Monday, August 20, 2012

Vice-President from party that put people in chains accuses presidential candidate of party that took people out of chains of wanting to put people in chains.



Erick Erickson has a fine post on Joe Biden's batshit claim that Romney wants to put black people back in chains.

Except:
In fairness to Vice President Biden, I supposed I should have a full post for our collective crazy uncle in the attic turned Vice President. The man from Delaware claimed that Republicans want to put people back in chains. Considering there is only one group of people ever put in chains in this country, it is clear he was race baiting...
Inciting racial animosity for political gain has been the Democratic playbook since the Democrats were, well, not to put too fine a point on it, putting black people in chains.
'Inciting racial animosity' is a fine synopsis of Democrat Party politics, from the antebellum South through today. I think it is a mistake to think that all pro-slavery pro-KKK pro-Jim Crow pro-lynching Democrat pols personally hated blacks. Many did, undoubtedly, but personal hatred presupposes a modicum of conviction, however heinous.

But the Democrat party has never been, and is not now, a party of conviction. It is a party of opportunism, embracing slave owners and Grand Kleagles and lynch mobs and Black Panthers and Jesse Jackson with open arms.

The Democratic Party is the party of race-baiting. It is the thread that runs from Preston Brooks through  Nathan Bedford Forrest to George Wallace to Al Sharpton to Joe Biden. What unites Democrats through the past two centuries is the use of race hate and fear for political gain. It is race-baiting, not the particular race bated, that really matters to Democrats.

Democrats are equal opportunity opportunists. 

19 comments:

  1. Democrats were pro-choice on slavery too.

    Not pro-slavery, mind you, but pro-choice on slavery. Do you see what a huge difference that makes?

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
  2. Remember that thing the leftists were telling us about when Gabby Giffords was shot? That thing about the "new tone"?

    In case you were wondering, that doesn't apply to them.

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There never was a new tone, TRISH.

      Even the insinuation that Jared Loughner was a tea party conservative was part of the same old, acrid, bare knuckles tone.

      Jared Loughner was not a tea partier, but they tried to make him one. James Holmes was not a tea partier, but they tried to make him one. The Times Square bomber was not a tea partier, but they tried to make him one.

      See a pattern here?

      Joey

      Delete
    2. Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Michael Frederick Griffin, Paul Hill, John Salvi, James Charles Kopp, Bruce Turnidge, and Scott Roeder. These are just a few of the right-wing terrorists and murderers to victimize this country in the recent past. Why just in the last couple of weeks we’ve had the Sikh Temple murders, the conviction of a guy in Washington State for planting a bomb at a MLK day parade, and the murder of two Louisiana deputies by right-wing whackos. Right-wing violence happens so frequently we shouldn’t be surprised if the media speculates about right-wing affiliations when these stories are breaking.

      -KW

      Delete
    3. KW:

      There are certainly right wing terrorists, just as there are left-wing terrorists. Think about the guy who just shot up The Family Research Council. It's a good thing he was stopped by a security guard because he had plans to get inside and blast a lot of people.

      Five occupy protesters were recently arrested for plotting to blow up a bridge in Ohio.

      The point is that the media jump to the conclusion that every terrorist is a tea partier. Not one has yet proven to be. When was the last time the media jumped to the conclusion that a terrorist is a left-winger?

      But more to TRISH's point--After the shooting in Arizona in January of '11, there was a lot of preaching from the Left about how the "tone" of conservatives had somehow made a right-wing nutjob shoot a congresswoman and others. In fact, the tone had nothing to do with it, he wasn't a right-winger, and he didn't need any persuasion from anyone to be a nutjob. He was nutty as a payday, all on his own.

      Still, we heard over and over again that conservatives should really tone down our rhetoric. It was really, really aggravating for two reasons: First, our rhetoric didn't cause the shooting, and second because the Left's rhetoric is far more extreme.

      I haven't forgotten the preachiness of the Left in this regard. Now, to have Joe Biden tell a predominately black audience that Republicans are trying to re-enslave them? That's outrageous.

      Can't this guy just talk about the issues? Biden should stop feeding the hate. He obviously thinks this is good election strategy.

      Joey

      Delete
    4. @KW:

      [Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Michael Frederick Griffin, Paul Hill, John Salvi, James Charles Kopp, Bruce Turnidge, and Scott Roeder...]

      There's been violence all around. The Occupy movement has been infested with violence. The Tea Party, curiously, is utterly non-violent.

      Nearly all political assassinations/attempts of government officials in the US has been left-wing/Dems, from Lincoln to Garfield to McKinley to Kennedy to Wallace to attempts on FDR and Ford and Nixon. Assassins were all lefties/Dems.

      And of course the KKK was yours entirely. Race-baiters, the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party for a century, whose mantra was "Wall of Separation between Church and State".

      Sound familiar, KW?

      In the 1970's there were scores of bombings and a number of killings by leftist groups (Weather Underground etc). The Unabomber and Earth Liberation Front and various animal rights nuts have engaged in considerable terrorism.

      If you include McVeigh on your right-wing list, you'll have to accept him on your atheist/agnostic list as well-- "Science is my religion" was his mantra.

      The fact is that there is violence from all fringes. What unites there fringes is that they accept that deliberate killing is sometimes a justified means. Furthermore, nearly all were socialists of one sort or another-- international socialists (Commies), national socialists (Nazis and fascists).

      Deliberate killing of another human being as a primary act (not self-defense nor as a legal soldier in a just war) is a mortal sin. It is the antithesis of Christianity.

      I find it odd, KW, that a supporter like you of abortion for lifestyle reasons would object when others kill for principle. From your perspective, is killing an abortion "doctor" who slaughters children in the womb that much more heinous than killing your own child in the womb because she inconveniences you?

      Some of us are pro-life, period. Others, like you, accept killing of defenseless people, if they're the right defenseless people.

      Delete
    5. @KW:

      Just to expand on one point-- the critical point about political violence in the US.

      Of all of the movements discussed-- abortion, anti-abortion, far-right, far-left, Occupy-- it's notable that one group-- the Tea Party-- has been responsible for essentially no violence. None.

      So why is it a media reflex to attribute violent acts to the Tea Party-- Louchner, the Aurora shooter, etc?

      Why pick the one movement that has no history of violence whatsoever?

      The reason: the Tea Party is politically effective, and these attributions of violence are all about politics, not about truth.

      Delete
  3. Getting all in a huff about what Biden said is a distraction from the massive racist voter suppression campaigns being carried out by Republicans in many states. It enables the feeble minded conservatives to use the “I’m rubber and you’re glue” tactic commonly employed by 5 year olds.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @KW:

      There is not massive racist voter suppression campaign. There is, however, a massive voter fraud campaign. Anyone who wants to put a halt to is automatically called "racist," a tactic commonly employed by four year olds.

      Are you defending Biden? Don't you think he's been just a smidgen over the top here? We shouldn't we get in a "huff" about these kinds of accusations?

      Joey

      Delete
    2. Bullshit, there is no massive voter fraud campaign. I defy you to provide one single piece of evidence for this massive conspiracy that Republicans have dreamed up.

      Yes Biden is a smidgen over the top. Bid deal.

      -KW

      Delete
    3. @KW:

      Actually, the evidence is that photo-ID laws increase voter turn-out among the poor and minorities (https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/2549).

      The reason? Perhaps the process of ensuring that poor people have IDs motivates them to vote, and perhaps poor people want to vote more when they know that the system has integrity.

      By opposing voter ID laws, the evidence is that YOU are suppressing voters.

      Which is the purpose of voter fraud-- to nullify genuine votes.

      Delete
  4. Here you are, KW.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/153079-gop-says-5000-non-citizens-voting-in-colorado-a-wake-up-call-for-states

    Now, please provide evidence of a massive conspiracy to disenfranchise blacks. Find me someone, somewhere, who has ever said anything about stopping blacks from voting, rather than stopping people from voting who aren't legally supposed to be.

    I love how you say "massive conspiracy." What amount of voter fraud is acceptable to you?

    Think about it this way. Voter fraud and voter disenfranchisement are really two sides to the same coin. Each vote illegally cast cancels out the vote of someone who voted legally. It's as if someone walked in and took your ballot right out of the box, or as if someone stopped you on the way to the polls and prevented you from voting in the first place.

    If that happened, would you be upset? How many incidents of such tomfoolery would you find acceptable? Would a few hundred across the country be okay with you? Is it even acceptable to happen one time?

    No one who should be voting has anything to worry about. Just prove who you are. If that means issuing free ID cards, then fine. But you must prove that you are who you say you are. We ask for ID to buy sudafed, alcohol, tobacco, or a gun. We can ask for ID when voting.

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>How many incidents of such tomfoolery would you find acceptable? Would a few hundred across the country be okay with you? Is it even acceptable to happen one time?<<

      Joey, I think you posed the question to KW, but I'll shed a little light on his thought process.

      The answer to your question is, "It depends." It depends on who's being disenfranchised. If, for example, two angry black militants stand in front of a polling place in Philadelphia and threaten white voters with a policeman's truncheon, screaming "You's about to be ruled by the black man, cracka!" That's no big deal. The black attorney general, appointed by the black president, can ignore the case because he has great "discretion" as to "how" the law will be enforced.

      JQ

      Delete
  5. The number of in person voting fraud cases in the last decade numbers in the tens, with the perpetrators just as like to be Democrats as republicans. Most of the actual voter fraud is perpetrated by Republicans using absentee ballots.

    Just this past week another case of Republican voting fraud was discovered in MA:

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2012/08/15/mass-officials-investigate-claims-voting-fraud/2U4kkEEN30NQtNglBazzxM/story.html

    Republicans are disenfranchising voters for a problem that does not exist, while ignoring the type of voter fraud that they themselves employ on a large scale.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @KW:

      I oppose all voter fraud, in-person, absentee, all of it.

      There is fraud on all sides, although the Democrats are known as the masters of voter fraud-- the Daley Machine in Chicago, Lyndon Johnson in Texas, Tammany Hall, Louisiana, New Jersey, Detroit, etc.

      Al Franken in Minnesota was almost certainly elected by voter fraud (http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163)-- he won by 312 votes in an election in which 1099 felons cast ballots (felons cannot legally vote in Minnesota). Already, 177 people have been convicted of voting fraudulently in the race, and 66 await trial. And Dems have a lock on the felon vote-- 80-90% if felons vote for Dems (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/12/john-lott-senator-al-franken-minnesota-felons-democrat/).

      This senate election, which allowed Obamacare to pass and changed our nations history, was decided by fraud.

      Democrat fraud, but I need not reiterate the obvious.

      Delete
    2. God, You Are so full of shit. The one concrete example you provide, felons voting for Franken, won’t be addressed by any of these voter ID laws.

      -KW

      Delete
  6. Biden just accused Republicans of wanting to resurrect slavery and no one's supposed to get in a "huff" about it.

    Wow. Well, I'm a registered independent, but I'm kind of huffy nonetheless. Biden is way out of line here.

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @KW:

      You are quite complacent about fraud deciding a critical senate election.

      And of course voter ID is essential for keeping felons from voting. It is necessary to know who is voting, and to check putative voters against lists of legal voters.

      Without ID, how could you identify felons who vote illegally?

      Delete
    2. You rely on John Lott again! This is comedic gold! Please, more!

      Delete