what might work better. (Attacks on stay at home moms and on family have not been helpful)
We are the most blessed nation on the planet and still we have failed to create a society where the numbers of children in need is very small. This would be my goal, to change taxing and welfare systems to encourage marriage and family and to transform our shools so that the numbers of children who need assistance from the state continues to drop year after year.
Chris: “I’m explaining that the characterizations of Rosen’s comments here and at many other right-wing sites are inaccurate.”
You are expressing your opinion about her comments. So is Toby and so are the rest of the right-wing. Your “explanation” doesn’t mean you are right or that anyone has to bend to your will. We see what you are up to and we reject your explanation.
“I guess for people who will literally say anything to destroy their political opponents and defend their allies, it might be difficult to comprehend a position with even the slightest bit of nuance.”
Not convincing, Chris, particulartly since you support the party that started this phony war on women crap to deflect from the failures of the current occupant and to destroy Mitt Romney as a candidate. Using Romneys wife as a target in this chapter of that ridiculous war on women meme is below the belt politics as you well know.
Chris: “He could have accused Barack Obama of being a serial child rapist and you still wouldn’t think the accusation more sinister than a Democrat using a red toothbrush.”
Red huh? Well, red IS the favored color of communists…just look at the shirts that the often celebrated by the left Hugo Chavez wears. Why do you suppose so many on the left appreciate this commie/fascist creep? Because they relate to him!!!!!!!
“Even if you believe that horsepucky about “bringing Marxism to our shores,” Marxism is not Communism. And even if West had simply called people Communists, that could be justified as being his opinion; an uninformed, idiotic opinion, but an opinion nonetheless”
Is that right?
I really don’t care what you call it…Marxism, fascism, communism, socialism… they are all socialist constructs with power given not to the people but to the central planning government and that is exactly what the progressives that have taken over the Democrat Party have in mind. They have been at it for decades just as they promised they would. they use our good heartedness and guilt as weapons against us.
The evidence is not in lists of names so much as in policy, associations and intentions, and props. They use people as props so look closely at the associations they make to bering about their n”peaceful revolution” in America.
The weekly Standard points to the evidence in West’s comments:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wests-communist-comments-referring-congressional-progressive-caucus_636899.html
It goes on to cite communications from the CPUSA website that refers to it’s association to the Progressive Caucus.
The progressive Caucus, indeed the entire platform of the current administration and leadership in Congress, reflect exactly the purposes and intent of the Communist Party USA. As posted by Wikipedia from the CPUSA constitution and national chair report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA
This reads like the Democrat Party platform and if you can deny that, Chris, you are the one who is in denial and delusional. Freedom and property rights MUST go together and include all property and all people or you WILL have great oppression that reduces citizens to the level of serf and puts all of the wealth and power in the hands of the central planner.
These are the liars. They use people and groups as dupes in the grand scheme for “social justice”. It is a ruse and could never repklace freedom, equal opportunity, and the property rights that protect all Americans and urge creativity and accomplishment.
WAKE THE HELL UP!
This is too easy. I dangle some bait, Chris chomps on it and Tina clubs Chris like a baby seal.
In the 90s during the Clinton and Newt years one of the requirements for ALL welfare recipients with children were REQUIRED to attend a community college and take a Early Child Development class/s while their child/children attended the Child Care Center. Proof of attendance and progress was submitted by the colleges prior to their welfare checks being awarded. (A 15 unit certificate would qualify the parent/student to open a licensed home child care center.)
Im a supporter of both drug testing of all welfare recipients and mandatory community college course enrollment. No more free rides for those who are able to work but choose not to.
If a young man with muscular dystrophy who was confined to an electric wheelchair, couldnt use his hands to write or feed himself can graduate from UC Berkeley and go on to work for the Berkeley City Council and the Center for Living with Death and Dying, there is no reason why more able-bodied individuals not only could but should do more to care for themselves and their children.
If the requirements of the 90s have been dropped they should be re-implemented. If they are still on the books enforce them.
Tina: “Red huh? Well, red IS the favored color of communists…just look at the shirts that the often celebrated by the left Hugo Chavez wears. Why do you suppose so many on the left appreciate this commie/fascist creep? Because they relate to him!!!!!!!”
Please tell me that this is intentional self-parody. If not, you are proving my point for me.
“I really don’t care what you call it…Marxism, fascism, communism, socialism…”
If you don’t care “what you call it,” then you are being willfully ignorant. There are significant differences between all of the systems you just named. Conflating them all into own shadowy enemy makes you look stupid, it’s counterproductive, and it shows that you have no interest in learning anything that contradicts your political bias.
“The weekly Standard points to the evidence in West’s comments”
No, it does not. Allen West said that almost eighty Democratic congressmen were members of the Communist Party. The Weekly Standard article you linked to provides no evidence that this claim is true, because there is no evidence that is true, because there are no Democratic congressmen in the Communist Party.
“The Communist Party has publicly referred to the Progressive Caucus as its allies.”
The Weekly Standard, as well as you, are engaging in textbook guilt-by-association here. If Stormfront starts calling the Republican Party its allies, does that mean you are a white supremacist?
“These individuals certainly aren’t proponents of free markets or individual economic freedom.”
Only if you use the most rigid definition of “free markets” imaginable.
“This reads like the Democrat Party platform and if you can deny that, Chris, you are the one who is in denial and delusional.”
Only about half of the portions you bolded are part of the Democratic platform. The other half are not.
Furthermore, out of the policy preferences you actually got right, most of them are favored by the vast majority of Americans.
“national universal health care,”
Correct. This system has been advocated by noted Commies such as Winston Churchill and Margret Thatcher.
“and opposition to privatization of United States Social Security.”
Correct. Privatization to Social Security is a terrible idea with almost no public support. Opposing privatization is not a radical or Communist idea–in fact, privatization is the radical position at this time.
“Economic measures such as increased taxes on “the rich and corporations”, “strong regulation” of the financial industry…and increased federal aid to cities and states; opposition to the Iraq War and other military interventions; opposition to free trade treaties such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); nuclear disarmament and a reduced military budget; various civil rights provisions…and election law reform…”
Correct. These are all wildly popular positions, which enjoy widespread support from a majority of Americans.
“extend the Bill of Rights to include freedom from unemployment” as well as freedom “from poverty, from illiteracy, and from discrimination and oppression.”
Incorrect. This is not part of the Democratic platform.
It was, however, put forward by noted Commie spy Martin Luther King, Jr. Clearly this man had a lot of radical ideas, and was a menace to freedom everywhere.
“as it is outlined in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto,”
Incorrect. I have no idea why you bolded this part. There are no references to the Communist Manifesto in the Democratic party’s platform.
Nothing else that you bolded is part of the Democratic Party’s platform.
(Also, why do you and other conservatives constantly call it the “Democrat Party?” That is not what it is called, as anyone who blogs about politics should know. I know this is minor, but it still displays a weird sort of ignorance.)
“These are the liars.”
And, apparently, they are the ONLY liars worthy of the term. There are no liars in the Republican party. After all, you said a while ago that you know Rush Limbaugh wasn’t lying when he accused the President and our troops of committing genocide in Uganda, because you know that Rush Limbaugh would never tell a lie.
Can you really be as simple as you come across here?
Sheesh, maybe Chris and Tina should get a room.
Oh, just kidding!
Chris should get his own blog. Just imagine all the traffic he would get! I’ll bet Chris would get more hits than Quentin Colgan and Joe Shaw combined!
Do it Chris. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
I bow to your infinitely superior imagination sir —
I think that [wealth and power] is a huge problem and it’s one I am glad is getting more attention lately, due mostly to the efforts of Occupy Wall Street.
Hilary Rosen’s mentor —
Commencement — Columbia School of Journalism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd_syuD-N_k
Oh Toby…that baby seal line is going to ruffle more than a few feathers…thanks, though, for the chuckle.
Chris: you are proving my point for me.
Sarcasm is apparently too far outside the box.
“If you don’t care “what you call it,” then you are being willfully ignorant.”
By what measure am I being willfully ignorant, Chris? Yours?
Conflating them all into own shadowy enemy makes you look stupid, it’s counterproductive, and it shows that you have no interest in learning anything that contradicts your political bias.
Unless I have studied them and find them all very similar in one respectthey all end in oppression and loss of freedom. In this respect the name doesnt matter. NONE of them represents the American ideal. None of them resembles what our founders created for us! Communism, Marxism, and Nazism, are brand names, constructs of socialism and oppression of the people. Freedom exchanged for a central planning committee.
because there are no Democratic congressmen in the Communist Party.
Can you prove your assertion beyond a shadow of a doubt? Can you deny the evidence of shared ideology and goals? Would you consider it more relevant that a Congress person is listed as a member on the website of the CPUSA or that he has the same goals and enjoys some of the same associations as the CPUSA? I suggest I could make a better case for my position that you could yours since neither of us can prove our positions one way or the other.
are engaging in textbook guilt-by-association here.
So, this administration and the Democrat leadership in Congress, especially in the first two years didnt engage in any of the things that are listed in the communist party goals? That would be news to them. Why do you run so hard from the political ideology that guides your preferred party?
Only if you use the most rigid definition of “free markets” imaginable.
Freedom and free markets are not defined as the president of the United States giving the United Auto Workers 65 percent of Chrysler and 17.5 percent of General Motors while screwing the private bond holders out of their investment in the process. They are not defined by the sentiments of Maxine Waters who let it slip that if Obama was elected they were going to take control of the oil companies (In essence they have by restricting drilling and threatening or implementing new harsh regulations.) See her performance in living color here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKh7uqucArk
You can run Chris but you cannot hide from the fact that many of the Democrats in Congress are very progressive. EXTREMELY SO!
This things are not reflective of rigid definitions; they are only two of many actual examples that support the charge.
If Stormfront starts calling the Republican Party its allies, does that mean you are a white supremacist?
It would mean that if Republicans started donning white hoods, rounded up black folks for God knows what, and attempted to legislate to block them from voting booths, restaurants, etc. That hasnt happened, nor will it ever happen, because nothing the Republicans advocate suggests we are in any way racist or aligned with white supremacists.
Only about half of the portions you bolded are part of the Democratic platform
Only half? Thats pretty damning in itself. I think the tally is closer to 100%.
I would be interested in your listwhat are the things that the democrat leadership doesnt support or wouldnt do if they they could? (The President has expressed regret that his hands are tied by our republican process of checks and balances.)
most of them are favored by the vast majority of Americans.
All of them are unsustainable and are causing not only America, but nations around the world to incur massive debt that is killing governments/societies every where it’s tried. Besides, we arent talking about what people want; offer a person something for free and most often they will accept it no questions asked. We are talking about what party and policies represent Marxist, Communist, Nazi Party ideals…yours.
Correct. These are all wildly popular positions, which enjoy widespread support from a majority of Americans.
Incorrect, Chris. They are popular positions enjoyed by a majority of progressive Americans. A number of Americans havent given it much thought. The rest of us are watching the effect of these progressive policies and ideas and we reject the central planning vision in favor of freedom and free markets and are working hard to return our nation to its founding principles and ideals (including all men are created equal).
freedom from unemployment” as well as freedom “from poverty, from illiteracy, and from discrimination and oppression.” ** Incorrect. This is not part of the Democratic platform.
Oh BS. They may not write them down but all of the programs they have been slowly putting in place for generations are about exactly these things. The rhetoric is always peppered with jargon that suggests these things and the republicans are set up in the same breath as the evil straw man that must be overcome!
Raising the minimum wage, the many poverty programs, federal control of the educational system, and the GLBT and people of color movements are constantly pressing for legislation through/with democrat support and agency. The war on povertysocial security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, etc. These are all progressive programs designed to address freedom from poverty, illiteracy, etc. The goals are worthy but the progressive method of central control at the federal level is decidedly socialist/communist and has been a major part of the Democrat platform whether acknowledged or not.
This administration has been very active in demolishing free market capitalism and freedom in general. It has oppressed industry and squashed opportunity for millions of Americans in its attempt to control from the oval office and through agencies like HUD, IRS, EPA, and HHS. The taxes that will kick in next year on EVERYBODY will be quite shocking unless something is done.
I have no idea why you bolded this part. There are no references to the Communist Manifesto in the Democratic party’s platform.
I boldened it because the highlighted things are in the Communist Manifesto and you keep trying to tell me your party doesnt have communist associations, leanings, or down-right love fests with communism and communist ideas. You already admitted to fifty percent so of course it does.
The most humorous thing is that communism claims civil rights (as if it owned the ideal) and democrats do the same da*n thing. The difference between your party and mine is that your party, like communism, never has done a good job of freeing people. Freedom is not what communism/progressivism is about. It is a phony. It is a lie. Communism /progressivism is about control at the top of all systems. Generational welfare, a progressive fix for poverty, is an oppressive construct that has the veneer of a compassionate and inclusiveness system but it doesnt deliver real freedom or prosperity, in fact it ensures a kind of enslavement to the state and near poverty.
“(Also, why do you and other conservatives constantly call it the “Democrat Party?” That is not what it is called, as anyone who blogs about politics should know. I know this is minor, but it still displays a weird sort of ignorance.)”
You asked me this before and I answered it. I showed you a webpage that referenced the Democrat Party in older documents or articlesI dont recall where I found it. Im not sure when they started calling themselves the democratic party but it seems like it was sometime in the sixties. Conservapedia says this about it:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Democrat_Party
Ha! Thats exactly what I recall hearing at the time. We should be called the democratic party cause were more democratic,” said the hippy dippy hippy.
After all, you said a while ago that you know Rush Limbaugh wasn’t lying when he accused the President and our troops of committing genocide in Uganda, because you know that Rush Limbaugh would never tell a lie.
No, because he realized his error, said so, and dropped itsomething you should consider doing. And I do trust Rush he has alwayys been a very human and honorable guy.
Can you really be as simple as you come across here?
Ill bet you think youre talking to me.
The odd thing is that the people who will be offended by my baby seal comment are just fine with the murder of millions of unborn humans every year. It seems that the majority of those people fall on the democrat side of the line. Chris I gotta ask, what is so democratic about those two goons with nightsticks outside the polling station? What is democratic about trying to make sure it really is one man one vote and that those votes are cast by people legally eligible to vote? What is democratic about a President who inserts himself into criminal matters for the sole purpose of stirring hate and discontent?
What would the reaction to Robert Byrd be if he had been a Republican? I know democrats have notoriously short to nonexistent memories so I will fully understand if you do not recall who Robert Byrd was. He was a life long democrat and high ranking member of the KKK. You democrats were hunky dory with it. Not what I would call very democratic.
Tina: “Sarcasm is apparently too far outside the box.”
So you were doing self-parody. OK. It’s hard to tell with you these days, because so many of the ridiculous things you say you actually intend to be taken seriously.
“By what measure am I being willfully ignorant, Chris?”
You literally just said that you don’t care about the differences between Marxism, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism, and Progressivism and that as such you will continue to think that calling progressives Communists is perfectly acceptable. You are being willfully ignorant. You would rather not learn to distinguish the differences between these groups because it’s more politically advantageous for you to continue to lump them all in together as “The Enemy.”
“Unless I have studied them”
My friend, you have done nothing that could legitimately be described as “studying.” Most of your information comes from sources such as the American Thinker, Weekly Standard, Conservapedia, sometimes even World Net Daily. That is not studying.
“Can you prove your assertion beyond a shadow of a doubt?”
So now it’s MY job to prove to you that Democrats AREN’T in the Communist Party? Are you kidding me?
So if Hilary Rosen says tomorrow that about 80 Republican congressmen are members of the KKK, and you say “No they’re not,” can I assume that you will find it a valid rebuttal for me to ask you to prove that they aren’t? And will you think it logical for me to continue to believe that Republicans are part of the KKK until you definitively prove otherwise?
When you make an accusation, the burden of proof is on you.
“Can you deny the evidence of shared ideology and goals?”
All of the “shared ideology and goals” you mentioned are shared not only by the Communist Party and progressives, but also by the Communist Party and the majority of Americans. Some of them have been shared by people such as Winston Churchhill, Margaret Thatcher, and MLK Jr. And yet, these people, as well as the majority of Americans, cannot be fairly labeled Communists.
“Would you consider it more relevant that a Congress person is listed as a member on the website of the CPUSA or that he has the same goals and enjoys some of the same associations as the CPUSA?”
I would consider the listed membership more relevant, especially to the actual claim that Allen West made. He did not say that 80 Democrats shared some of the same goals or enjoyed some of the same associations as the Communist Party–he said that they were MEMBERS of the Communist Party.
“I suggest I could make a better case for my position that you could yours”
You’ve already tried and failed.
“So, this administration and the Democrat leadership in Congress, especially in the first two years didnt engage in any of the things that are listed in the communist party goals?”
I already went over this. Yes, there are similarities. But the existence of these similarities is not enough to make Democrats Communists. They have just as many relevant differences.
“You can run Chris but you cannot hide from the fact that many of the Democrats in Congress are very progressive. EXTREMELY SO!”
I have never denied that many Democrats are very progressive. In fact, I encourage it!
“I would be interested in your listwhat are the things that the democrat leadership doesnt support or wouldnt do if they they could?”
I already told you, everything you bolded that I had not already commented on is not supported by the democratic leadership. I have no idea what they would support if they could, and neither do you, because neither of us is psychic.
“Incorrect, Chris.”
Really? I’ll show you the poll results later; I have to get ready for work.
“freedom from unemployment” as well as freedom “from poverty, from illiteracy, and from discrimination and oppression.” ** Incorrect. This is not part of the Democratic platform.
Oh BS. They may not write them down but all of the programs they have been slowly putting in place for generations are about exactly these things.”
You misquoted this section just now, leaving out the extension to the Bill of Rights. The Democratic platform has not suggested extending the Bill of Rights. I believe one Democrat, Cass Sunstein, advocated this; Glenn Beck called him “the most dangerous man in America” for it, ignoring the fact that MLK Jr. advocated the same exact thing.
“Raising the minimum wage,”
If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation (which Republican Mitt Romney has said should be the case), it would be over $10 today.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/mitt-romney-south-carolina-minimum-wage_n_1200418.html
There is nothing radical about raising the minimum wage. The minimum wage is, in effect, lower than it was in the late 1960s.
“Conservapedia says this about it:”
Find me a valid source and we’ll talk.
Chris: “You literally just said that you don’t care about the differences between Marxism, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism, and Progressivism and that as such you will continue to think that calling progressives Communists is perfectly acceptable.”
My error. When I said “I don’t care” I meant “it doesn’t really matter since the main point in all of them is centralized power that is oppressive”. In that respect they are all very similar and definitely NOT what was intended for our republic.
“You are being willfully ignorant. You would rather not learn to distinguish the differences between these groups because it’s more politically advantageous for you to continue to lump them all in together as ‘The Enemy.'”
If anyone is being willful here it is you. You, my friend, support and associate with a party that embraces policies and ideals that will rob you of your property and freedoms. You support a party that wants to control outcomes and act as the arbiter of fate picking winners and losers. You are willingly handing over all power to a slect few and gleefully acting as their mouthpiece like a good little comrade.
“Most of your information comes from sources such as the American Thinker, Weekly Standard, Conservapedia…”
As if the people who write these publications were idiots. This is among the dumbest argument you’ve ever made.
“So now it’s MY job to prove to you that Democrats AREN’T in the Communist Party?”
It is your job to demonstrate that wht I said is inaccurate. I said at the beginning:
I haven’t argued that X number are in the party but that the policies and goals they have are socialist in anture whether the soviet socialist kind or the nazi socialist kind…have you evidence that this is NOT true of many of the congress people on the left or, for that matter, some of their support groups?
The vociferousness of your objection to what I have asserted deserves some backing up or you just look like a weenie in denial.
“All of the “shared ideology and goals” you mentioned are shared not only by the Communist Party and progressives, but also by the Communist Party and the majority of Americans.”
Are they?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/Conservatives-Remain-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx
Americans are compassionate and giving as individuals but they are waking up to the fact that progressive central planning is expensive, ineffective, and is driving our country into massive debt. People on both sides of the aisle, including the current president have offered the old saying, “First law on holes – when you’re in one, stop digging!”
The policies that have gotten us into this hole are largely progressive. In the last century the American people gave progressive ideas a shot. Just as it has everywhere else it was tried, it has been a colossal failure. We need to stop digging and return to the principles of our founding.
“They have just as many relevant differences.”
And yet when I asked you to prove the democrat party was not similarly comunist you demured and harumphed and made snide remarks. Care to try again?
“In fact, I encourage it!”
And still you run from the obvious truth about your chosen party!
“The Democratic platform has not suggested extending the Bill of Rights. I believe one Democrat, Cass Sunstein, advocated this; Glenn Beck called him “the most dangerous man in America” for it, ignoring the fact that MLK Jr. advocated the same exact thing.”
So now you have elevated MLK to god status in an effort to deny that your party is Marxist in nature. The only reason your party has not suggested actually extending the bill of rights is because that is very difficult to do. Instead they have other means of achieving the same goals. They use propaganda in the schools, the courts, redistribution, intimidation, and now even the justice department and various departments…avoiding even the legislative process whenever they can.
“If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation (which Republican Mitt Romney has said should be the case), it would be over $10 today.”
That doesn’t change the fact that it is a central planning solution. Raising the minimum wage is a sham that keeps the masses happing and voting democrat. What it does in the marketplace is raise the cost of goods that those min wage earners buy thus reducing their raise in terms of getting ahead. The best way to get ahead is to improve ones skills and experience. Doing that actually moves a person to a higher level of buying power. But the lie does go down well with folks that have been poorly educated by progressives in our schools and it’s a cheap way to fool the people for votes.
“Find me a valid source and we’ll talk.”
No thanks, Ive had quite enough of your drivel
RoseAnn Rosanadana Rocks! Thanks for the memories and the laugh Pie!
Toby you make a terrific point. Good questions too!
Chris, you should get your own blog. You have a lot to say and lets face it if they will give the occutard a blog you would be a shoe-in. I would like to read some of what you think is news and worthy of reporting. I am very serious, I think you would have a fallowing. Something to think about.
The big question is; How does Mitt Romney feel about this topic. Here is what he said: Stay-at-home moms need to learn dignity of work
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/mitt-romney-flashback-stay-at-home-moms-need-to-learn-dignity-of-work/2012/04/15/gIQAhmbZJT_blog.html
So it would seem that Mitt Romney feels that moms should work.
Jim, the bottom line for me is, as long as we have dependency the problem will have to be addresed. How it is addressed is where we run into disagreement.
I think Romney is saying that human dignity is diminished when people accept help from their fellow citizens without being required to do anything. I think his plan was to give women an opportunity to earn and acquire experience and skills that would give them and their children a better shot at life. This plan would produce a far better return for tax dollars as well as in the lives of the women those tax dollars served. I think Romney’s solution is commendable in that it does work to uplift women instead of making them and their children permanently disadvantaged dependents of the state.
Everyone acknowledges that some women must work due to circumstances in their lives. Others simply choose to work for various reasons. Some women have chosen to sacrifice the extra money just so they can be at home with their children and they do it by giving up some of the things their salaries allowed the family to have…vacations, fancier cars, clothes, movies, etc. These are personal and family choice that have little to do with any persons ability to understand or empathise with others that have different life experiences.
The horrid remark that Rosen made implied that because the Romneys accumulated wealth, Ann Romney couldn’t possibly know anything about the economy, budgeting, sacrifice, or about the difficulties that other women face who are mothers and must work. She also implied that Mitt Romney would have to be an idiot to take advice from such a dim woman. The remark was absurdly presumptive, not to mention cruel and undignified.
Another explanation is that it was a planned moment with Rosen acting as political dissing clone and doing her part to try and make women, an important voting block, despise the Romneys.
The President has said that to whom much is given much is expected. I think the Romneys have stepped up to give back more than most wealthy couples. Ann Romney’s outside the home volunteer work included:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/ann-romneys-resume-includes-more-than-stay-at-home-mother/
What do you think Jim? Has Rosen succeeded in her mission to turn american women against the Republican candidate?
I, for one, can’t wait to see what percentage of the womens vote Romney does get if he’s the Republican candidate.
“As if the people who write these publications were idiots.”
Many of them are. Many of them are also liars.
Some of them are intelligent and think they are being honest, but they let their partisan blinders get in the way of being intellectually honest. That goes for most of their audience, as well.
“This is among the dumbest argument you’ve ever made.”
Why is pointing out the bias and lack of credibility of many of your sources a dumb argument? Credibility matters. I don’t understand this PC idea you have that all sources are equal, and it’s somehow elitist or snobby of me to not take sites like Conservapedia seriously.
“I haven’t argued that X number are in the party”
You seem to keep changing your mind about this. Earlier you asked me if I could prove beyond “a shadow of a doubt” that there were no congressmen in the Communist Party.
“but that the policies and goals they have are socialist in anture whether the soviet socialist kind or the nazi socialist kind…have you evidence that this is NOT true of many of the congress people on the left or, for that matter, some of their support groups?”
Now you’re bringing the “N” word into it? I’m sorry, but I can’t take seriously the notion that you want me to provide evidence that Democratic congressmen are not, in fact, Nazis. That is crazy. I won’t even dignify it with a response.
“Are they?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/Conservatives-Remain-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx
PRINCETON, NJ — Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.”
Wow, way to completely change the subject.
You pointed to specific POLICIES that are preferred by both Communists and Progressives. I then pointed out that these POLICIES are also preferred by a majority of Americans. And you think you are providing evidence to the contrary by pointing to a poll which asks people to say whether they are conservative, liberal or moderate?
That is not evidence against what I said at all.
If you want to rebut what I said, you have to actually look at poll results for the specific POLICIES that we are talking about.
Here’s a few. 2/3 of Americans support raising the minimum wage to at least ten dollars:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/americans-minimum-wage-poll_n_752921.html
More than 2/3 of Americans support raising taxes on the rich and corporations. Even a majority of Republicans surveyed favored this position:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-10/cain-pulls-even-with-romney-on-economy-for-republican-supporters-in-poll.html
I could find more but I have to run right now.
Chris: “Why is pointing out the bias and lack of credibility of many of your sources a dumb argument?”
It’s dumb, Chris, because you have used, for instance, Wikipedia. It’s dumb because you have used left wing sources, like Media Matters, that have a leftist bias. We know what your bias is and you know what ours is. We celebrate our conservatism on this site. You choose to participate here knowing full well you are participating on a conservative site and still act like it should be something different.
You seem interested in truth, Chris, yet you refuse to admit that the Democrat Party has moved very far left and is now driven by leadership that is decidedly Marxist/socialist in nature. You refuse to admit that redistribution and central planning are not red, white, and blue American values. Your excuse is that Americans agree with you. If you are correct, and I doubt that if Americans were given the chance to look deeper than a polling question you would be, it doesn’t change the fact that the Democrat Party is now a socialist organization. When challenged to demonstrate your parties American values in practice ….crickets…or nasty attacks on me.
Tina: “So now you have elevated MLK to god status”
What? How? I’ve never done any such thing. In fact, I’ve said that it’s perfectly OK if you disagree with MLK on issues such as extending the Bill of Rights to add a right to a decent job, a living wage, etc. Heck, I’m not sure how I feel about that idea myself!
What I don’t think is OK is for you to dismiss anyone who does agree with MLK on this issue as a Communist. By saying that, you are saying that MLK was himself a Communist. I don’t think one has to see the man as a god in order to find that offensive and inaccurate.
“That doesn’t change the fact that it is a central planning solution.”
Sure, but so is the post office. So is Medicare. Those programs are progressive, but they are not communist. They are filling a gap that private enterprise has not–and, in fact, can not–fill.
Businesses and corporations have failed to keep their pay consistent with inflation. Which is understandable; that’s not their job. Making money is their job. There is nothing wrong with that! I don’t disdain people for their wealth or for wanting to make a profit. But I do think that the huge rise in income inequality over the past few decades has taken us to the point where the government needs to step in.
Why should a minimum wage worker in 2012 be effectively making less money than a minimum wage worker in 1969? If that’s the case, then we’re moving backwards as a society. Income inequality is bad for the economy and it’s bad for everyone. It’s time we do something about it.
“It’s dumb, Chris, because you have used, for instance, Wikipedia.”
I’ve used Wikipedia pages because they summarize info from many different sources. Every page I’ve linked to from that site has been thoroughly documented with easy-to-access citations.
“It’s dumb because you have used left wing sources, like Media Matters, that have a leftist bias.”
True, they do have a left-wing bias, but you haven’t shown me how they’ve ever been inaccurate.
“You seem interested in truth, Chris, yet you refuse to admit that the Democrat Party has moved very far left”
Because I think the opposite is true. In many ways, the party was further left in the past. In fact, so was the Republican Party! Ideas such as an individual mandate, cap and trade, the EPA…these came from your party. Meanwhile Democrats were advocating a nationalized health care system. Obama gave up that idea almost as soon as he was inaugurated. Prior to Reagan, tax rates on the highest earners were much higher than they are today. Now, liberals are too scared to advocate for anything close to those rates because they’ll be called socialists.
Tina, here is a list of policy preferences that the Republican Party has in common with several white nationalist groups operating in the United States:
-More restrictive immigration policies
-Ending affirmative action
-Repealing Obamacare
-Outlawing abortion
-Opposing same-sex marriage
-Further use of racial profiling in law enforcement
-Lower taxes
Would it be fair to say that, because you share these positions with white nationalists, that you are one yourself? Would it be fair to call them white nationalist ideas?
I don’t believe that would be fair. Many of these positions are favored by many Americans who are not white nationalists. Many of them are taken to extremes by white nationalists, and Republicans do not support those extremes. And the central tenets of white nationalism are not shared by Republicans.
But this is what you are doing to me, to Democrats, and to many other Americans when you accuse us of being Communists simply for sharing some beliefs in common with them.
If you wouldn’t like it done to you, you shouldn’t do it to us.
(I also should point out that I am not equating Communists with white nationalists; the Communists we have in America today are nowhere near as dangerous or evil as today’s white nationalists.)
Chris thank you for making this list. I think I can still make the case that there is a difference.
First of all I initially said that I wouldn’t have say what Col West said. Secondly I told you I had seen the names of several Democrats in Congress at the CPUSA website in prior years (I posted a link in comments on this blog)…CPUSA have since taken down references to their membership. And finally, proof that Democrats are grounded in a socialists/Marxist ideology can be found in what Democrat leaders have said and done over seventy years. They have moved away from capitalism toward colectivism and freedom to central planning and in ever more radical ways in later years. Liberal progressives state outright they are for big government and centrally planned solutions. They are in favor of universal government run healthcare, for instance. The only thing that has prevented them from going whole hog is the opposition party, such as it’s been. You are correct that a large chunk of Americans have been behind this decades old trend but you cannot pretend that it has not put the American people in a pickle financially, you cannot argue that the programs are sustainable, and you cannot argue that these social programs and polices are red white and blue small federal government American. They are not.
Point by point the list shows that conservative Republicans are red white and blue American, not communist red. We are for smaller government, equal rights, the rule of law, national security and a strong military…none of which is racist or whatever else may drive WS:
1. More restrictive immigration policies
Republicans want the law to be upheld. Problem? Republicans think imigration law should be revised so that immigration can be managed properly, people don’t need to be here illegally, and so that our borders are protected. Do you object and why? Is this not an American problem regardless what the WS think?
2. Ending affirmative action.
Republicans believe that persons should be treated equally and not according to race. I don’t see how this should be objectionable to those who claim to be for equal rights. I also think that it can be supported by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and th Declaration of Independence. Aside: Obama has worked both sides of the issue while campaigning:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12421.html
See also: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/racists-support-obama-061308
It appears that one of the most prominent WS has more in common with socialist democrats than conservative republicans. Environmentalism gets a thumbs up, capitalism and the jews get a thumbs down. We could count race mixing as a thumbs down since in some circles of the Dem Party whites are not on the color wheel…they are “the enemy” unless they are white and gay or feminist.
3. Repealing Obamacare
Absolutely. It is a big government central planning solution. There are better ways to make healthcare more affordable (It’s already accessable) and it is something better “left to the states”. WS don’t want government at all…they are anarchists by nature. (My way or the highway) I don’t see how this relate in any way to conservatism.
4 Outlawing abortion
Not all conservatives are pro-life. This is a social issue more than a political issue. However…
Do you have a link that suggest WS favor life? It doesn’t seem like an issue that would be right up there on their favorites list…in fact I would imagine being racist and antisemitic that they would be in favor of at least some abortions, but I may be wrong.
Conservative republicans that are pro-life hold a life position based on principles found in the Bible and the Constitution. This is hardly radical or extreme. One could argue that since women have failed to make legal abortion rare as they argued when they sought to have it legalized, they have practiced in the extreme and brought significant resistance to practice upon themselves. I’m pretty sure the American people will swing back to a position that reveres life and honors the mothers responsibility to the unborn…but, I could be wrong. Conservatives follow the law and reserve the right to challenge it like anyone else. I don’t see how this view would make conservatives like WS in basic ideological terms.
5. Opposing same-sex marriage
Not all republicans oppose same sex marriage. Not all gays favor it. Social issue…has little to do with political ideology.
6. Further use of racial profiling in law enforcement
The left calls it “racial” profiling. the right calls it profiling. whites are profiled when they commit crimes or become terrorists if information is available to profilre based on race. Blacks believe there are times when corrupt or racist officers have profiled them solely on race. There are times when the charge is made and it is a false charge. This is another social issue that has little to do with politicl ideology. WS just hate people of different races and creeds…they are wrong, stupid and vile…no connection.
7. Lower taxes
Ahhhh…finally back to an actual issue that is to the point. Yes, smaller federal government goes along with lower taxes and less spending. If WS are in favor of that too I can’t say I’d fault them for it. It doesn’t in any way suggest that conservatives are like WS or hold to their major ideals.
These are pretty weak examples. I demonstrated to you that the Democrat Party has moved away from the founding ideals of this country and through legislation, propaganda in schools, use of the courts and media, and growing the size of government have moved toward a socialist/Marxist model. I gave you, in an earlier comment, video of a prominent congresswoman saying out loud that the goal of the progressive caucus was to control the oil companies. It’s pretty clear that by shutting down oil in the gulf, Alaska, and on government lands in the West, by enacting costly regulations on coal, by demanding an end to subsidies on oil (which are really business expense deductions), by pressuring car companies to make green alternative vehicles, and by promoting and funding green energy technology with tax dollars this administration has attempted to do just that. It’s called central planning Chris. You can run from it but you cannot hide. I don’t know why you would want to…it is what you believe. why can’t you just say it?
Sorry I forgot to finish…
Chris: “But this is what you are doing to me, to Democrats, and to many other Americans when you accuse us of being Communists simply for sharing some beliefs in common with them.”
Perhaps you could tell me where your ideals differ and why you think progressive socialism based on Marx/ fascism/Nazism won’t bring down this nation (The bill is several trillion and counting) and rob our citizens of their freedom. Explain how your ideals fit with the Constitution and the founding principles.
“…the Communists we have in America today are nowhere near as dangerous or evil as today’s white nationalists.”
And yet you had no problem choosing them as a comparison? Chris I’m not accusing you fo being a communist. I am saying that you support a party whose leaders share the major ideals of socialism and the Marxist/fascist models. I argue the point because I don’t believe the party is what it once was; more socialist in nature than the republicans but still America…still capitalist. Could be wrong about you too…perhaps you would trade your freedoms for a big central planning government.
Thought you guys would appreciate this!
http://culpeperrepublican.com/2012/04/18/gather-your-petticoats-and-run-the-red-states-are-coming-the-red-states-are-coming/
Hey Nick, good to hear from you. Your link didn’t work for me but I tried the “home” button and the article was right at the top. Great job of nailing the hypocrites in their faux war on women.:
http://culpeperrepublican.com/
That Tina isn’t your Tina by any chance? If so tell her job well done for me! (A sister in the good fight)