Slavery, and then abortion

[Votto]

Why is it Dims started the Confederacy and created the Confederate flag to oppress blacks, but when defeated in a Civil war they pass the torch to Margaret Sanger who created Planned Parenthood to further oppress the black population?

It's because they must be racists.

So what is worse today? The Confederate flag or abortion when it comes to oppressing blacks?

Abortion Has Killed More Black Americans Than Crime Accidents Cancer or AIDS LifeNews.com

This week Right to Life of Michigan launched a new website that exposes the massive amount of abortions taking place on African American babies in their state. The pro-life group reports that Black women had 13,065 (49.6% percent of the 26,321 abortions performed on Michigan residents in 2014.
Their website explains, “In the United States, the abortion rate for black women is almost 4 times that of white women. On average, 870 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. This tragedy continues to impact the population levels of African-Americans in the United States. The abortion racial disparity holds true when the focus is on Michigan statistics as well.”

In announcing the new web page, Right to Life of Michigan said, “More than crime. More than accidents. More than cancer, heart disease and AIDS. Abortion has taken more black American lives than any other cause of death since 1973.”

“Did you know that? Abortion is the leading cause of death in the United States, but for black Americans abortion causes more deaths every year than every other cause of death combined. Now is the time for this fact to be addressed in the media and in the classroom,” it added.

NOTE: Shortened for Copyright rules... ---- FlaCalTenn

In the media, Planned Parenthood is praised for being “diverse”, but 79% of all their abortion facilities are located near minority neighborhoods. There is no way that’s simply “coincidental.” Since 1973, approximately 13 million black babies have been lost because of abortion, and out of the approximately 4000 abortions that are performed daily in the United States, 1452 of them are performed on African American women and their unborn children.

In 2014, Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr., addressed abortion and racism. King said, “Right now in America almost half of our babies are being killed in the womb, and in certain parts of America more of our babies are being aborted than being born. While we were marching in the sixties, a place was being prepared for us at Planned Parenthood. We were trying to get off the back of the bus, and they were going to have a space for us in the front of the abortion mill.”

 

[Votto]

Could the black population just disappear at this rate?

 

[Thunderbird]

 

[Votto]

We only want white babies.

 

[LibertarianPatriot]

And the saddest thing about it is if you mention this to a black person you will be called a racist

 

[Mr. H.]

It matters not. A pre-born child hasn't the identity of a person, has no voice, has no rights, and therefor cannot be considered "dead" when aborted.

I think that when a woman becomes pregnant, she should be issued a birth certificate with the due date of the child.

If it's aborted, then she should be issued a death certificate.

 

[Bfgrn]

In 2014, Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr., addressed abortion and racism. King said, “Right now in America almost half of our babies are being killed in the womb, and in certain parts of America more of our babies are being aborted than being born. While we were marching in the sixties, a place was being prepared for us at Planned Parenthood. We were trying to get off the back of the bus, and they were going to have a space for us in the front of the abortion mill.”

Because she is the niece of Dr King has no significance...NONE. She is not her uncle in any way, shape or form. She uses her famous uncle to promote an agenda that conflicted with his.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. championed Planned Parenthood and reproductive rights. King believed that the spread of family planning was a crucial tool in the fight to end poverty and racial inequality. “I have always been deeply interested in and sympathetic with the total work of the Planned Parenthood Federation,” he said in 1960. He connected reproductive justice with racial justice, noting that the impoverished African American community had “a special and urgent concern” in family planning. Because of these views, he believed access to contraception and family planning programs should be funded by the government.

In 1966, Planned Parenthood Federation of America inaugurated the PPFA Margaret Sanger Award to honor the woman who founded America's family planning movement. In its first year, the award was bestowed upon four men, including the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. -

See more at: The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[Votto]

"The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda"

by Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood.

"Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.

...

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger Web Edition

 

[Bfgrn]

"The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda"

by Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood.

"Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.

...

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger Web Edition

Dr Martin Luther King compared the movement for civil rights to the movement for reproductive rights:

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist - a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.


For the Negro, therefore, intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command.

This is not to suggest that the Negro will solve all his problems through Planned Parenthood. His problems are far more complex, encompassing economic security, education, freedom from discrimination, decent housing and access to culture. Yet if family planning is sensible it can facilitate or at least not be an obstacle to the solution of the many profound problems that plague him.

 

[Votto]

In 2014, Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr., addressed abortion and racism. King said, “Right now in America almost half of our babies are being killed in the womb, and in certain parts of America more of our babies are being aborted than being born. While we were marching in the sixties, a place was being prepared for us at Planned Parenthood. We were trying to get off the back of the bus, and they were going to have a space for us in the front of the abortion mill.”

Because she is the niece of Dr King has no significance...NONE. She is not her uncle in any way, shape or form. She uses her famous uncle to promote an agenda that conflicted with his.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. championed Planned Parenthood and reproductive rights. King believed that the spread of family planning was a crucial tool in the fight to end poverty and racial inequality. “I have always been deeply interested in and sympathetic with the total work of the Planned Parenthood Federation,” he said in 1960. He connected reproductive justice with racial justice, noting that the impoverished African American community had “a special and urgent concern” in family planning. Because of these views, he believed access to contraception and family planning programs should be funded by the government.

In 1966, Planned Parenthood Federation of America inaugurated the PPFA Margaret Sanger Award to honor the woman who founded America's family planning movement. In its first year, the award was bestowed upon four men, including the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. -

See more at: The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

Lots of blacks have bought into the Prog message. About 99% of blacks voted for "hope and change". That is why they are being murdered in droves in Prog strongholds like Detroit and Baltimore. They are more killing fields than cities.

If they survive birth, they are sure to succumb to a short life in our Prog utopia.

 

[Votto]

"The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda"

by Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood.

"Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.

...

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger Web Edition

Dr Martin Luther King compared the movement for civil rights to the movement for reproductive rights:

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist - a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.


For the Negro, therefore, intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command.

This is not to suggest that the Negro will solve all his problems through Planned Parenthood. His problems are far more complex, encompassing economic security, education, freedom from discrimination, decent housing and access to culture. Yet if family planning is sensible it can facilitate or at least not be an obstacle to the solution of the many profound problems that plague him.

If Progs just went out and shot the poor black folk King and company could end poverty a lot quicker.

The notion that one should kill babies to end poverty is a sick one.

Kill as many babies as you like in cities like Detroit and Baltimore. The poor will remain poor. Progs will see to it in an endless cycle of subpar public school education and no prospects for socioeconomic mobility.

All they can hope for is a meager entitlement and perhaps a free phone.

I find it odd that any black would speak well of an adamant racist like Margaret Sanger. It would be like one of them singing the praises of David Duke.

Well last time I checked, at least David Duke never killed black folk.

 

[Bfgrn]

"The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda"

by Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood.

"Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.

...

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger Web Edition

Dr Martin Luther King compared the movement for civil rights to the movement for reproductive rights:

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist - a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.


For the Negro, therefore, intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command.

This is not to suggest that the Negro will solve all his problems through Planned Parenthood. His problems are far more complex, encompassing economic security, education, freedom from discrimination, decent housing and access to culture. Yet if family planning is sensible it can facilitate or at least not be an obstacle to the solution of the many profound problems that plague him.

If Progs just went out and shot the poor black folk King and company could end poverty a lot quicker.

The notion that one should kill babies to end poverty is a sick one.

Kill as many babies as you like in cities like Detroit and Baltimore. The poor will remain poor. Progs will see to it in an endless cycle of subpar public school education and no prospects for socioeconomic mobility.

All they can hope for is a meager entitlement and perhaps a free phone.

I find it odd that any black would speak well of an adamant racist like Margaret Sanger. It would be like one of them singing the praises of David Duke.

Well last time I checked, at least David Duke never killed black folk.

Your display of ignorance, dogma, and your parroting the right wing hate is completely non-original.

The long history of conservatism is one with ZERO advocates for minorities. You can't even name ONE. Conservatives have done NOTHING for any minority, poor person or disadvantaged member of our society. Unless lynchings are considered ;doing something'...



"We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference."
President John F. Kennedy

"The simplest description of the War on Poverty is that it is a means of making life available for any and all pursuers. It does not try to make men good -- because that is moralizing. It does not try to give men what they want -- because that is catering. It does not try to give men false hopes -- because that is deception. Instead, the War on Poverty tries only to create the conditions by which the good life can be lived -- and that is humanism."
Robert Sargent "Sarge" Shriver, Jr.

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

 

[Votto]

"The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda"

by Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood.

"Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.

...

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger Web Edition

Dr Martin Luther King compared the movement for civil rights to the movement for reproductive rights:

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist - a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.


For the Negro, therefore, intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command.

This is not to suggest that the Negro will solve all his problems through Planned Parenthood. His problems are far more complex, encompassing economic security, education, freedom from discrimination, decent housing and access to culture. Yet if family planning is sensible it can facilitate or at least not be an obstacle to the solution of the many profound problems that plague him.

If Progs just went out and shot the poor black folk King and company could end poverty a lot quicker.

The notion that one should kill babies to end poverty is a sick one.

Kill as many babies as you like in cities like Detroit and Baltimore. The poor will remain poor. Progs will see to it in an endless cycle of subpar public school education and no prospects for socioeconomic mobility.

All they can hope for is a meager entitlement and perhaps a free phone.

I find it odd that any black would speak well of an adamant racist like Margaret Sanger. It would be like one of them singing the praises of David Duke.

Well last time I checked, at least David Duke never killed black folk.

Your display of ignorance, dogma, and your parroting the right wing hate is completely non-original.

The long history of conservatism is one with ZERO advocates for minorities. You can't even name ONE. Conservatives have done NOTHING for any minority, poor person or disadvantaged member of our society. Unless lynchings are considered ;doing something'...



"We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference."
President John F. Kennedy

"The simplest description of the War on Poverty is that it is a means of making life available for any and all pursuers. It does not try to make men good -- because that is moralizing. It does not try to give men what they want -- because that is catering. It does not try to give men false hopes -- because that is deception. Instead, the War on Poverty tries only to create the conditions by which the good life can be lived -- and that is humanism."
Robert Sargent "Sarge" Shriver, Jr.

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

First of all, what do you mean by "conservative"? If you mean Republicans, then Lincoln freed the slaves. It was also Eisenhower who originally tried to introduce Civil Rights for blacks and it was Dims in the South who objected. LBJ later convinced them otherwise. Then you have Bush who introduced the Drugs for Seniors program, a massive entitlement for poor seniors, etc.

But if you mean conservatives who actually try to restrict government rather than expand it like those mentioned above, we have conservative Christians. On average, those of faith give much more of their time and money to the poor than those who are not of faith. Ironically, atheists/agnostics tend to be left leaning and wish to vote for those who would force them to give more of the money to those in need, because they can't seem to force themselves to help on their own. I guess this is driven by internal guilt.

So I have no idea what you are talking about.

Dims remind me of Judas in the Bible. You know, the one who betrayed Jesus. I'm reminded of a story where a woman named Mary used perfume that was worth a years wages to wash the feet of Jesus with her hair as a way to thank him for all he had done for her and her family. Judas was appalled and demanded to know why this perfume was not used to be sold and then given to the poor instead of being "wasted" on Jesus. The scriptures indicated, however, that Judas was in charge of the treasury, and he liked to skim a little off the top for himself. So the heart of Judas was not just for the poor, rather, he wanted to enrich himself as well.

This is how government works. Entitlements like Social Security are routinely raided to the point that there is no money there. All that exists are worthless IOU's, in fact.

So who will put an end to it, especially if some or even most of the loot goes to poor folk?

 

[Bfgrn]

"The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda"

by Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood.

"Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.

...

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger Web Edition

Dr Martin Luther King compared the movement for civil rights to the movement for reproductive rights:

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist - a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.


For the Negro, therefore, intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command.

This is not to suggest that the Negro will solve all his problems through Planned Parenthood. His problems are far more complex, encompassing economic security, education, freedom from discrimination, decent housing and access to culture. Yet if family planning is sensible it can facilitate or at least not be an obstacle to the solution of the many profound problems that plague him.

If Progs just went out and shot the poor black folk King and company could end poverty a lot quicker.

The notion that one should kill babies to end poverty is a sick one.

Kill as many babies as you like in cities like Detroit and Baltimore. The poor will remain poor. Progs will see to it in an endless cycle of subpar public school education and no prospects for socioeconomic mobility.

All they can hope for is a meager entitlement and perhaps a free phone.

I find it odd that any black would speak well of an adamant racist like Margaret Sanger. It would be like one of them singing the praises of David Duke.

Well last time I checked, at least David Duke never killed black folk.

Your display of ignorance, dogma, and your parroting the right wing hate is completely non-original.

The long history of conservatism is one with ZERO advocates for minorities. You can't even name ONE. Conservatives have done NOTHING for any minority, poor person or disadvantaged member of our society. Unless lynchings are considered ;doing something'...



"We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference."
President John F. Kennedy

"The simplest description of the War on Poverty is that it is a means of making life available for any and all pursuers. It does not try to make men good -- because that is moralizing. It does not try to give men what they want -- because that is catering. It does not try to give men false hopes -- because that is deception. Instead, the War on Poverty tries only to create the conditions by which the good life can be lived -- and that is humanism."
Robert Sargent "Sarge" Shriver, Jr.

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

First of all, what do you mean by "conservative"? If you mean Republicans, then Lincoln freed the slaves. It was also Eisenhower who originally tried to introduce Civil Rights for blacks and it was Dims in the South who objected. LBJ later convinced them otherwise. Then you have Bush who introduced the Drugs for Seniors program, a massive entitlement for poor seniors, etc.

But if you mean conservatives who actually try to restrict government rather than expand it like those mentioned above, we have conservative Christians. On average, those of faith give much more of their time and money to the poor than those who are not of faith. Ironically, atheists/agnostics tend to be left leaning and wish to vote for those who would force them to give more of the money to those in need, because they can't seem to force themselves to help on their own. I guess this is driven by internal guilt.

So I have no idea what you are talking about.

Dims remind me of Judas in the Bible. You know, the one who betrayed Jesus. I'm reminded of a story where a woman named Mary used perfume that was worth a years wages to wash the feet of Jesus with her hair as a way to thank him for all he had done for her and her family. Judas was appalled and demanded to know why this perfume was not used to be sold and then given to the poor instead of being "wasted" on Jesus. The scriptures indicated, however, that Judas was in charge of the treasury, and he liked to skim a little off the top for himself. So the heart of Judas was not just for the poor, rather, he wanted to enrich himself as well.

This is how government works. Entitlements like Social Security are routinely raided to the point that there is no money there. All that exists are worthless IOU's, in fact.

So who will put an end to it, especially if some or even most of the loot goes to poor folk?

You don't know much about Lincoln and Ike, do you?

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

 

[Bfgrn]

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth

Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

it has become common for conservatives to say they give more to charity than liberals. Many, many conservatives have cited the book I just linked to for support.

However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:

In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.​

However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.


Read more: Debunking the Conservatives Give More to Charity Myth

 

[Bfgrn]

How Medicare Part D Raised US Healthcare Costs


Q. The prescription drug benefit was described as a poison pill at the time. Does it require funding?

A. More than just a poison pill, it’s a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry to increase the cost of medicine.

During the Reagan-Bush 1980s and the first years of the 1990s, in fact, Medicare was predicted to go bankrupt within fifteen years. Medicare Part D was said to have been intended to be a poison pill for the purpose of killing off Medicare. Medicare Part D was designed to deprive the government of the right to negotiate wholesale drug prices, which would deplete Medicare of over $600 billion in the next decade and hand it over to about a dozen big drug companies.

How Part D Enables Private Sector Profiteering

Under the 2003 law, prices and “formularies”—the lists of which drugs are covered according to different “tiers” of coverage—are set by the individual companies that offer Part D plans. Each company makes its own deals with drug manufacturers for discounts in the form of rebates to the companies, not the consumers. There’s little real competition among the insurers, and to the extent they are able to squeeze discounts out of the manufacturers, they go straight to their own bottom lines and not to consumers.

One of the Medicare Modernization Act’s biggest handouts to the drug industry was its reclassification of 6.2 million low-income elderly and disabled people who had been receiving drug coverage through the Medicaid program. The new law forced these people into Part D, and now the government subsidizes the same drugs at higher prices. According to the 2007 House report, that change alone stood to increase drug company profits by an estimated $2.8 billion in 2007.

In an investigation last October, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that in 2007:

• Discounts negotiated by private plans under part D reduced overall drug spending by only 8%.
• The Medicaid program, where the government buys drugs directly, cuts costs a full 26% via rebates.

 

[Votto]

"The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda"

by Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood.

"Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.

...

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."

The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger Web Edition

Dr Martin Luther King compared the movement for civil rights to the movement for reproductive rights:

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist - a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.


For the Negro, therefore, intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command.

This is not to suggest that the Negro will solve all his problems through Planned Parenthood. His problems are far more complex, encompassing economic security, education, freedom from discrimination, decent housing and access to culture. Yet if family planning is sensible it can facilitate or at least not be an obstacle to the solution of the many profound problems that plague him.

If Progs just went out and shot the poor black folk King and company could end poverty a lot quicker.

The notion that one should kill babies to end poverty is a sick one.

Kill as many babies as you like in cities like Detroit and Baltimore. The poor will remain poor. Progs will see to it in an endless cycle of subpar public school education and no prospects for socioeconomic mobility.

All they can hope for is a meager entitlement and perhaps a free phone.

I find it odd that any black would speak well of an adamant racist like Margaret Sanger. It would be like one of them singing the praises of David Duke.

Well last time I checked, at least David Duke never killed black folk.

Your display of ignorance, dogma, and your parroting the right wing hate is completely non-original.

The long history of conservatism is one with ZERO advocates for minorities. You can't even name ONE. Conservatives have done NOTHING for any minority, poor person or disadvantaged member of our society. Unless lynchings are considered ;doing something'...



"We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference."
President John F. Kennedy

"The simplest description of the War on Poverty is that it is a means of making life available for any and all pursuers. It does not try to make men good -- because that is moralizing. It does not try to give men what they want -- because that is catering. It does not try to give men false hopes -- because that is deception. Instead, the War on Poverty tries only to create the conditions by which the good life can be lived -- and that is humanism."
Robert Sargent "Sarge" Shriver, Jr.

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

First of all, what do you mean by "conservative"? If you mean Republicans, then Lincoln freed the slaves. It was also Eisenhower who originally tried to introduce Civil Rights for blacks and it was Dims in the South who objected. LBJ later convinced them otherwise. Then you have Bush who introduced the Drugs for Seniors program, a massive entitlement for poor seniors, etc.

But if you mean conservatives who actually try to restrict government rather than expand it like those mentioned above, we have conservative Christians. On average, those of faith give much more of their time and money to the poor than those who are not of faith. Ironically, atheists/agnostics tend to be left leaning and wish to vote for those who would force them to give more of the money to those in need, because they can't seem to force themselves to help on their own. I guess this is driven by internal guilt.

So I have no idea what you are talking about.

Dims remind me of Judas in the Bible. You know, the one who betrayed Jesus. I'm reminded of a story where a woman named Mary used perfume that was worth a years wages to wash the feet of Jesus with her hair as a way to thank him for all he had done for her and her family. Judas was appalled and demanded to know why this perfume was not used to be sold and then given to the poor instead of being "wasted" on Jesus. The scriptures indicated, however, that Judas was in charge of the treasury, and he liked to skim a little off the top for himself. So the heart of Judas was not just for the poor, rather, he wanted to enrich himself as well.

This is how government works. Entitlements like Social Security are routinely raided to the point that there is no money there. All that exists are worthless IOU's, in fact.

So who will put an end to it, especially if some or even most of the loot goes to poor folk?

You don't know much about Lincoln and Ike, do you?

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

I see you have no ability to refute that there is very little difference between the GOP and Dims.

In fact, you have provided additional evidence that there is not.

Thanks for that.

 

[Votto]

How Medicare Part D Raised US Healthcare Costs


Q. The prescription drug benefit was described as a poison pill at the time. Does it require funding?

A. More than just a poison pill, it’s a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry to increase the cost of medicine.

During the Reagan-Bush 1980s and the first years of the 1990s, in fact, Medicare was predicted to go bankrupt within fifteen years. Medicare Part D was said to have been intended to be a poison pill for the purpose of killing off Medicare. Medicare Part D was designed to deprive the government of the right to negotiate wholesale drug prices, which would deplete Medicare of over $600 billion in the next decade and hand it over to about a dozen big drug companies.

How Part D Enables Private Sector Profiteering

Under the 2003 law, prices and “formularies”—the lists of which drugs are covered according to different “tiers” of coverage—are set by the individual companies that offer Part D plans. Each company makes its own deals with drug manufacturers for discounts in the form of rebates to the companies, not the consumers. There’s little real competition among the insurers, and to the extent they are able to squeeze discounts out of the manufacturers, they go straight to their own bottom lines and not to consumers.

One of the Medicare Modernization Act’s biggest handouts to the drug industry was its reclassification of 6.2 million low-income elderly and disabled people who had been receiving drug coverage through the Medicaid program. The new law forced these people into Part D, and now the government subsidizes the same drugs at higher prices. According to the 2007 House report, that change alone stood to increase drug company profits by an estimated $2.8 billion in 2007.

In an investigation last October, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that in 2007:

• Discounts negotiated by private plans under part D reduced overall drug spending by only 8%.
• The Medicaid program, where the government buys drugs directly, cuts costs a full 26% via rebates.

And Denis Kucinich refused to vote for Obamacare calling it a sell out to insurance companies that would not solve any of the major problems with health care.

Instead, he favored a single payer system and voted against Obamacare until they needed his vote, then he inexplicably voted for it.

Denis never recanted, yet he voted for it anyway.

Welcome to Washington politics. They are a sick bunch, are they not?

 

[Votto]

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth

Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

it has become common for conservatives to say they give more to charity than liberals. Many, many conservatives have cited the book I just linked to for support.

However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:

In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.​

However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.


Read more: Debunking the Conservatives Give More to Charity Myth

Biblical charity? What do you know about Biblical charity?

Where in the Bible are we taught to give more money to the state so that the state can take care of people? Where is it advocated? Instead, we have 1 Samuel 9 given to us that warns us about wanting a king. The people of Israel demanded a king, and God warned them of the abuses that would follow if they had one. The people would not listen, so God gave them what they wanted, and the abuses soon followed. Kings provided a steady spiral downward for the nation until is dissolved.

What we have today is a system whereby people pay taxes but do their best to evade such taxes. Everyone does it and those that are able to evade taxes do so and are happy about it.

This is a vast difference from the Biblical example Jesus provides of the widow casting in her money for a tithe. She gives the least of anyone, but Jesus said that she gave the most, simply because she gave all she had. .

Then we have those who receive some of the tax money that are poor. They don't view it as a gift, rather, they view it as an entitlement. In fact, they expect more should be given.

So there you have it. What we have now are people who are robbed of the gift of giving, and as an added bonus people are robbed of the gratitude for being given help.
And the best part of all, God is left completely out of the picture to be thanked.

As for money that actually goes to the poor through the government, about 9 cents on the dollar that is given to the poor actually gets there. The vast majority of that money is like giving to the Clinton Foundation. Most of it will just be absorbed by Hillary's mortgage payment.

As far as your little study, believe what you will. I know from personal experience, as well as just seeing the various charitable organizations in action, that most are faith based. I've also seen enough studies to prove it.

How about an ABC article on the matter?

Who Gives and Who Doesn t - ABC News

No matter your views, one thing is certain and that is the notion that conservatives don't give to the poor nor care for the poor has been blown to hell.

You sir are a liar.

 

[Bfgrn]

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth

Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

it has become common for conservatives to say they give more to charity than liberals. Many, many conservatives have cited the book I just linked to for support.

However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:

In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.​

However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.


Read more: Debunking the Conservatives Give More to Charity Myth

Biblical charity? What do you know about Biblical charity?

Where in the Bible are we taught to give more money to the state so that the state can take care of people? Where is it advocated? Instead, we have 1 Samuel 9 given to us that warns us about wanting a king. The people of Israel demanded a king, and God warned them of the abuses that would follow if they had one. The people would not listen, so God gave them what they wanted, and the abuses soon followed. Kings provided a steady spiral downward for the nation until is dissolved.

What we have today is a system whereby people pay taxes but do their best to evade such taxes. Everyone does it and those that are able to evade taxes do so and are happy about it.

This is a vast difference from the Biblical example Jesus provides of the widow casting in her money for a tithe. She gives the least of anyone, but Jesus said that she gave the most, simply because she gave all she had. .

Then we have those who receive some of the tax money that are poor. They don't view it as a gift, rather, they view it as an entitlement. In fact, they expect more should be given.

So there you have it. What we have now are people who are robbed of the gift of giving, and as an added bonus people are robbed of the gratitude for being given help.
And the best part of all, God is left completely out of the picture to be thanked.

As for money that actually goes to the poor through the government, about 9 cents on the dollar that is given to the poor actually gets there. The vast majority of that money is like giving to the Clinton Foundation. Most of it will just be absorbed by Hillary's mortgage payment.

As far as your little study, believe what you will. I know from personal experience, as well as just seeing the various charitable organizations in action, that most are faith based. I've also seen enough studies to prove it.

How about an ABC article on the matter?

Who Gives and Who Doesn t - ABC News

No matter your views, one thing is certain and that is the notion that conservatives don't give to the poor nor care for the poor has been blown to hell.

You sir are a liar.

And you are an idiot. You are quoting the same debunked Arthur Brooks study.

Even Arthur Brooks says:

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.