Republicans are against voting, against women, against education, against health care, against a living wage … at what point do we conclude they are against human beings?
Christopher Ryan @ThatChrisRyan
Tweeted on April 9, 2020
[This is what they think of you.
Typical left wing politics. It looks like Ryan is prepping the battlespace for the railroad cars and the final solution.—Joe]
And for a leftist like this, pointing out that it was Republicans that got the vote for women and blacks and Republicans that fought a war to end slavery doesn’t count.
And pointing out that their little leftist friends the Democrats are the party of the KKK and Jim Crow laws doesn’t count.
It is always “Well that was before the great switch.” I believe that the Democratic National Headquarters has a huge image/statue of a Republican (Lincoln) in their lobby, trying to imply without saying that they are the party that freed the slaves.
These leftist always believe that they are good and we are evil. There is no fact or figure that will convince them.
The final reason is that for these leftist, if you do not support their policies today, right now, then you are evil. There is no other reason possible in their heads for you to not support their policies.
I don’t believe you’re evil. And the facts you point out are from a century ago, when “Republican” meant something different. You know that. You don’t get credit for having freed the slaves when your party is currently doing everything possible to keep black people from voting. You don’t get credit for supporting women’s suffrage when your party is currently doing everything possible to let men decide how women choose to deal with pregnancy. You don’t get credit for being “pro-life” when your party is working hard to ban sex ed classes and contraception — both of which are proven to reduce teen pregnancy and abortion. Your perspective makes no sense, and you seem intelligent enough to realize that. I don’t think you’re evil, but I do think you are intellectually lazy.
There is not a single thing you’ve asserted about that straw man army that exists in your head you call “Republicans” that maps to a person that associates themselves as a “Republican” in the objective world.
I’m a small-l libertarian-type that believes that political parties in general are a conspiracy against the public good, focused almost with exclusivity on accumulating and concentrating power to their inner circle, I bestow upon the group today as a Party no credit whatsoever, and there is not a single “Republican” I have ever discussed policy with that wants what you say they want. I can tell that they don’t covertly want what you describe, because they can detail a different public purpose for their policies, the benefits, costs, and processes thereof, and they don’t add up to what you describe. To detail:
“Republicans don’t get credit for having freed the slaves”
Sure, OK. Not a single Republican alive today did anything to end slavery. That was done by Republicans 155 years ago, opposed by Democrats 155 years ago, as part of a movement of ending the millennia-old worldwide multicultural institution of slavery. Aforementioned abolition movement started in the British empire before the establishment of this country and proceeded outward from its colonies and former colonies.
Similarly, not a single American citizen of any description living today retains any residual stain of the long expired institution of slavery. If that’s not agreeable, then we can go back to the Republicans of today retaining the credit for freeing the slaves, twice integrating the Dept of War, and pushing for multiple civil rights acts until Democrat opposition collapsed in 1965. And Democrats of today can retain condemnation for owning slaves, re-segregating the Dept of War, the Jim Crow laws the Nazis liked to much they took them back to Germany, opposing all the proposed civil rights acts until a Democrat president could take the credit, and enacting vast wealth transfer social programs for the purpose of (in the words of the Democrat president who signed it) “hav[ing] those ni–ers vote Democratic for the next two hundred years”. You get to pick one and stick with it.
“keep black people from voting”
Not a thing and was never a thing. The public policy purpose is ‘prevent electoral fraud’. The phrasing you have uttered is the pro-fraud position doing the very best marketing job they can. You have been programmed very well.
“let men decide how women choose to deal with pregnancy”
Republicans, particularly Republican women, have a very different concept of when life begins, and therefore when homicide has occurred. If they are wrong and get their way, then there will be another living human child on this world that needs to be taken care of for the next eighteen years, and yes, single-parentage is one of the things that contributes to long-term poverty. If the Democrat party platform is wrong, and they get their way, not only has a murder occurred, in all likelihood multiple further future murders will occur. Which is the greater evil: two people possibly in poverty; or one absolutely incontrovertible deliberate murder with multiple accomplices?
“working hard to ban sex ed classes and contraception — both of which are proven to reduce teen pregnancy and abortion”
Sex Ed in kindergarten? Graphic depictions of anal sex? A how-to guide for 6th graders of sexual acts? If I recall correctly, there was a Republican proposition to reclassify The Pill as over-the-counter medication so it could be sold right from the pharmacy aisle without involving anyone but a cashier. This proposition was vigorously opposed by Planned Parenthood, and thus their nearly exclusive political contribution recipient, the Democrats, because the actual effective reduction in teen pregnancies undercuts PP’s bottom line and thus the Democrats campaign warchests. So, to turn your phrase around, Democrats get no credit for reducing teen pregnancy when their goal is not to prevent teen pregnancy, but rather keep their public-money-laundered-into-political-donations pipeline flowing.
So, from a non-Republican perspective, let me offer you an alternative: metaphorically unload the gun rather than wear a bullet resistant vest or treat the sucking chest wound. To the extent that any public funding is spent on abortion services, equal or much greater funding should be spent on grants for reversible vasectomies. Two-part grants, mind you: one to get it done, and a second half to get it undone upon proof of marriage. After all, if your goal is to prevent single-parentage and the contributions to poverty that entails, it is far better for the benefit of women to be pro-active on that score than reactive. I await your enthusiastic expression of support with steady, regular breathing.
“Your perspective makes no sense, and you seem intelligent enough to realize that.”
Au contraire, their perspectives do contain a logical consistency, a self-reinforcing order, and beginning principles that do flow naturally to conclusions and thus policy preferences. The problem is that you can’t accept any of that because to recognize that they may have a point or any validity undermines your ideological purity and lockstep in-group orthodoxy. You refuse to accept them as logical, thinking individuals specifically so you do not have to engage in the arguments they raise.
Non-progressives are absolutely swimming in the progressive policy messaging cacophany, from most media, most entertainment, and the vast majority of public educational outlets. They’ve heard you, and they can recite your arguments from rote memory and then explain why they disagree. You hear yourselves echoing off the walls, and discount wherever the echo doesn’t come back as loud as an anomaly.
“I don’t think you’re evil, but I do think you are intellectually lazy.”
Buddy, that is the cast iron pot calling the stainless steel camping kettle ‘soot-stained’.
@tirno, thank you, very well stated.
My point was proven with the reply given.
Leftest start from the point of view that those that oppose their policies or goals are evil, lazy or stupid.
1) Nothing that happened in the past that reflects positively on Republicans counts
2) Nothing that happened in the past that reflects negatively on Democrats (or leftest) counts.
By definition, a single fraudulent vote negates one legitimate vote. Every single voter anti-fraud bill I’ve seen proposed is race, gender and party neutral. I.e. voter ID.
The ONLY way you can possible say that requiring ID in order to vote is some how “unfair” is if you posit that the members of one group are so stupid, lazy and uninterested in voting that they didn’t bother to get an ID that would allow them to vote. I’m reminded of the woman that went to court in PA because “making her get an ID was an attempt to dis-enfranchise them” Her argument was the cost (around $20) and the requirement that she travel to a court house/seat of government was so difficult and egregious that it dis-enfranchised them and all the other black voters in her situation.
Once the ruling came down against her she traveled to the court house and was issued an ID within minutes.
I find it racist that so many leftest seem to feel that minorities are too stupid to get an ID.
In the same way it amazes me how sexist this person is. To claim that all laws are passed by men. The speaker of the house is a woman. And there are many women in politics. There are women governors, senators and representatives. Yet he claims it is “men” that want to stop abortion.
Now it is true that there are many that do wish to make abortion illegal. Yet most of the laws that are being proposed are things like “Don’t spend government money on Planned Parenthood” Or “If you are going to perform an abortion then you have to have admitting privileges at the local hospital” or “If you are going to perform out patent services (abortions included) you must maintain a level of cleanliness AND there must be good access for emergency personal.”
Yet somehow people saying “Don’t spend money taken from me for her abortion” translates to “don’t let women kill fetuses when they decide they don’t want to have a baby.”
Again, the straw man, “working hard to ban sex education classes” Going back 50-75 years ago, maybe. The argument was “If we teach sex-education in the schools before you know it they will be teaching sex to Kindergartners.” And I don’t know any main stream conservative that is trying to ban contraception. Not pay for others contraceptio? yes, ban it? No.
If you want to stand up a straw man and knock it down that’s your choice, but those straw men do not represent my life, my goals, my morals or my preferred policies.
Disagreement on policies do not make Republicans “against voting, against women, against education, against health care, against a living wage”. Your blue-collar rhetoric demonstrates that your ignorance of actual political policy positions is intentional. You don’t want to understand policy disagreements, you just want to hate people.
“blue-collar ” should read “bile-filled “
Hey, Chris. Buddy. You got a Sal Alinsky hanging out your nose dude.
Seriously, that’s what passes for logic and reason in your circles? Glad I’m a short timer.
Funny, I’m for real education, with which you can earn a living wage, not leftist indoctrination, which prepares you for a life that requires free entitlements like healthcare. And I’m all for voting – by actual, living citizens.
Why is it that liberals insist some “great switch” occurred in the 1960’s where the two political parties switched their principles and positions, yet the liberals still claim JFK, Truman, and FDR as their heroes?
It’s called propaganda.
Mixed with double-think, new-speak, virtue-signaling, projection, and lying. When I see a spiel like that, I have to wonder – is that individual’s wet-ware so mal-programmed that he actually believes that, or is he a troll spouting party talking points to earn a living, and he either knows it’s false or is vapid he doesn’t even process the concepts in his pre-packaged sentences, he’s just moving his lips and making sounds like a trained seal? I mean. I know some people do believe it, and some are clearly NPCs, but with any individual is can be hard to tell.
I’ve often wondered the same thing. In my mind, determining the difference would define what their sentence would be at their trial.
If they actually believed such drivel, they would be considered merely a dupe and the execution of sentence would be quick and relatively painless.
If, however, they were determined to have been trolling, what the ancient Syrians did to their captured enemies would be considered merciful in comparison.
You don’t have to go back that far. Democrats are about to nominate for President a man who based his rise in politics on his opposition to forced busing for desegregation.
Funny, but I do view Leftists / Communists / Socialists / Democrats as evil.
“…against voting, against women, against education, against health care, against a living wage …against human beings”
1. Which side resists voter ID laws and prefers proven voter fraud? (It does not stop anyone since the supposedly impacted parties already have ID for entitlements)
2. Which side advocates for the murder of millions of babies by abortion (and half of them are female)?
3. Which side loves socialist teacher unions and resists school choice so kids can’t escape government indoctrination centers which fail in the 3 Rs?
4. Which side thinks health care is a right and not a service? Anything that you force someone else to provide is not a right.
5. Again, a living wage is not a right if you have to compel someone to provide it. Rights are what you have innately and cannot be taken away from you. If you want a good salary, earn it!
6. Which end of the ideological spectrum killed over 200 million people in the last century? Hint: Communism, Nazism, fascism, totalitarianism, which is what the Left is all about. Yup, that is evil!
I don’t tolerate such libel from dipshit Leftist scum.
2.
As you’ll find from Mr Ryan’s tweets, he doesn’t consider a fetus a human being.
https://twitter.com/ThatChrisRyan/status/1248457640729960449
He can’t. Not at this point. He has to believe with all his being, with absolute conviction, that a fetus with an entirely separate genetic make-up and circulatory system from his/her mother is just a bundle of cells with no value. He has to believe it so hard that anyone that believes otherwise is incomprehensible to him, and he has to get others to believe like him. Because it is so hard for him to pin down a scientifically significant moment where that biological process transitions from a valueless parasite to a person, he must believe the most extreme version. His belief is religiously fanatical.
There’s a very simple reason why: If he admits to the merest iota of possibility that he’s wrong in this, he’s admitting to the possibility that he is celebrating a premeditated homicide. In trying to get as many people to believe as he does, he’s armoring his psyche with the but we all did it defense.
Maybe I’m wrong about my opinion of him. Perhaps he has a clear, objective and verifiable set of criteria that can be confirmed by independent observers that delineate the dividing line between A) a fetus that can be disposed of with no more thought about it than squeezing a pimple and B) an innocent human being, indeed perhaps an American citizen, that has inherent dignity and inviolable rights. Perhaps that opinion of those criteria, grounded solely in objective science, could be amenable to discussion, possibly even moving in one direction or another as better knowledge is firmly established. Or he’s a Ralph Northam kinda of sociopath that doesn’t think a baby born alive counts as a human being until the birthing-parent carries the post-fetus out of the facility in which it was born alive though a one-way exit door marked “can’t change your mind after the door closes”.
Apparently Mr. Ryan is so indoctrinated that he is a danger to society, particularly if some such wholesale “unpersoning” is invented against the “Useless eaters” at the other end of the life journey. I don’t think he is stupid. I do wonder if he has ever held his or her son, daughter, niece, nephew, grandchild or cousin in his arms on the day of birth, with the mother in a hospital bed. No one who has done so can EVER believe that the issue is as simple as he seems to believe.
He cannot truly believe that no other choice is allowed by the government (His imaginary all-powerful- all knowing, all-merciful and all- pervading friend whose name starts with “G”) except the choice whether a child no one has yet seen may live or die — and that choice allowed only to women.
And give Northam time, he will develop his philosophy to the point that he will agree with the ancient Roman law allowing the head of household the power of life and death over the “lesser” members of that household. The only difference is that power will be matriarchal in structure and will therefore be “more just” than when it was exercised by men.
It’s funny sometimes to agree with a pro-abortion person when they say “my body, my choice,” and say “sure – and my wallet, my choice. If you have a child, then NO child support if I don’t want it and don’t get an equal voice in child-rearing, either through direct payment OR VIA TAXPAYER SUPPORT, which I also pay.” The tune is often different.
I agree Tirno. Those who advocate for abortion have to be utterly steadfast in that belief, precisely for the reason you posited.
While my personal viewpoint on abortion is from a Christian perspective, I use the Declaration of Independence for those who are non-religious/agnostic/atheist.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life……
Define ‘Creator’ however you want. God, or Nature, I don’t care. Humans have a ‘right to life’ and I think that when the end result of a pregnancy brought to term is a baby human, that baby had that right from conception.
I see abortion as a ‘civil rights’ issue. With the civil rights of the unborn just as significant as anyone else’s.
But that’s just me.
Rolf, when you consider that your wallet is a time-bound abstraction of the work performed by you in your body, then the money you are forced to spend is an unwanted claim on your body and time, just like any other compelled work, which to complete the comparison includes an unwanted pregnancy carried by the mother. Karen Straughan, the Canadian woman who has a blog and Youtube channel called “Girl writes what?” has spoken about paternal relinquishment (if that’s the term she uses, it’s been awhile).
I haven’t looked Ryan’s tweets on the subject but I don’t see the abortion issue as at all simple as you guys make it out to be.
There are people who see it as the best in a set of terrible options. Sort of like amputation of a gangrenous limb. I’m not comparing a fetus to a gangrenous limb, I’m comparing the similarity of terrible options to choose from.
Some women become pregnant through no fault of their own (rape, failure of birth control which was thought to be extremely reliable, etc.) at a time when a pregnancy is unthinkable. Such times include already supporting as many dependents as are possible, taking medication known to cause severe birth defects, about to, or are, undergoing chemotherapy, etc..
Many such women will choose, between the terrible options, for the abortion. Some will do that regardless of the legality of abortion.
As much as the concept of abortion bothers me I would rather women could safely choose to abort rather than run a high risk of the loss of their life and/or impoverish themselves and/or their dependents.
Those that celebrate an abortion or think partial birth abortions are not morally different from a first trimester abortion are a different matter and not within the scope of what I’m trying to say.
Conservatives don’t get abortions.
Therefore I support government subsidized abortion.