« FORMER PRESIDENT GERALD FORD DIES AT AGE 93 | Home | PIONEER PRESS REPORTS RITCHIE MAY PUSH “FAIR TRADE” AS SOS »
AM I THE “WORST POLITICAL PERSON” IN THE STATE? #2
By Michael B. Brodkorb | December 27, 2006
A commentor at Democratic Underground posted this comment:
"Brodkorb is the reason for birth control!"
I may start selling t-shirts with this phrase on the front.
Topics: Uncategorized |
December 27th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
I’m surprised you haven’t reached the level of Bush yet, that is, “Too bad your mom didn’t have an abortion.”
Not that I agree, but the fever swampers are quite rabid when they get on a topic.
December 27th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
I have seen worse (sorry, no pics) which said “Bush & Abortion = Missed Opportunity”
December 27th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Well now…I guess we know who the real tolerant and diverse people are, don’t we? I guess tolerance and diversity is great as long as you agree with everything they say. Otherwise you’re a (insert naughty word).
I love America!
December 27th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Talk about your revisionist history. Everyone knows that birth control started with the Eugenics movement, and in large part to stop blacks from having children.
Ah, what wonderful things those liberal fiends stand for.
December 27th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
“Brodkorb is the reason for birth control!”
Actually, if they are true progressives, they should advocate abortion.
December 27th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
I guess you can turn around and say that the posters at Democrat Underground should be a reason for Conservatives to support abortion.
December 27th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
“I guess you can turn around and say that the posters at Democrat Underground should be a reason for Conservatives to support abortion.”
There’s actually a theory (with evidence to back it up) of something called the “Roe effect”. I really don’t like debating abortion, so if you’re interested, do a search. Even if you are pro-choice, you may find the theory of interest.
December 27th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Actually, maybe they could take sort of a TIME magazine approach, and name half of “everyone” to the list. The post could read something like this:
“Do you believe in God? Or worse, Jesus? Do you oppose a woman’s right to chose to kill her baby? Are you skeptical about global warming? Don’t trust the U.N. to solve the worlds problems? And do you believe that income earners should have less of their income taken by the government for whatever purpose it sees fit? And do you have a mind to air this opinions? If yes, then YOU are our ‘worst political person of the year’. Shame, shame on you!”
Or something to that effect.
December 27th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
Is there empirical evidence that people who support the government curtailing access to abortion are themselves much less likely to have abortions? (We all know people who support higher marginal tax rates but pay taxes at the current rate they deem too low, just as there are people who decry runaway government spending but take every help they are allowed…think Pell grants, crop subsidies, etc) I’m only saying that what people want from their representatives doesn’t always mesh with their personal and private actions.
December 27th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Some of the evidence is polling…..asking if you know someone who has had an abortion, and if so, political persuasion. Not the most solid of polling, but interesting anyway. There are things like blacks having a much much higher abortion rate then whites, and blacks vote 90% Democratic. Hispanic whites having a higher abortion rate then non-Hispanic whites.
There have been 40,000,000 abortions in the US since 1973. Two groups Kerry did well with in 2004 were single people and the youngest voters. There would be a lot more each if there weren’t so many abortions.
I don’t think it really determines national elections, but the theory is worth a review.
December 27th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Actually otterscrubber, there is. I’ll search for the citation, but conservatives are less likely to have abortions. Liberals have abortions at much higher rates.
In some ways, that’s good news, I suppose… in so much as it keeps liberals from raising children to hold their idiotic beliefs. But a sad thing, either way.
December 27th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
On a vaguely similar note (since we are writing about walking the walk) have y’all seen the studies on charitable giving?
It isn’t shocking, but there is all sorts of evidence that political conservatives are considerably more cheritable. And if you Lefties wouldn’t tax us to death, that fact would be even more stark.
By the way, MDE, why do T-shirts? In light of these Lefty comments, you should sell MDE condoms.
Although I suppose the Left wouldn’t use them anyway since they prefer other, later options.
December 27th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Kyle, are judging liberals political philosophy on their ability to raise kids?
December 27th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
DJZ — are talking sentences complete in? Even or thoughts? English you speak?
December 27th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Actually, that ‘all sorts of evidence’ is based on one man’s book, which has already come under some scrutiny. It’s more likely that liberals and conservatives both donate a lot to charity while moderates do not. The author’s study also did not take into cost of living which can vary greatly along urban-liberal/suburban-conservative lines not to mention region of the country.
December 28th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Dave of the vrwc, I think you need to be careful how groups are categorized. I think citing a particular ethnic group’s voting history (I don’t quibble with your statistic of 90% of blacks for Democrats) but then extrapolating that for an endorsement of every one of that party’s tenets is wrong. If the poling from Ohio in ‘04 is to be believed, blacks went overwhelmingly for Kerry (perceived as “friendlier” to the gay cause), but are against marriage rights for homosexuals. Many Catholics vote for Democrats on social justice issues and look the other way on the abortion issue. Many southern whites vote Republican on cultural issues, but would favor a more protectionist trade policy.
Your number of 40 million abortions since 1973 may be correct, I don’t know. But I do know that there were abortions before 1973, and if the government banned all abortions today there would be abortions tomorrow. The date of 1973 gives statisticians a good starting point because that is when the numbers became reliable. I’m not saying that the abortion rate was the same before 1973 (evidence suggests the abortion rate rose steadily until about 1990, and then has been falling until recently). But by citing a number like “40 million since 1973″ some may infer that there were none before 1973.
And poling based on hearsay is totally unreliable. If someone is against abortion they would not tell friends and family who are also against abortion that they had had one. Conversely, if someone regards abortion as a minor thing of no great moral importance, he/she would have no qualms about sharing that information.
December 29th, 2006 at 8:01 am
Michael,
Consider this, regardless of your point of view, you offer it in a way that promotes hate. Just read your comments. Lefties hate righties and righties hate lefties, and we are all having a swell time pounding the tar out of each other.
While the sentiments might remain with or without you, you are definitely providing a forum for the hate and fanning the flames. It’s hard for me to imagine feeling proud of this, but it seems like you are. I suppose the fame is somewhat alluring.
Perhaps the question you should really ask is “Does my blog make the world a better or worse place?” Your supporters will, of course, say that as long as you are bashing away at libs, you are doing a great service. When I read your posts and the comments on your site and then think about the never-ending violence in the Middle East, the same sense of frustration surfaces. Why can’t they just get along I wonder…oh yeah, they don’t want to.
My hope for you is that in 2007 you put your talents to use for something constructive rather than destructive.
December 29th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Play those violins WildBlue….