"Slavery, said Franks, "is a crushing mark on America's soul, yet today half of all black children are aborted. Half of all black children are aborted. Far more black children, far more of the African American community is being devastated by the policies of today than were being devastated by the policies of slavery."

A little clarification that was edited out of the post. Of course Democrats see no problem with half of black "fetuses" being aborted. It fits in their playbook. Nice misleading headline in the article though.

Democrats see no problem with half of black "fetuses" being aborted. It fits in their playbook. Nice misleading headline in the article though.

#1 | Posted by KBM

That's why dems insist on health reform covering abortions. They are trying to up the percentage to 75%.

Nice misleading headline in the article though.

Right up Reinshitsalot's alley.

I want to own one but the wife insists I have to feed it, clean up after it. I hate her.....

#3 | Posted by American1st,

Hey dumbfuck, that was Huffpo's headline. I shouldn't be surprised that you have your head up your ass as usual, seeing as how you are to thinking as your brother was to swimming.

"Trent Franks" - part Trent Lott, part Barney Franks, now that's what I call bi-partisan!

Hey dumbfuck, that was Huffpo's headline.

#5 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2010-02-26 09:12 PM | Reply | Flag: TOO STOOPID TO WRITE HIS OWN HEADLINE

Hey dumbfuck, that was Huffpo's headline, of course it wasn't misleading!

FTFY

Half of all black children are aborted.

After they're born? Didn't thinks so. Now shut the fuck up and wax your double-wide.

And how would having MORE kids to unprepared parents, increasing their financial burden, and the burdens on our healthcare and educational systems HELP the black community?

"MORE BABIES! That's the solution to the black communities problems! They should vote republican too while theyre at it."

Retard.

seeing as how you are to thinking as your brother was to swimming.

#5 | Posted by reinheitsgebot

It's nice to see how you liberal pieces of putrid fucking garbage really think, assfuck. I'm not a bit suprised you'd remember that I had a brother that drowned. How very "liberal" of you to bring it up. You and your kind are the cancer that infects this nation, maggot...never forget that...and you will all be rooted out before all is said and done.

BTW, Reinshitsalot, just so ya know, I flagged your comment as abusive, you piece of useless fucking garbage.

Am1st

I went through that shit with 101CHAIRBORNE and WISGOD.

Anyone who'd use family situations for 'points' is a POS.

BTW, sorry to hear about your brother. Losing a sibling is a rough road - as I sadly know myself.

Thnx, AU

Just for the record, I feel like you use your position, or money, or whatever it is, to advance an agenda that affects everybody, as opposed to just donating to charities or whatever. I fundamentally disagree with using tax codes to wage class warfare, even if it means I die in the streets without any care. I'll never feel like the world owes me, because when I do start to feel that way, it merely signals a desire for me to quit trying.

And I'm sorry for your loss, too.

"I fundamentally disagree with using tax codes to wage class warfare"

Did you feel that way when the wealthiest got a 60% cut in their federal income tax rate?

Yes, Dan, I did,

For the record, I've never made more than 80K a year in my life

I feel the federal government is/has become/ a self fulfilling monstrosity that shall never know self-restraint again. Much like the sucessful bully who took your money from the playground. Who is now going to assume the roll of Principal? Surely not those who continue 80% of the policys that got us here.

#10 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Speak, you're trying way too hard to talk sense with someone who has no use for it.

#5 | POSTED BY REINHEITSGEBOT
"seeing as how you are to thinking as your brother was to swimming."

Rein, all kidding aside, that was way over the line.
Disagree and attack all you want, we all do it, be it over posts or headlines, but is a mote of decency too much to ask for?
Leave out the last part, and it's a fair hit, but that end was really uncalled for.
Tough to claim any high ground regarding Trent Franks when you do that.
Think better of it.

#17 | Posted by American1st

Thanks, Am1st. Coming up on 2 years for my sis.

Anyway, I'll jump in there and call anyone a POS who brings up others family tragedies for their own amusement like a few on this site can't help themselves doing. One day they'll be in our shoes, looking down at the lifeless body of someone they love.

To hear some here tell it, like Chairborne, the fact you and I or others have chosen to share a little of our personal lives on here makes it fair game for them to use. Those who have, or would, are nothing but garden variety lowlife assholes.

BTW, Reinshitsalot, just so ya know, I flagged your comment as abusive, you piece of useless fucking garbage.

#12 | Posted by American1st

And if cookie had posted it you would have given it a funny flag, cuz that's the way you roll. Now why don't you run along and post some John Prine songs while lamenting how rex is being mistreated by the libtards, ok douchebag.

He's sad because he could be selling them. Think of all of that money he could be making, and think of what his campaign contributors could be saving in labor costs. I mean it's a big investment up front, after 6 or 8 months though they pay for themselves, it's all profit after that.

let's see the factual data you obtained to make this conclusion.

American1st and Americanunity----?brothers that don't think alike.

but the same report found that the higher rate was directly related to lack of access to contraceptives.

lack of Trojan Magnums more devastating than high cost of watermelon would be a more honest headline...

A stupid comment. I can understand his point, that the number of blacks "killed" by slavery is less than the number of blacks "killed" in the womb.

Still, it was a stupid comment. If for no other reason, you should never argue any point that shows slavery or Hitler in a good light.

let's see the factual data you obtained to make this conclusion.

#26 | Posted by AuntieSocial

a) the urban poor are "geneticly incapable" of rising out of poverty

b) the Dems have been playing 'em for suckers and they are very slow learners

"It's hard to point the finger when so many places around the world accepted it (slavery)...."

Using that argument, I suppose Blacks should be glad they weren't sold in butcher shops and eaten, if the practice were wide-spread.

Being poor is a state of mind. Like depression, it can be hereditary, but there is no reason the next generation can't see the difference between being poor and being broke. People don't always process ideas the same way, but that doesn't always mean one generation can condemn the next.

"Being poor is a state of mind...."

Really? I thought it was the state of having no money. Ever been poor?

The biggest hurdles to escaping poverty is the will to do so, followed closely by an education. Unfortunately, the majority of blacks in this country lack both.

The "culture" pushes rap music, sports and drugs. None of these will lift the majority of poor blacks. As for education, this same culture punishes black children that make good grades, call them names, etc.

Add to that a political party that is HAPPY to keep them in poverty in exchange for their vote, and it is a system that would be very hard to escape.

"Difference between being poor and being broke...."

I think I understand what you're trying to say, and would even agree with it in part. The problem being: dominant American culture doesn't see a distinction between being broke and poor, and dominant American culture tends to HATE poor people.

#35 | Posted by Zed

I grew up thinking we were poor, later I found out we were just broke. The late 60's were like the depression in my area and it took my parents a long time to get to lower middle class. It takes a lot of work to get there. Those who understand this aren't poor. Just broke. It doesn't have to be a permanent position.

"It doesn't have to be a permanent position...."

Do I think that political parties want to keep poor people poor? No. Do I think it's the very rich who most vehemently oppose the idea of pure meritocracy? Yes.

And if cookie had posted it you would have given it a funny flag, cuz that's the way you roll.

I've never laughed at anything nearly as offensive as what you posted, Reinshitsalot.
Now why don't you run along and post some John Prine songs while lamenting how rex is being mistreated by the libtards,

ok, Douchebag.

Coming up on 2 years for my sis.

~AU~

18 years. It's hard to watch his 3 kids grow uo not knowing their Dad. It's not like I'm a very good substitute, either.

#22 | Posted by TheTom

Reinshitsalot obviously can't help itself.

#27 | Posted by matsop

I disagree with most of what AU says. That being said, I'll never try to score cheap points off his loss.

No, the culture doesn't hate it... Repubs might... but the dems WANT poor people... they couldn't exist without it. If they loose the poor (black) vote, their would never be another dem pres or dem congressional majority.

E V E R.

The dem party would cease to exist. They MUST keep poor people poor.

This is not to defend the Repubs, who mostly just want to ignore them and hope they can make it thru the week without being robbed. And praying that their child doesn't, god forbid, DATE one of them.

#38 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

Danged if that doesn't sound familiar...

This gets me into one reason why I react to "realists" as often as I do. As far as I can tell, "realists" often decide what that means is to bully and cheat others out of what their honest and hard work should naturally provide them.

It's hard to think of another time than right now, 2010, where this is better illustrated.

My Dad remarked several time about rural life here in WV that they weren't poor, they just never had any money. They always had what they needed, though.

Do I think that political parties want to keep poor people poor? No. Do I think it's the very rich who most vehemently oppose the idea of pure meritocracy? Yes.

#39 | Posted by Zed

That's where we part ways. I do think both major parties have a sort of subconscious group thought that some people have to stay poor. I also believe this is true with the very rich, except I think they take a less active role in keeping them there.

"The culture doesn't hate it (poverty)...."

I disagree. In fact, the hatred of poor people is so pervasive and intense it warps the emotions and behavior of persons who have money almost as much as it does persons who have none.

"Except I think they (the rich) have a less active role in keeping them (the poor) that way...."

I think the rich have the most incentive to keep other persons down. I think that's shown every day. There are, of course, exceptions. But I've mostly heard only the rich seriously embrace the notion of class in what is in theory a classless society.

Rich people tend to be dangerous. People without money know this, having been on the pointed end of that stick. Another reasons why poverty is feared, and poor persons are lepers.

The concept of a Middle Class may be the best way to mitigate such negative dynamics and attitudes. The problem is: I see little evidence the rich value a Middle Class. I think they'd prefer to have something else.

My Dad remarked several time about rural life here in WV that they weren't poor, they just never had any money. They always had what they needed, though.

#45 | Posted by American1st

It appears we have that in common. Tell me, where do you see yourself now? Are you still broke or did your fathers example lead you in a different direction?

Another reasons why poverty is feared, and poor persons are lepers.

#49 | Posted by Zed

The poor are great examples for your kids of what not to do. If you do the things poor people do, you'll most likely be poor.

"If you do the things poor people do, you'll most likely be poor....."

Tell you what, let's frame this discussion in terms of the "working" or the "deserving" poor. You are of course correct, individual behavior has quite a bit to do with poverty.

I'm focusing in on that other "quite a bit" that has to do with something else.

My father's example led me no place, nor did the example of most adult persons I got to know growing up.

The Rich, psychologically, are very often persons who have gotten to the point in life where they are able to convince themselves that all of us, every day, DO NOT live so very close to the edge of having nothing at all.

This is one reason why people begin to hate the poor. The thought process is: Why don't they understand reality?

The poor and poor in spirit always understand reality better than the rich.

"In fact, the hatred of poor people is so pervasive and intense...."

I don't know that poor people are "hated," but I DO KNOW that the behavior which caused them to be poor and keeps them poor is hated. After all, even poor people trying to pull themselves out of poverty hate teen pregnancy, truancy, drug addiction, gang-banging etc.

"That behavior that caused them to be poor is hates...."

That's all you see to it? What the poor do or do not do? Not reality, not by a long shot.

And how would having MORE kids to unprepared parents, increasing their financial burden, and the burdens on our healthcare and educational systems HELP the black community?

"MORE BABIES! That's the solution to the black communities problems! They should vote republican too while theyre at it."

Retard.

#10 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2010-02-27 12:58 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

good point.

How many times do you hear "lazy welfare queens, all they do is lay up and have kids that I gotta support"

seriously though, right wing ding kooks need to help the people that are already in this world and not worry about the ones that never made it.
I'm no fan of abortion but it's not my body and health. The primary reason I dislike abortion is because of the emotional trauma that women have to put up with.

I hate some "poor" behaviors, too. I hate substance abuse, for instance.

So, the difference between Rush Limbaugh (a very rich man) and the bum down the street? Let me tell you---

1) The bum never used drugs as massively as Rush did. Couldn't afford them.

2) The bum couldn't sober up as readily as Rush did, he couldn't afford that.

3) The bum likely wouldn't have recommended Rush be imprisoned for behaviors both shared in common.

"So, the difference between Rush Limbaugh (a very rich man) and the bum down the street? Let me tell you---"

....is that Rush Limbaugh isn't a burden on the society while we have to totally support the "bum," his drug habit, his babies, and his baby mamas. We'll be supporting those babies for decades...and their babies, and their babies, and THEIR babies....

Abortion is more devastating to the black community than slavery?

* facepalm *

Cos having autonomy over one's reproductive system is worse than being property?

We seriously need a "fucking retard" flag here.

Meh, Frank's rtarded overstatement is hardly original.

Pretty ingenious when you think about it.

Instead of the Government exterminating the undesirable masses...

...as in the case of the Nazi's, the Government has devised a way for the masses to exterminate...

...themselves.

Same affect without the risk of Nuremberg trials.

You gotta hand it to the DEMS, pretty damn smart.

I hate some "poor" behaviors, too. I hate substance abuse, for instance.

You self-medicate with fairy tales. Much more socially acceptable. Equally obnoxious.

"is that Rush Limbaugh isn't a burden on the society"

#59 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2010-02-27 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I wouldn't say that... He is definately a shit spoon to say the least.

What Hypocrisy! HIS DEMOCRAT PARTY IS The Party of Abortion and the push began back when the liberal progressives thought it a good thing to limit the black population.

What's he bitchin' about! The Dems won't even let a pro-life politician SPEAK AT THEIR CONVENTIONS! Maybe Barney needs to have a little talk with his own colleagues.

I hate some "poor" behaviors, too. I hate substance abuse, for instance.

Hate is not what I was talking about. My point was, if you do what poor people do, you are either poor or headed in that direction. If you follow the example of people who made it out, you have a much better chance of making it out. How other people behave and my feeling about them doesn't factor in.

Abortion achieves the ends without the risk of Nuremberg.

I thought I'd seen all the ultimates of ugly on the old DR, but along comes a batch of Fascist troglodytes who apparently want to strip their black sisters of reproductive rights. I mean ... let's force them into involuntary childbirth and salve that "Christian" conscience, until ... herm

"The bum will spend his Friday night following a woman home from a local bar and beat her senseless...."

The BUM is hypothetical. RUSH LIMBAUGH is real. RUSH LIMBAUGH was caught with real 10,000 pills he had no script for.

RUSH LIMBAUGH was glad to lie about the reasons he was going to deaf to millions of people for, what was it, an entire year?

So far---I like my and even your hypothetical BUM a lot more than RUSH.

"You self-medicate with fairey-tales...."

And you self-medicate, period, by personal description. But what was the word you used---"Recreational"? Neat word. I'm sure RUSH liked it, also.

The Nazi's viewed the Jews in the same manner that...

...Abortionists view the fetus.

Both are undesirable and sub-human, and can therefore be exterminated in good conscience for the betterment of mankind as a whole.

I thought I'd seen all the ultimates of ugly on the old DR, but along comes a batch of Fascist troglodytes who apparently want to strip their black sisters of reproductive rights. I mean ... let's force them into involuntary childbirth and salve that "Christian" conscience, until ... herm

#68 | Posted by herm

I did not realize that pregnancy was a communicable disease...

...someone needs to convince the "sisters" to stop being such easy ho's.

Bendover continues to view fetuses as people. And would force others to do the same. herm

Bendover continues to view fetuses as people. And would force others to do the same. herm

#74 | Posted by herm

I also continue to view Jews as people.

You, on the other hand view 50% of all Black fetuses as undesirable and sub-human; just like the Nazi's before you did on the "Jew Problem".

Otherwise you would be up in arms against the Black baby exterminations now taking place nationwide.

Half of the future black race is being systematically exterminated every year - and that's okay - right?

I wonder if your viewpoint will be treated kindly by history.

And, there are many on the Left who support abortion just for that reason alone...

...abortion culls an underclass of people who are statistically the most prone to criminal activity and violence.

The Nazi's had hauntingly similar reasons for wanting to exterminate the Jews...

...the burdens placed on the overall society trumped the individual rights of the Jew.

Abortion achieves the ends without the risk of another Nuremberg.

Absolutely brilliant!

Ever wonder why abortion is NOT...

...a top concern of Skinheads?

They agree with you on the relative merits of the systematic extermination of Black babies.

What?

My analogies cut too close to the bone do they?

It is what it is.

By the way, I wonder what the fetus survival rate was amongst the Slaves?

Better the 50% I'd guess. Why?

Apparently, Black babies were far more valuable in the days of Slavery than they are today.

Must be.

Pretty bad when calling me a dirty name is your only response.

Yet, that's exactly what I'm expecting.

So consider this post as a preemptive response to your faulty and unreasoned attack.

You support the extermination of 50% of the future Black population each and every year...

...and you want to call me the racist?

That would be laughable if not so pathetic.

You are an extremely unwittingly useful idiot for the Skinhead movement!

abortion is by choice, not slavery.

abortion is by choice, not slavery.

#82 | Posted by NotMyRealName

Yes; that's the ingenious part.

Amazing.

They convinced the undesirables to kill themselves off this time around.

And it's working.

See also: "Mess with the bull and get the horns".
#60 | Posted by dethspud at 2010-02-27 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:Can't tell the difference between a bull and a steer

You're never too old to be aborted, if you're a progressive.

You support the extermination of 50% of the future Black population each and every year...

If you were talking about involuntary extermination of living individuals, you would have a reason to bitch. That is not the case, so you don't have a fucking point to make. A puddle of dog vomit has more redeeming content than your previous post did.

If you were talking about involuntary extermination of living individuals, you would have a reason to bitch. That is not the case, so you don't have a fucking point to make. A puddle of dog vomit has more redeeming content than your previous post did.

#86 | Posted by ZombieHunter

What's this? A direct quote from Nazi Germany in WWII? Sounds similar, just supplant Jews as the subject and it becomes rather haunting.

Let me explain it like this then...

...abortion directly kills the life that would otherwise result in twice as many Blacks from being born...

...each and every year.

And you're okay with keeping Black populations culled down like this?

Sounds like I've heard the "culling" argument before somewhere - I know! It was Nazi Germany in WWII!

You're just like them!

yeah, I say we make a law says Blacks can't have abortions!

what a pig.

keeping Black populations culled

YIOU ARE FUCKING IDIOT!

let's PROHIBIT everything you hate because no one but you is capable of knowing what anyone should want to do. No one but you knows how other people should be FREE TO CHOOSE how to live their own life.

you ignorant POS.

I SAY WHITE BITCHES DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ABORTIONS, LET'S MAKE A NEW LAW: ALL WHITE BITCHES CAN ONLY HAVE ONE OFFSPRING.

There ya go, how's that. FTFY.

I do think both major parties have a sort of subconscious group thought that some people have to stay poor.

Agreed! In a capitalist system, the end result has to be a gradation of wealth (i.e. every body can't be rich or nobody would be rich). However, one of the major differences between the Democrats and the Republicans is that Democrats don't believe that any specific demographic should be permanently poor. Republicans don't seem to care one way or another as long as its not them, their family or friends.

I have often wondered why so many people that are really struggling financially are Republicans when Republicans have the reputation of being the party of rich white men. One of the early posts helped explain it for me: there is a difference between being poor and being broke. Democrats are for poor people (i.e. Blacks, Hispanics). Therefore, people that don't see themselves as being poor can't identify with being a Democrat. And, if they are not a Democrat, they must be a Republican because after all, some day they are going to be the president of a major corporation, make millions of dollars and when they do, they don't want the government to take all of the money they earn in taxes.

It's good to have a dream.

One other thing, the genius of Karl Rove was to recognize that socially divisive issues could be used to bring many devout christians into the Republican party even though it was not in their economic self-interest. Religion trumped finance. That seemed to have reveresed itself in the 2008 elections. Let's see how long it lasts.

Gimme an abortion now because I don't want no stinking stretch marks

#75 | Posted by StenWilly at 2010-02-27 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

How many children have you given Birth to?

If the answer is none, shut your pie hole.

Just curious how removing 30% of ones race is a good thing?

The utter stupidity of this whole argument is that abortions happened quite frequently before Roe v. Wade. You just had to drive to a state where they were legal, get a hotel room for a few days, pay for the abortion, and then return home. Many poor people, especially down south where they were far from such a state chose the cheaper and more readily available back alley version with the associated death and disease. Roe v. Wade didn't force anyone to have an abortion, no one does, it only makes the possibility of having the procedure done in a sterile, medical environment by a doctor much more likely for millions of women. Taking away the right to choose won't end abortions but it will end many women's lives. Those women may already be mothers of other children they are already struggling to feed. The utter dishonesty and mean spiritedness of this scum bag's opinion make me want to vomit.

.......mean spiritedness of this scum bag's opinion make me want to vomit.

#94 | Posted by danni

That in and of it's self would have been enough reason to post it.

The utter stupidity of this whole argument is that abortions happened quite frequently before Roe v. Wade. You just had to drive to a state where they were legal, get a hotel room for a few days, pay for the abortion, and then return home. Many poor people, especially down south where they were far from such a state chose the cheaper and more readily available back alley version with the associated death and disease. Roe v. Wade didn't force anyone to have an abortion, no one does, it only makes the possibility of having the procedure done in a sterile, medical environment by a doctor much more likely for millions of women. Taking away the right to choose won't end abortions but it will end many women's lives. Those women may already be mothers of other children they are already struggling to feed. The utter dishonesty and mean spiritedness of this scum bag's opinion make me want to vomit.

#94 | Posted by danni

Killing 50% of the future Black population each and every year...

...can not be justified.

No matter what the overall benefit to society is.

You vomit because, deep inside, a part of you still understands the wrongness of exterminating millions.

Before murder was illegal, there was murder. After murder was illegal, there was still murder - but not nearly as much.

Same with abortions.

Pregnancy is not a communicable disease. Use contraception or don't fuck.

Killing innocent life after the fact because of the mere inconvenience of it is still murder.

And that's why you vomit.

"That in and of it's self would have been enough reason to post it."'

As usual, danni tries to find a reason to be offended. Nowhere in the article did Franks say he wanted to rescind the Roe V Wade decision, or outlaw abortions. He points out the "policies" have hurt the black community and he is absolutely correct.

Our cities will go hungry if we feed all of these Jews.

There is simply not enough medical care to treat everyone, so what is the benefit of keeping the old and infirm around?

The Jew Problem is so crushing, final solutions must be considered.

Same shit, different day.

Yes, unplanned babies can be inconvenient as hell. Does that justify their murder.

Oh, before you answer, killing Jews wasn't legally considered murder in Nazi Germany either. If fact, they had laws that codified the entire process.

The utter dishonesty and mean spiritedness of this scum bag's opinion make me want to vomit.

#94 | Posted by danni

Mean spiritedness?

How mean spirited is scrambling the brains of a human fetus or pulling it apart, limb from limb, with a vacuum?

I wonder if it hurts them?

Yet you support this. You also must believe in the greater benefit to society in having far fewer Black people around - why else would you support 50% of them being killed in the womb?

History is not going to treat folks like you very well - genocide is genocide - no matter how noble the reasons for it appear.

It's a bizarre world the Liberals live in...

...they're against waterboarding confessed psychopaths even when the benefits to society of doing so are inarguable...

...yet, you support ripping babies apart while they're still in the womb.

I know, I know, fetuses are a non-human form of antelope who are also strangely impervious to pain and torment.

Fucking bizarre.

I am not against abortion. If so many black babies were not aborted over the last 30 years think how many more black voters there would be. Abortion actually hurts Democrats. Let them abort all the babies they want.

#102 | Posted by StenWilly

I'm not against abortion either. I say we get the kill the little fuckers up to the age of 3 years old.

That way you get a better sense how the future person is going to turn out.

If the kid's a fucking moron and/or exhibits violent tenancies - wack them.

Makes more sense than the far more arbitrary way it's done now of simply aborting them all...

ya, African Americans had it better as slaves... and with this killing themselves or those damn leftist who "allow" them too --leftist who allow them to, that's just weird (i figured "libertarians" were the ones to blame)!--... crime, drugs, alcohol, and now abortion... well, maybe we'd better reinstitute slavery, Franks.

#103... so, Bendor, you would be dead, judging from your violent posts.

I wonder how many blacks would leave prison for an opportunity to be a slave.