House of Eratosthenes

Even a vacant lot in Palo Alto costs more than a spacious middle-class home costs in most of the rest of the country.

How does this tie in with liberalism?

In this part of California, liberalism reigns supreme and “open space” is virtually a religion. What that lovely phrase means is that there are vast amounts of empty land where the law forbids anybody from building anything.

Anyone who has taken Economics 1 knows that preventing the supply from rising to meet the demand means that prices are going to rise. Housing is no exception.

Yet when my wife wrote in a local Palo Alto newspaper, many years ago, that preventing the building of housing would cause existing housing to become far too expensive for most people to afford it, she was deluged with more outraged letters than I get from readers of a nationally syndicated column.

What she said was treated as blasphemy against the religion of “open space” — and open space is just one of the wonderful things about the world envisioned by liberals that is ruinously expensive in the mundane world where the rest of us live.

Much as many liberals like to put guilt trips on other people, they seldom seek out, much less acknowledge and take responsibility for, the bad consequences of their own actions.

One minor quibble with this though: To true-believing liberals, these aren’t “bad consequences.” As hard as it is to nail down workable generalizations of their beliefs — being a bad sales job, it follows that deception is involved, and the interests of the buyers & sellers of liberalism must be different — there is one attribute more consistent than most others: Certain segments of the population should wake up one day to find out the world has no room for them. Margaret Sanger certainly wanted that. Today’s liberals want that. The only disagreement in their ranks is the sequence in which these demographic groups are to be shoved over the brink into the abyss.

But whether the lib realizes it or not, it’s a distinction without a difference. The central-umbrella-message that covers it all is that people are a toxin upon the planet. People are bad. In the wake of the implementation of their policies, things are bad for the people. Well, duh.

Update 4/23/14: The High Cost, Part II:

Liberals almost never talk about disarmament in terms of evidence of its consequences, whether they are discussing gun control at home or international disarmament agreements.

International disarmament agreements flourished between the two World Wars. Just a few years after the end of the First World War there were the Washington Naval Agreements of 1921-1922 that led to the United States actually sinking some of its own warships. Then there was the celebrated Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, in which nations renounced war, with France’s Foreign Minister Aristide Briand declaring, “Away with rifles, machine guns, and cannon!” The “international community” loved it.

In Britain, the Labour Party repeatedly voted against military armaments during most of the decade of the 1930s. A popular argument of the time was that Britain should disarm “as an example to others.”

Unfortunately, Hitler did not follow that example. He was busy building the most powerful military machine on the continent of Europe.

Update 4/24/14: Part III:

Income inequality has long been one of the liberals’ favorite issues. So there is nothing surprising about its being pushed hard this election year.

If nothing else, it is a much-needed distraction from the disasters of ObamaCare and the various IRS, Benghazi and other Obama administration scandals.

Like so many other favorite liberal issues, income inequality is seldom discussed in terms of the actual consequences of liberal policies. When you turn from eloquent rhetoric to hard facts, the hardest of those facts is that income inequality has actually increased during five years of Barack Obama’s leftist policies.

This is not as surprising as some might think. When you make it unnecessary for many people to work, fewer people work. Unprecedented numbers of Americans are on the food stamp program. Unprecedented numbers are also living off government “disability” payments.
:
Most Americans living in “poverty” have air conditioning, a motor vehicle and other amenities, including more living space than the average person in Europe — not the average poor person in Europe, the average person.

“Poverty” is in the eye of the statisticians — more specifically, the government statisticians who define what constitutes “poverty,” and who are unlikely to define it in ways that might jeopardize the massive welfare state that they are part of.

In terms of income statistics that produce liberal outcries about “disparities” and “inequities,” millions of people who don’t have to earn incomes typically don’t.

Do you think that the most extreme example is representative of a larger group?
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 08:24
If it is not, then why does the larger group tolerate or even celebrate the extremists? I mean, they give away Margaret Sanger Awards every year. They give the professors tenure. They buy the magazines that do puff pieces on their terrorist bombers. They campaign not only to free murderers but to lionize their characters.

If these people really were regarded as extremists they would remain on the fringes. By definition they cannot become mainstream until they get a certain mainstream cache and acceptance.
- nightfly | 04/22/2014 @ 10:05
nightfly: I mean, they give away Margaret Sanger Awards

Sure.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/reverend-martin-luther-king-jr-4728.htm

We didn’t respond to the specific examples, but asked a more general question. Some of the Sanger quotes are out of context, while Sanger knew the American Baby Code wasn’t a serious proposal. In any case, people may celebrate the positive, but shouldn’t forget the negative. Thomas Jefferson had slaves but wrote the Declaration of Independence.

nightfly: If these people really were regarded as extremists they would remain on the fringes.

They mostly are, but when you mix in historical personages, then you have to provide historical context. The political center has moved considerably left over time. What was once radical, such as women voting, is now mundane.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 10:18
Z: We didn’t respond to the specific examples, but asked a more general question.

My specific examples are the answer to your general question. You asked for representatives of a larger group – were you not expecting any?

Z: Some of the Sanger quotes are out of context, while Sanger knew the American Baby Code wasn’t a serious proposal.

What possible context would make her theories palatable, pray tell? Sanger was quite earnestly serious. People that messianic about genocide rarely have any sort of a sense of humor.

Z: The political center has moved considerably left over time.

In other words, my statement was completely correct – the Hard Left succeeded and plenty of hangers-on and rank-and-file embraced them, making no distinction between anything useful, such as universal suffrage, and the most virulent and destructive proposals.

If there were real principles involved, such as liberty or equality, then any offenses against those principles would be protested and rejected, and the moreso from one’s own “side,” precisely because they would give folks on the other side a reason to reject the good principle at stake. But as I observed prior, the Left lets its extremists take over the joint without even bothering to attempt to kick them to the curb. They’re just “in a hurry” for all those things and their worst offenses are praiseworthy “in context.” In the meantime, things are getting done and the correct people – those who don’t think properly and believe properly – are getting theirs, which is the only true principle in play. I believe that the term “useful idiots” applies to those who behave in such a loathsome manner.

I suppose it’s not too terribly surprising. The Hard Left wants to destroy whomever is an obstacle to their own authority and power, and enslave whomever remains. Given those options it no doubt looks like a prudent safeguard to be among the second group, even if one can’t quite go for the gusto and be Hard Left oneself. That the second group will be steadily redefined as members of the first group at the whim of the third seems always to escape their notice until it is quite too late. The machine, once built, must run.
- nightfly | 04/22/2014 @ 12:37
nightfly: My specific examples are the answer to your general question.

Granted extremists exist.

nightfly: What possible context would make her theories palatable, pray tell?

What possible context makes Jefferson’s slaveholding palatable, pray tell? You raised a legitimate issue, but the historical examples have to be seen in historical context.

nightfly: In other words, my statement was completely correct – the Hard Left succeeded and plenty of hangers-on and rank-and-file embraced them, making no distinction between anything useful, such as universal suffrage, and the most virulent and destructive proposals.

Well, it used to be that monarchy was the political center. Now it’s democracy. Is that what you mean by “hard left”?

nightfly: But as I observed prior, the Left lets its extremists take over the joint without even bothering to attempt to kick them to the curb.

Are you really unaware of extremists on the right?

There are extremists on both left and right. Political parties are coalitions by nature. In the U.S. the partisan divide has become greater, but Republicans have moved further right over the last generation than Democrats have to the left.
http://voteview.com/images/House_Party_Means_46-111.jpg
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 12:55
To clarify; with Sanger, we kept family planning but rejected eugenics; with Jefferson, we kept the Declaration, but rejected slavery.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 13:14
This is wonderful… you’ve basically conceded my rebuttal while still asserting the original position. All you can do is pick through the ruins and hold up the fragments of the premises as if that’s the same as a fully-assembled argument.

For what it’s worth, even though you didn’t try to answer my question, I will answer yours. Nothing makes the context palatable, because beyond Left and Right, there’s Good and Evil. That’s why I found your “but put it in historical context” line so pathetic. You seem to believe that “context” is a synonym for “exact opposite of what this actually means.”

Genocide is evil. Sanger’s proposals were intended to eradicate the “unfit,” a genocide of the non-white ethnicities, a goal she never bothered to hide. Merely calling this “family planning” doesn’t actually reject the eugenics of it; the substance of what she intended still remains and is still destroying black and Hispanic families. Sanger’s goals have been met. The Left never abandoned or rejected that goal, they just got better at fooling people as to what they intended. That this genocide has spread to the rest of the human family is not a mitigation but a exacerbation of the original evil. So, again, we see that the extremist position was mainstreamed, and it’s savagery papered over with a veneer of smooth-sounding words to hide this from the rank-and-file, the easier for them to go along with.

Slavery, likewise, is evil. The important difference is that Jefferson knew it was evil, and wrote a document that laid the foundation for this evil to be ended. That’s why we kept the principle and rejected his personal failing – and why we can admire him despite this. He repented of his evil; Sanger championed her evil and won a large flock of converts.

Z: Well, it used to be that monarchy was the political center. Now it’s democracy. Is that what you mean by “hard left”?

I defined Hard Left for you.

Z: Are you really unaware of extremists on the right?

Not the point. Are the Right’s extremists mainstream, or fringe? That’s the point. You likely forgot the whole thread that’s still going on, where early on I pointed out that the Right generally rejects their extremists; I used the example of Robert Byrd getting to serve in Congress while still an active KKK Grand Wizard, while David Duke was so thoroughly despised that he couldn’t even win GOP primaries on the state and federal level. The Left makes their extremists into professors, Senators, and the occasional President of the United States. They laud and applaud them, whether they are cultural bellweathers undermining virtue or would-be tyrants lording over their taxpaying serfs at whim.
- nightfly | 04/23/2014 @ 08:43
Point and match to nightfly.
- tim | 04/23/2014 @ 09:50
nightfly: That’s why I found your “but put it in historical context” line so pathetic. You seem to believe that “context” is a synonym for “exact opposite of what this actually means.”

Not at all, but we don’t expect medieval monarchs to hold regular elections for head of state. We don’t usually fault them for not being very democratic.

nightfly: Genocide is evil.

Sure. Yet the Americans dropped atomic bombs on civilian populations.

nightfly: Sanger’s proposals were intended to eradicate the “unfit,” a genocide of the non-white ethnicities, a goal she never bothered to hide.

That’s false. First, she advocate eradicating anyone, even rejecting abortion, and the reference “non-white ethnicities” is a smear based on out-of-context quotes. She worked closely with minorities to provide birth control. However, she did advocate sterilization for the severely mentally disabled.

nightfly: Merely calling this “family planning” doesn’t actually reject the eugenics of it; the substance of what she intended still remains and is still destroying black and Hispanic families.</i.

False. Try to look at your claim skeptically.

nightfly: Slavery, likewise, is evil. The important difference is that Jefferson knew it was evil,

Yes. That makes him a hypocrite as well as a slaveholder.

nightfly: He repented of his evil

Jefferson may have felt guilty, but he didn’t free his slaves, not even on his death.

nightfly: I defined Hard Left for you.

Don’t see a definition. We do see ” The Hard Left wants to destroy whomever is an obstacle to their own authority and power, and enslave whomever remains.” That’s not a definition, because there may be others who want to do the same who come from a different ideological spectrum. Indeed, your use of the term doesn’t seem consistent with how the term is used, as you don’t even mention the ideology involved. For instance, communists are on the extreme left, and advocate a path to absolute economic and social equality. As with all extremists, the means are justified by the ends.

nightfly: Are the Right’s extremists mainstream, or fringe?

There is accommodation within the political right to extremists.

nightfly: I used the example of Robert Byrd getting to serve in Congress while still an active KKK Grand Wizard

No. He had already ended his direct involvement when elected to Congress. The Democratic alliance at the time consisted of southern pro-segregation populists, labor, and liberals. The Democratic Party then went through a painful transformation, throwing off its alliance with segregation. Later, Byrd repudiated that aspect of his past. Meanwhile, the Republican Party instituted the Southern Strategy to attract disaffected southern whites.

nightfly: while David Duke was so thoroughly despised that he couldn’t even win GOP primaries on the state and federal level.

David Duke was elected as a Republican member of the House in 1989. He was the only Republican to run during a 1990 Senate campaign. He lost to a Democrat. Then he ran for governor. The Democrats ran on “Vote for the Crook. It’s Important.” Still, Duke won a majority of the white vote, but lost overall. Good times.

But you are correct. Mainstream Republicans repudiated him. That’s their strategy.

Lee Atwater, Reagan political adviser: “You start out in 1954 by saying, “N—–, n—–, n—–.” By 1968 you can’t say “n—–” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

There’s been plenty of hate speech from conservatives, against gays, against Muslims, against women. Did you really want to recount it? Political parties are coalitions by nature. In the U.S. the partisan divide has become greater, but Republicans have moved further right over the last generation than Democrats have to the left.
http://voteview.com/images/House_Party_Means_46-111.jpg

nightfly: The Left makes their extremists into professors, Senators, and the occasional President of the United States.

If you’re referring to Obama, he’s a middle-of-the-road technocrat. The most radical thing he’s done is Obamacare, and nearly every developed nation already has some sort of universal coverage.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 12:41
Z: she {did not} advocate eradicating anyone, even rejecting abortion
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 14:24
You are hilariously, spectacularly, completely wrong. Even when you get a detail correct here and there you draw the most ludicrous conclusions. It’s almost impressive watching you contort so terribly – you should have your own acrobatic troupe. Come and see the Cuttlecrew! They dance, they sing, they fold and bend! And amazingly, they do it all while only using the Left side of the stage! (Plan your seating accordingly.)

Here, just for fun – the claim that Obama is a “middle-of-the-road technocrat.”

First off, if He was any sort of a technocrat, then His damned website would have worked a whole hell of a lot sooner, and wouldn’t be crashing every fifty-five minutes or so. He would be able to tell you exactly how many of his sign-ups were previously uninsured, how many of them have actually paid their premiums, and so on. Saying Obama is a technocrat is as probative as saying he’s a leprechaun – it doesn’t make it true. Look at what he does and says and you’ll know what he is. And if what that is will now be called “middle-of-the-road” then my point about the Left’s embrace of extremism need rest easy… a person who flaunts the rule of law so completely (“I have a pen and a phone”), even to the extent of disregarding the requirements of the law that bears his name, regards himself as a king in all but name, just as Sanger’s gristly legacy is genocide in all but name. It’s the same process applied to a different material.

See, the point about monarchs isn’t that they weren’t elected. We “elect” all sorts of “democratic” leaders who call themselves presidents, such as Saddam, Kim Jong Il, etc…. and all of them wield such absolute authority and inflict such needless suffering upon their own people as to make the medieval kings and queens look like Sunday School superintendents. In practice, the kings of old always had to worry about losing their office – and possibly their head with it – to some ambitious lord or jealous peer. Keeping subjects happy and safe was a good way to make sure that such rivals never attracted the required followers to come to a coup. And in practice, many of those subjects lived far freer lives than your average man-on-the-street in most of the countries of this world, including several among the Anglosphere that used to know better. They lacked the freedom of the ballot but were not hemmed in by such thickets of bureaucrats and satraps and schoolyard bullies – all of whom were democratically elected. And they were protected by laws as well; such things weren’t invented as a replacement for monarchies.

In a prior conversation you argued that people didn’t have the right to pass laws that were unjust to a few, even by overwhelming consent; but you seem once again to have not been telling the strictest truth about that. It seems you don’t mind at all having a minority or even a majority unfairly punished, restricted, harassed, or otherwise unfree, so long as it is done by a person in charge instead of a law. In that case, then the modern kings have the advantage of their medieval fellows – they can be elected, and once that’s done they can do as they damn well please.

Sadly, the rest of your post is a fine blend of lies, bullshit, and willful blindness.

* Jefferson was a hypocrite? You were the one saying how praiseworthy he was not four comments ago.
* Duke was elected to the House as a Republican? Heheheheh…. WRONGO. He began life as a Democrat, switched of his own free will (hey, they didn’t kick him out? Shocker!), and after several defeats, he narrowly won a special election to the Louisiana State House – 50.7 to 49.3 – in a runoff.
* Sanger didn’t want to exterminate minorities? YOUR OWN WORDS: “She worked closely with minorities to provide birth control.” It’s because she didn’t want any more of them around – she wanted them to stop breeding. And if that didn’t work, well yay abortion! You can claim that she didn’t like the practice but the organization she founded makes it their high calling to make sure it’s done as often as possible and for any or no reason at all.
* “There’s been plenty of hate speech from conservatives, against gays, against Muslims, against women. Did you really want to recount it?” You have such a dreadful track record so far, any such recounting you do is likely to be fantastically wrong. Why waste your time? It’s not any more true than anything else you’ve said up until now.
- nightfly | 04/23/2014 @ 15:14
nightfly: In a prior conversation you argued that people didn’t have the right to pass laws that were unjust to a few, even by overwhelming consent; but you seem once again to have not been telling the strictest truth about that.

Huh? All laws impinge on some people more than others.

nightfly: Jefferson was a hypocrite? You were the one saying how praiseworthy he was not four comments ago.

Jefferson deserves praise for the things he did right, and criticism for what he did wrong. You were the one who pointed to bad things purportedly done to condemn everything about the person. Jefferson is a counterexample to that, as well as a reason to include historical context.

nightfly: Duke was elected to the House as a Republican? Heheheheh…. WRONGO.

According to your own source, Duke became a Republican in 1988. He was elected to the Louisiana House in 1989. But as you said, he was repudiated by establishment Republicans.

nightfly: Sanger didn’t want to exterminate minorities? YOUR OWN WORDS: “She worked closely with minorities to provide birth control.”

Really? You’re equating birth control with extermination!? Sanger wanted to give women the tools to decide when to have children, something nearly all women want. At the time, it was very controversial, and conservatives resisted access to birth control, which was illegal in many states until the Griswold decision in 1965.

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. — Martin Luther King Jr.

nightfly: And if that didn’t work, well yay abortion!

Sanger did not support abortion.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 15:42
Sanger did not support abortion.

Because, of course, it was unsafe, given the technological and legal limitations of the time. And because it got in the way of her preferred eugenic program.

There is the case in a nutshell. Family limitation will always be practised as it is now being practised–-either by Birth Control or by abortion. We know that. The one means health and happiness–-a stronger, better race. The other means disease, suffering, death.

Amazing what one can find on the internet, if one is actually interested in learning something.
- Severian | 04/23/2014 @ 16:16
Severian: And because it got in the way of her preferred eugenic program.

Birth control is not the same as eugenics. Incredible as it may seem to you, the vast majority of women in developed countries have used birth control.

Sanger: “while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 16:21
Sanger’s public papers are available online (see above). Those who are interested, and who are as yet unconvinced that y’all are a bunch of mendacious pissants, may see for themselves. A simple term search for the word “negro” is quite instructive.

Go ahead. Take a gander. It’ll help y’all pass the time in the shame closet.
- Severian | 04/23/2014 @ 16:27
The link didn’t work. We used the Margaret Sanger Papers Project.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/search.php

Searching for “negro”:

* Last year 40,000 Negro mothers and babies died in childbirth in this country. They died, for the most part, as a result of inadequate medical attention, poor living conditions, improper diet and many other ills, which taken together made for mothers who were poor maternity risks from the start.

* We must protect tomorrow’s Chinese baby and Hindu baby, English and Russian baby, Puerto Rican, Negro and white American babies who will stand side by side to heal the scars of this conflict and to bring promise of a better future.

* But we are far from having achieved real equality. It remains true that information about and access to birth control methods is denied to whole segments of our society to whom it is more important. We have only to look at the maternal and infant death rates of Negro mothers and babies in this country to see that this is true.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 16:39
Congrats to you for actually trying to look at a source! That’s progress. Now you can look at the essay you cherry-picked your first quote from. You’ll note — well, you won’t, but the non-learning-impaired will note — that her case against abortion is:

1) Only the rich have access to (relatively) safe ones, and
2) Unsafe ones for poor people generally result in death, and
3) Both of those are dysgenic for “the race.”

So it’s Marxist and racist. A double-header! No wonder y’all are such fans.

Context is important. Keep working on those reading comprehension skills. You should have lots of time to practice in the shame closet.
- Severian | 04/23/2014 @ 18:46
Meanwhile, those interested can take a gander (pp.43-4) at a historian trying to excuse Sanger’s famous comment that “we do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” The equivocation is Cuttlefish-esque. She might have been convinced that blacks were inferior — this was “scientific”– but that’s “not a manifestation of ‘race prejudice.'” Or it’s hyperbole. There’s just not enough evidence to say, though of course “the latter reading [is] more plausible,” even though the author spent the previous few pages detailing all her racist associations.

Amazing what one can find on the internet, if one is willing to look.
- Severian | 04/23/2014 @ 19:01
Apologies. The link is here.
- Severian | 04/23/2014 @ 19:03
Severian: 1) Only the rich have access to (relatively) safe ones, and
2) Unsafe ones for poor people generally result in death, and
3) Both of those are dysgenic for “the race.”

Her argument is that women have always used abortion as a form of birth control, and will continue to use abortion as a form of birth control, and the best way to reduce abortions is by preventing conception. That is a valid argument that makes as much sense today as it did then.

Severian: “we do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

The quotes we provided show her concern for the minority community. It’s clear from her writings that she didn’t want a misrepresentation to be disseminated, so she worked with black leaders to communicate that planning pregnancy could be important to the health and well-being of the mother and child.
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 19:23
nightfly: If it is not, then why does the larger group tolerate or even celebrate the extremists?

A Brave Stand
- Zachriel | 04/25/2014 @ 03:18
Oh so that’s why liberalism makes sense to some people. They do get their “news” from Colbert and Stewart, after all.

Silly Cliven Bundy. It’s been better for them than it ever has been in Robert Byrd’s lifetime, who’s Mr. Bundy to say otherwise?

(Language used is not safe for a sensitive audience)

If liberals didn’t have double-standards, they’d have no standards at all.
- mkfreeberg | 04/25/2014 @ 04:28
Given y’all’s long and sordid track record of brazen dishonesty, Cuttlefish, your assertion that Sanger was concerned for the minority community is about the clearest proof one could wish that she was a vicious racist.

Those who wish to investigate Margaret Sanger’s attidute towards the minority community may do so with simple google searches. As for y’all — shame closet. Go.
- Severian | 04/25/2014 @ 05:37
mkfreeberg: (Language used is not safe for a sensitive audience)

Byrd should never have used such language, he was vehemently criticized, and he apologized saying the term had no place in society. Bundy should also apologize.

However, we didn’t base our position on only one side does it as others did on this thread. Our position was that we can’t define a group by its most extreme examples. We wouldn’t characterize all Republicans as racists, though many prominent Republicans celebrated someone who broke federal law, defied repeated court orders, who collaborated with vigilantes to threaten law enforcement, then pondered whether Negros would be better off as slaves picking cotton. And that’s before he blamed Dr. King for not finishing the job on civil rights, King having been shot dead by a white racist while still in his thirties.
- Zachriel | 04/25/2014 @ 18:14
New examples all the time…

- mkfreeberg | 04/27/2014 @ 23:47
You do realize that Donald Sterling is a Republican, as is Cliven Bundy.
- Zachriel | 04/28/2014 @ 15:33
Wrong. Things are not as they appear.

To the dungeon with y’all, now.
- mkfreeberg | 04/28/2014 @ 21:02
mkfreeberg: Things are not as they appear.

Your source confirms that Sterling is a Republican. So is Cliven Bundy. Our position doesn’t not depend on ascribing all racism to one political party, but that is the view that was expressed above. This is more than sufficient to provide a counterexample.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2014 @ 07:15
Your source confirms that Sterling is a Republican.

In name. So is Mike “Don’t believe in God, but I’m sure to get into Heaven” Bloomberg. Bloomberg has fans and critics, is known to both democrats and Republicans. Out of all of them, who really thinks of Bloomberg as a Republican? Even though he has run for office under the label, and won. The label means nothing.

Y’all missed the point, again. Racism of the sort shown by democrat-donor Sterling, is not a disease like smallpox that can be done away with by fines, or “national dialogues,” or even waiting for bitter old people to die off and be replaced by enlightened young people. It’s a matter of personal belief.

Today, democrat-donor Sterling was fined $2.5M and banned for life from the NBA. That doesn’t even make a dent in what we call “racism.” It just means there’s a democrat-donating racist with $2.5 million less to donate to democrats, who can’t drag his wrinkled old democrat-donating ass to NBA games anymore.

The other point has to do with how do we fight this, or rather, how do we NOT fight this. Supporting democrats, we see here, is not effective. Donald Sterling donated to democrats between 1989 and 2002; it’s fair to assume he’s had these attitudes about race throughout that time, and well before.

By the way, how much money did Donald Sterling donate to Republicans?
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2014 @ 18:09
mkfreeberg: So is Mike “Don’t believe in God, but I’m sure to get into Heaven” Bloomberg.

You need to get your facts right. Bloomberg is registered independent. Sterling is a registered Republican. Sterling chose to be a Republican. That doesn’t mean that all Republicans are racists.

mkfreeberg: {Racism} a matter of personal belief.

Sure. The NBA has decided they don’t want racists owning their teams. Most sponsors have decided they don’t want to support teams owned by racists. Most players don’t want to play on teams owned by racists.
- Zachriel | 04/30/2014 @ 03:09

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

High Cost of LiberalismTuesday, April 22nd, 2014

High Cost of Liberalism
Tuesday, April 22nd, 2014