Nixon Would Have Aborted Obama
The Nixon tapes are either a gift that keeps on giving, or a recurring nightmare. Today we learn the following wisdom the 37th President.
“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” [Nixon] told an aide, before adding: “Or a rape.”
We knew Nixon was a racist, but jeez.
at least he didn’t say or a jew. based on his history of course
It’s a fascinating look into a strange time in American history. Boy, Nixon just won’t let people clean up his legacy, will he? Equating interracial relationships with rape is unbelievably offensive.
Life is funny. Prior to today I would have said that I couldn’t dislike Nixon anymore than I already do.
I am glad that you finally found an abortion that you don’t agree with. Too bad Planned Barrenhood isn’t on board with you. They like to target blacks and minorities.
I stand with you in condemning both racism and abortion. They both are terrible crimes against human dignity.
Now David, only right wing religious radicals like yourself think that those who are pro-choice are also pro-abortion to the point that they advocate that all pregnant women have abortions. That has been a common lie your side has been telling for decades. How very Christian of you to lie.
If you had ever read anything I have written or said on the topic you will know that I, and in fact most who are pro-choice, are not pro-abortion. They are just, and quite simply, pro-choice, with the operative word being CHOICE. I have my religious objections to abortion, and if the decision ever confronted me, I would not counsel my girlfriend, wife, sister, cousin or friend to have one unless the pregnancy was life threatening to her. That said, my religious objections to abortion and yours cannot be made law to those who do not share that conviction. That would us imposing our religious convictions that life begins at conception nationwide, and our First Amendment prohibits that. Further, outlawing abortion would allow the government to control a woman’s life and pregnancy, and while you may be all in favor of treating women as subservient figures in our society, I am not. Indeed, you being a Republican should absolutely loathe giving the government that much power. So much for limited government, eh? The government you propose would tell women everywhere when and how they could have their families. That should disgust you.
No, abortion should be a choice, and the choice should only be between the woman, her significant other, her doctor and God. Let God judge her. If you are so confident in your view that God abhors abortion, then you should be comfortable in knowing that God will be her final judge of her act. Why do you need the federal government to back up God? Is God so weak in your view so as to require the federal government’s assistance?
But, I will always work with you to reduce abortion. Name the time and place. Let’s encourage adoption. Let’s encourage responsible sex education so that unwanted pregnancies do not occur. Let’s make birth control available to those teens who want or need it. That is the common ground that you and I can find.
Why would you not counsel someone who matters to you to have an abortion. It is because abortion is abhorrent. In case you haven’t noticed, your fellow bloggers have tried to justify the most egregious of abortions.
You asked, “If you are so confident in your view that God abhors abortion, then you should be comfortable in knowing that God will be her final judge of her act. Why do you need the federal government to back up God?” I am thinking that you must be tired to ask that as a serious question. It happens to all of us.
I am confident that murdering Mathew Shepard was abhorrent to God, yet I would have called the law to try to stop it. God gave us a cultural mandate to let righteousness be the line and justice the plummet. Every action of government should be measured by the plum line of righteousness and justice. God condemns the shedding of innocent blood especially the sacrifice of children to Baal god of pleasure and convenience.
Love GOD, hate sin. When someone is being murdered that is not a sin against one’s own body such as fornication. I have no obligation to interfere in your sin against yourself. I have an obligation to stop the slaughter of an innocent third party.
I know that abortion is murder according to moral law. The government was developed to protect basic human rights especially the right to life. It wasn’t developed to provide wealth redistribution. It wasn’t developed to make people feel good. It wasn’t developed to engineer society. It’s most basic and important function is to provide the organized force that protects the weak and the individual from the predator. Abortion is about paid predators killing defenseless babies.
I agree that we need to reduce abortions. I just think that number needs to be as close to zero as we can. Before Roe we had a fraction of the abortions we had afterwards. The first year of Roe before the industry grew up had around a quarter of a million abortions. Within a couple of years it was up to 1.3 million and increased to 1.6 million under Clinton. It is down to about a million in 2007.
That clearly means that the law is part of the issue.
What? You don’t think that is a good enough reason for an abortion? I thought any reason was a good enough reason for receiving the liberal sacrament of abortion.
David,
Do you really think, prior to Roe, abortions were tracked accurately?
If not, then how do you know that the number is “just a fraction”?
Sounds like made-up bullshit to me….
RWR makes it sound like conservatives don’t have abotions, or was that an attempt to mock christians?
No — just mocking of liberals who mock Catholics with statements like “If the pope were a woman, abortion would be a sacrament.”
White Rhymes With Right is a racist link-spammer from Texas who posts at DL to promote his for-profit conservative racist blog site.
To those who question the “racist” label, simply consider that he has openly advocated for repeal of non-discrimination laws.
No doubt he was a big supporter of Nixon, a criminal and the architect of the repub’s “Southern Strategy.”
White Rhymes With Right is a racist link-spammer from Texas who posts at DL to promote his for-profit conservative racist blog site.
We all have to find our own way to heaven.
Yeah, but does Delaware Liberal like being used to promote Rhymes With Right, a racist link-spammer from Texas?
“No — just mocking of liberals who mock Catholics with statements like “If the pope were a woman, abortion would be a sacrament.”
Actually, the statement is “If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” Because what we’re mocking is the paternalistic attitude of women as broodmares.
I’ve heard it the other way, Geezer.
And anonone — if you remember, I stated I want to see those laws repealed so that people have the liberty to follow their own conscience and moral values. Which, in my case, includes not patronizing any business which engages in racial discrimination. You, on the other hand, prefer to impose your morality on everyone else — which makes you different from the Religious Right you condemn how, exactly?
And given that I spend my work day working with a clientele that is 95% racial minority, and am in the minority racially among my coworkers, it is hard to argue that I am a racist. After all, I would not survive 15 minutes in such an environment if I were.
As for your other issue — what have you got against people making money? We can’t all be the beneficiaries of government welfare programs. Oh, wait — that is precisely what Obama is after with his health care proposals!
White Rhymes With Right, a racist link-spammer from Texas wrote:
“I stated I want to see those laws repealed so that people have the liberty to follow their own conscience and moral values.”
So people should be forcibly denied by law goods and services such as places to live, food, water, toilets, medical services and on and on so you can voluntarily not patronize businesses which engage in racial discrimination?
With a view like that, it is easy to argue that you are a racist. You want to return to the very racist Jim Crow days.
As far as “imposing [my] morality on everyone else,” equal rights for all people under the law is not about morality; it is about justice. There is a difference that I wouldn’t expect a racist like you to recognize.
anonone — under no circumstances could GOVERNMENT discriminate. On the other hand, private individuals could. If government discriminated it would be a violation of equal protection of the laws. If private individuals did it would not (given that the actions of private individuals do not constitute law).
Government agents (police) would have to enforce the rights of private individuals and businesses to discriminate.
Think of police evicting people from apartments when building ownership changes, throwing people out of hospital emergency rooms, removing people from movie theaters, and letting ambulances refuse to help to people – any private business could call the police to remove an individual that they refused to serve for whatever racist or other bigoted reason that they wanted if that person refused to leave.
Jim Crow laws were outlawed in this country for good reason. Apartheid is over in South Africa. The Caste system is illegal in India. They are all immoral and unjust systems.
That you try to put lipstick on the pig of racism and discrimination by trying to justify as letting “people have the liberty to follow their own conscience and moral values” demonstrates that you have neither a conscience nor moral values when it comes to recognizing the harm done by institutionalized bigotry and hatred, regardless if whether it is practiced by public or private institutions or businesses.
Your position is not surprising considering all the posts on your for-pay website that complain about discrimination against white people.
We all know that for you it is “White” that “Rhymes With Right,” and that you are a racist link-spammer from Texas.
1) Actually, @$$hole, what “rhymes with right” is my unusually spelled and often mispronounced last name.
2) So now you are telling me that you believe that you don’t believe in enforcing trespassing laws?
3) Exactly how many posts do you find on my site about discrimination against white people? Go look — not many.
4) What do you have against people earning money? We can’t all be on welfare like you — indeed, some of us need to make the money to pay the taxes to support your lazy @$$.
1) Nice excuse – use a handle with an obvious racist connotation and justify it with an obscure reason. Just as you use “liberty to follow their own conscience and moral values” to justify segregation and institutionalized discrimination.
2) It has nothing to do with trespassing – I don’t believe in bring back Jim Crow and Apartheid laws and having police enforce THOSE laws. You do. Don’t try to change the subject because it won’t work.
3) More than at any other site I have visited, and I didn’t see any complaining about discrimination against black Americans, which is much more prevalent.
4) I am not on welfare. I make money and pay taxes. What I have against your version of “making money” is that you are using an unabashedly liberal site to promote your racist, pro-discrimination, for-profit website and that this site’s owners permit it. Maybe they just like making fun of you.
Regardless of your protestations, we all know that your message is that “White” “Rhymes With Right,” and that you are a racist link-spammer from Texas.
WRWR:
My reply is awaiting moderation.
anonone – if it makes you feel better, only one person has clicked on his link in the past week. You’d think he would have a better marketing strategy.
Hi LG,
Actually, his point isn’t necessarily to get people to click on his links from here – it is to get raise his rankings in the search engines. It is actually a very sound marketing strategy.
And I feel fine, thanks! I hope you do too!
Hi LG,
Actually, his point isn’t necessarily to get people to click on his links from here – it is to raise his rankings in the search engines. It is actually a very sound marketing strategy.
And I feel fine, thanks! I hope you do too!
Ooops – sorry for the double post. The comments have been taking a long time to upload and the AJAX editor hasn’t been working properly since you did your site modifications (it hangs).
I though I had trapped the first post before it uploaded.
Yeah, I think that the server is still running on its backup database server until this weekend. Things should be perkier then.
1) I call bullshit on that one. my email address, site name, and handle are all based upon a phrase I use each fall to teach my students how to pronounce my last name. If you find a racial connotation, then it says everything about your mindset.
2) Actually, it has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws, which required segregation and were a violation of the Constitution. Allowing private individuals to follow their conscience — even when that conscience is deeply wrong — is not Jim Crow or Apartheid, which are official government actions requiring segregation.
3) In other words, you can’t find many of the latter and didn’t look for any of the former.
4) No, I’m not — I’m following standard practice of including my website where it is asked for when i come to discuss and debate the issues. And your comments make it clear that you object to my using my website to generate a very small income.
1) Just Google “White Rhymes With Right,” OK?
Top link is to your site: “Arrogant District Refuses To Protect White Students”
Second link is to your site: “Obama Regime Declares Open Season On White Voters”
2) Wrong on all counts. From Wikipedia: “The Supreme Court of the United States held in the Civil Rights Cases 109 US 3 (1883) that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give the federal government the power to outlaw private discrimination, and then held in Plessy v. Ferguson 163 US 537 (1896) that Jim Crow laws were constitutional as long as they allowed for “separate but equal” facilities. In the years that followed, the court made this “separate but equal” requirement a hollow phrase by upholding discriminatory laws in the face of evidence of profound inequalities in practice.” It was the Civil Rights Act in the 1960’s that put the nail in the coffin of Jim Crow laws. And even “separate but equal” is too much for you, I am sure.
3) I looked. Just Google “Rhymes With Right discrimination”
Top Link to your site: “Obama To Impose Discrimination Against Heterosexual Federal Employees”
Second link to your site: “Religious Discrimination On Campus”
Do you have any posts specifically complaining about discrimination against black people? Where?
4) Don’t you have enough to talk about in Texas? Why Delaware?
Face it, your advocation of legally sanctioned and enforced institutional discrimination is advocation of racism, plain and simple.
1) After 9000 posts, you will get a few that discuss discrimination against white people. But if you want to be honest about the first post that comes up, you would admit that it is “White Supremacist Teen Gets Life Sentence In Racist Attack” — and that I complain that the scumbag in question didn’t get enough jail time.
2) I’m done trying to convince you differently, because you consistently misrepresent what I have said to create a strawman position to attack. Interestingly enough, I am advocating a position that would allow black employers to consciously hire and promote black employees, and gay organizations to favor gay employees. Indeed, I’d celebrate those decisions, too, as an exercise of true freedom. And for the record, I oppose the Jim Crow regime that you Democrats instituted and maintained for a century — and would oppose any effort to create Jim Crow laws that mandated discrimination.
3) My discrimination pieces that you cite are all about discrimination by government entities and government officials. I’ve repeatedly stated that public discrimination is and should be banned.
4) Ain’t it great that with the internet that we can talk to and with folks from around the country. It is called the world-wide-web for a reason — not the Delaware-wide-web or Texas-wide web. But if you are offended by my commenting here, you do have the option of ignoring me.
Face it — you know you are wrong, but keep making the same specious points.
I did the search – Google showed what I listed. You couldn’t show a single link on your site speaking out against discrimination against blacks – governmental or otherwise – so clearly, the only discrimination you’re concerned with is against straight white guys. At least that is what you write about on your website when you write about discrimination.
Fortunately, the world has moved beyond your racist desires to allow legal state-enforced private discrimination by racists such as you.
You can claim that I am wrong, but the facts and history bear me out – not you. You are on the wrong side of history – a history of brutal discrimination by private entities enforced by the states that largely ended in this country some 50 years ago.
That you want to return to the days when people were legally and commonly denied basic human services by other people because of the color of their skin reveals that you have the heart of a Klansman.
There are few viewpoints more immoral, despicable, and unjust than your view that racism should be enforced by the law.
Keep it up, Rhymey – the world will know that your message is that “White” “Rhymes With Right,” and that you are a racist link-spammer from Texas.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Lots of words, no proof.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Lots of hate, no humanity.