Condi Rice on CNN: ..."I don't need Harry Belafonte to tell me what it means to be black."

CNN ^ | 10/20/02 | Pyro7480

[section9]

I'm not bullying anyone.

I'm done arguing with you guys. You can't be reasoned with.

I'm not wasting my time with you people anymore.

The real political world involves winning elections. If you don't want to elect Republicans, you're worse than useless, you're an asset to the other side. My political judgement tells me that Condi Rice is the best weapon we have to break the back of the Democratic base vote. As I consider the Democratic Party to be a fascist party in the making, this task is paramount and must stand above all other considerations. Otherwise, you never get the right people to sit on the Court. Period.

I have very little time for you bullet issue people. I care about driving the Democratic party so far down that it will recover its centrist self, abandon Clintonism, and halt its drift towards personalismo and gleischaltung. When the Democratic Party comes to its senses and stops idealizing the Hillbilly Fuhrer, then I know that it will be a reasonable party to vote for. Right now, it's heading towards Brownshirtland, and I have no time for bullet issues that do not animate the concerns of most voters.

This is a historic struggle. It is a struggle to restore some semblance of Constitutional Government as originally intended by the Framers. You think you can do that by running the likes of Alan Keyes and Pat Robertson for President? Think again. You can't do it all at once, and from time to time, you have to dip into the enemy's playbook to use their favorite tactics against them.

What so few Freepers understand is that this struggle is to prevent the installation of some crypto-fascist Euro Ordnung in our country. I believe that Hillary Clinton is the agent of that order and Condi Rice is the best person not only to stop her, but to break her back and ruin her. Nothing you can say can sway me from this conviction. The Clinton's must be stopped at all hazards, for they lust for power above all things: such desire is the seedcorn of dictatorship and fascist tyrrany.

If you want the right people on the Supreme Court, you need the right person in the White House. Not Alan Keyes. Not Pat Buchanan. Not James Dobson. Someone who can damn well win a national election! There are a whole lot of pro-choice Republican female voters out there. They vote. If you piss them off, they will vote for the likes of Hillary, and you'll lose. How do I know this? They voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Bush got most of them back because he didn't treat them as enemies. He is pro-life, but he knew how to treat Republican pro-choicers and he got their votes.

You can't always get the whole loaf at one time. However, if you're not even willing to settle for half a loaf now in order to get the full loaf later, then I just can't help you. And I'm tired of trying, so please, go argue with someone else. My mind has been made up on this issue for some time.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[GraniteStateConservative]

Maybe she would support a state law banning abortion under certain circumstances. But anyway, I'm moving on to another thread.

[Pyro7480]

I'll make it simple: anyone who can't figure out that baby-killing is not a right to be protected by law is unfit to lead.

Do we definitely know that she feels that way? From the comments other people have made, it seems that all that she is doing is following the 10th Amendment. It doesn't seem like she is a radical feminazi about the abortion issue at all.

[GraniteStateConservative]

There are a whole lot of pro-choice Republican female voters out there. They vote. If you piss them off, they will vote for the likes of Hillary, and you'll lose. How do I know this? They voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

One interesting aspect to the Clinton victories is that Perot was actually more pro-choice than Clinton, and so the total votes for pro-choice candidates in 1992 and 1996 were 62% and 58%.

[BibChr]

I looked for anything in your series of shotgun blasts that was in any way appropriate to my position. None of it applied.

If you ever find yourself up to the hard work of actual dialogue with actual people — as opposed to target practice at self-made straw men — do let me know.

Be seeing through you,

Dan

[BibChr]

No, and that's the thing: we don't KNOW what she thinks!

That in itself is problematic to me. But even that aside, what I am responding to (and what you and I already had a brief go-around about) is the matter of blithely waving aside the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, indeed of MILLIONS of innocent babies, and saying, "Oh! I could care less what she thinks! As long as I get my money, and she can make the Big Boom, heck: she's pretty, she's black, and she's bright, and did I mention she's pretty?, and so I promise on that basis I'll vote for her!"

That's what I have a problem with.

Dan

[Pyro7480]

Yes, I totally agree with you. People shouldn't vote for anyone just for the reasons you have named - "Oh! I could care less what she thinks! As long as I get my money, and she can make the Big Boom, heck: she's pretty, she's black, and she's bright, and did I mention she's pretty?, and so I promise on that basis I'll vote for her!" We SHOULDN'T cast aside the fact that MILLIONS of innocent children have been slaughtered in the American Holocaust. But if it's Condi's view that it's a state's issue, regardless if she thinks abortion is wrong or not, we should take the inititive and make sure our states declare that abortion is illegal, because it is murder. The President isn't an absolute monarch. The people who need to take action is the Supreme Court, and they need to overturn Roe v. Wade. If Condi is guided by the principle of federalism, if she is elected president, she will probably appoint justices who would abide by the principle of federalism, and overturn this travesity of court opinion.

[mrustow]

Bush/Giuliani is a much likelier pairing.

Excuusee meeee????

Giuliani=RINO

I think what you mean is, a "conservative in name only," since Rudy Giuliani fits into today's GOP very comfortably, thank you. (Alright, take it easy -- I'm not trying to play Talmudic scholar, here.)

In any event, "Giuliani=RINO" does not contradict "Bush/Giuliani is a much likelier pairing." (One is an expression of chagrin, the other an empirical prediction.) If anything, it underscores it.

[Ford Fairlane]

OK, youve got a point there

[section9]

One interesting aspect to the Clinton victories is that Perot was actually more pro-choice than Clinton, and so the total votes for pro-choice candidates in 1992 and 1996 were 62% and 58%.

Yes, well there you have it. One simply cannot wish a problem like this away, much as some on this board would like so to do.

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of Republican females who voted Perot/Clinton in 1992 and 1996. I'm sure that it was a majority. I wonder how many of these folks Bush won back. It had to be a substantial number, otherwise Bush would be sitting in Texas.

Remember, the pro-choicers went all-out for Gore. Under normal circumstances, we would have nominated someone who made pro-choice Republican women feel as if they were condemned to fire and brimstone (which they might be, but I leave that up to God) and Gore would be President today, with all the baleful consequences that entails. How and ever, Bush treated pro-choice Republican women as fellow party members, and encouraged their participation.

Bush's successful tactic stands in stark relief when compared to the more ultramontaine among us. At any rate, the object of the exercise is not to pretend that pro-choice Republican women don't exist or are Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, but rather, to slowly work on them through moral suasion.

Unfortunately, too many conservatives are too lazy to do the hard work of moral suasion, and assume that one can get rid of something (like abortion) simply by making it illegal.

Which strikes me as the same kind of thinking that animates gungrabbers: take guns from law abiding citizens and gun crime will disappear. It's the same fallacy. And it gets us away from the business of winning elections.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[mafree]

You GO Condi!! That's tellin' him!

[John Lenin]

I really hope she runs and beats Hitler-y in 08. Go Condi !!

[newzhawk]

I know you Yankees are sensitive about us getting those things wrong!! I really did think he went to a school in Harlem- would he have been made to go to an all black school because of his age?Maybe that is why I pictured him in Harlem. My husband is only 55 and he was segregated all the way through school- One day I will drag that Virginian up to NEW YORK CITY(NEEewww YoH-wark SEETEEY)to visit Y'all!

[Artist]

"Excuse me, dammit, but you fail to recall that I've adressed this issue to you before!"

Translation: "You know by now that I can't provide documentation for any of my claims about Condi.....so please just shut up, will ya?"

"I have told you, and others, that Rice stated the parental consent position in an interview with Oprah Winfrey for her magazine. It is there, it is sourced. If you're too lazy to go dig it up yourself, that's not my problem. 'O' Magazine, February 2002 issue. "

Calling me "lazy" when you can't even come up with one source for your "deep thoughts" regarding Condi is just so....typical. You're a piece of work.

Google won't spit out your only shred of evidence to support your claims (the all important "O" article) but it did provide a link for a WISH LIST article fawning over their latest prize....Condi. (The WISH LIST, for those that don't know, is "a Republican women's group dedicated to electing pro-choice women.") It's enough to make me want to throw up.

"I am not going to do your damn legwork for you. Now get cracking and go look it up yourself, and don't demand that I do your work for you."

I'm merely asking that you be responsible, and back up your claims. That is apparently too much for you to handle.

Be seeing through you,*

Artist

*Thanks, Dan! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!