Hillary admits that the unborn are people too but without rights...

Too bad neither Hillary nor Margaret were "disavowed"....

yawn

So you do concede that the Republicans were not innocent in their dealings with Margaret Sanger while she was still alive, Little Hans? Originally Posted by andymarksman

Noticed that you never provided a citation or a quote to support your claim or differentiate which Bush you are referring to, Andy the little Nazi boy, and you wholly ignore that Goldwater was a candidate for president in 1964 and has since died and no longer a contender for said office, Andy the little Nazi boy. Likewise, no one named "Bush" is now actively campaigning for said office, but Hildabeast remains the dim-retard candidate for president in 2016, Andy the little Nazi boy.

This is pretty entertaining. I've never said anything about societal norms saying constant. All I've done is ask you a few very simple questions, and you've avoided answering them each time. Instead choosing to make up an argument about societal norms staying stagnant and then pretending I've said or implied such.

I'm not "declaiming" anyone. All I've asked is if one can admire a person while not agreeing with everything they advocated or if admiring the founding fathers meant you supported slavery. Simple, direct questions you've avoided numerous times. For the record, I admire the founding fathers, but am smart enough to realize that they were imperfect humans, like us all, and had their faults. I don't have to be scared to admit this because doing so doesn't expose a ridiculous argument I tried to make.

Why is it you refuse to answer my simple questions while simultaneously attacking a position I've never claimed? Originally Posted by eatfibo

Simpletons like you are easily amused, eatbibeau, and societal norms have everything to do with what is and what is not acceptable, eatbibeau. Your question was answered, eatbibeau. That you fail to comprehend that you did indeed declaim the Founding Fathers while hypocritically ignoring Sanger for still advocating the same racist beliefs 150 years later, despite the shift in societal norms, underscores your failure to comprehend, eatbibeau. Neither Sanger nor the Nazis who undertook to advance her outdated beliefs deserve to be admired or have any laudatory praise, such as Hildabeast lavished on Sanger, eatbibeau.

Simpletons like you are easily amused, eatbibeau, and societal norms have everything to do with what is and is not acceptable, eatbibeau. Your question was answered, eatbibeau. That you fail to comprehend that you did indeed declaim the Founding Fathers while hypocritically ignoring Sanger for still advocating the same racist beliefs 150 years later despite the shift in societal norms underscores your failure to comprehend, eatbibeau. Neither Sanger nor the Nazis who undertook to advance her outdated beliefs deserve to be admired or have any laudatory praise, such as Hildabeast lavished on Sanger, eatbibeau. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

As you point out, I'm a simpleton. I asked simple "Yes or no" questions, and your answers were far too complex and deep for me to understand. I apologize for not being very bright.

So I'll ask again. And, please, speak down to me by simply stating "Yes" or "no" to the following questions:

1. Do you believe it is possible to admire someone without agreeing with every single one of their positions?
   
2. Do you admire the founding fathers?
   
3. If so, does that mean you support slavery?

I will even offer up a list of the possible responses that I will understand, and you can simply just tell me which number, if you want.

1. Yes Yes Yes
2. Yes Yes No
3. Yes No Yes
4. Yes No No
5. No Yes Yes
6. No Yes No
7. No No Yes
8. No No No

Thanks in advance! Your simple response will make it much easier to proceed in the debate.

As you point out, I'm a simpleton. I asked simple "Yes or no" questions, and your answers were far too complex and deep for me to understand. I apologize for not being very bright.

So I'll ask again. And, please, speak down to me by simply stating "Yes" or "no" to the following questions:

1. Do you believe it is possible to admire someone without agreeing with every single one of their positions?
   
2. Do you admire the founding fathers?
   
3. If so, does that mean you support slavery?

I will even offer up a list of the possible responses that I will understand, and you can simply just tell me which number, if you want.

1. Yes Yes Yes
2. Yes Yes No
3. Yes No Yes
4. Yes No No
5. No Yes Yes
6. No Yes No
7. No No Yes
8. No No No

Thanks in advance! Your simple response will make it much easier to proceed in the debate. Originally Posted by eatfibo

By your responses, you've already made it abundantly clear that you believe slavery based on a misbegotten racist theory is bad, but you've conceded that you're quite willing to hypocritically overlook Hildabeast's championing a racist eugenicist who held those same beliefs, eatbibeau.

As you point out, I'm a simpleton. I asked simple "Yes or no" questions, and your answers were far too complex and deep for me to understand. I apologize for not being very bright.

So I'll ask again. And, please, speak down to me by simply stating "Yes" or "no" to the following questions:

1. Do you believe it is possible to admire someone without agreeing with every single one of their positions?
2. Do you admire the founding fathers?
3. If so, does that mean you support slavery?

I will even offer up a list of the possible responses that I will understand, and you can simply just tell me which number, if you want.

1. Yes Yes Yes
2. Yes Yes No
3. Yes No Yes
4. Yes No No
5. No Yes Yes
6. No Yes No
7. No No Yes
8. No No No

Thanks in advance! Your simple response will make it much easier to proceed in the debate. Originally Posted by eatfibo

you wont get a straight up answer.

No, I get that she had different goals. However, this thread is a desperate attempt to make Clinton's position on the right to choose about eugenics. As seems to be the case here (eg this thread), people can't attack your actual position, so they just twist and stretch to make your position something it is not, and then attack that.

The reality is that it is ridiculous to try to make the right to choose for all woman, regardless of their color, a racist position because the founder of PP was racist is patently absurd to any reasonable individual. I haven't had any interaction with you, but do you recognize how silly that argument is? Or do you think it actually has some validity? Originally Posted by eatfibo

Not trying to paint Hillary as pro eugenics. She's pond scum for other reasons. But she certainly admires someone who was very pro eugenics. I don't believe the pro choice movement these days is about eugenics but that wasn't always the case. the business of abortion has unwittingly carried out the goals of those eugenics proponents since minorities are over represented in obtaining abortions. I'm sure the eugenics sickos are smiling in their graves at that.

you wont get a straight up answer. Originally Posted by southtown4488

It's very clear that eatbibeau can't reconcile his own hypocritical responses let alone comprehend the answers he has already been given, suckclown.

Notice the end of each link it says "=False" ... That's how you know it's TRUE!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4o4...&nohtml5=False


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8M7...&nohtml5=False



0zombies, you are REALLY going to like this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMhu...&nohtml5=False

Y'all want to see the other 6 parts?

Oh, I forgot that the modern pro-choice movement, or even modern PP, is completely defined by some woman who started an organization in the 30s and that Clinton is stated that she only supports choice for black people. Abortions clearly only started in the 30s.

I've been convinced by such a strong argument. Originally Posted by eatfibo

I suggest that you read Margaret Sanger's book "The Pivot of Civilization" which was published in 1906. She lays out her case for strategic sterilization among the "mongrel" class of people.

FYI, abortions have been around for hundreds of years. Not the steril surgical kind but the back alley, chemical, mid wife kind. If that doesn't work, there is always a good kick to the stomach. Lets hear it for the democratic party!

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're forgetting part of the quote. On purpose. No matter how many times you try to stick it in the argument, it will never mean she wanted to exterminate black people.

what??? didn't you get the Memo? today it's always about race. and that's your fault for that libtard.




still want to say it's not about race eatpoo? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

It's not about race because of Sanger. It's about race because you want it to be. You and your pals love to grab the Sanger quote even though it doesn't support the conclusion it's an attack on blacks.
You didn't think Egypt was in Africa.
Read the whole quote, in context.
.

Excellent response!! Originally Posted by DSK

You would think a partial quote would be an excellent response. Even if the quote supports the opposite meaning you think it does. The person who posts quotes without credit.
You're an asshole. A stupid one.

Sanger, who was arrested several times in her efforts to bring birth control to women in the United States, set up her first clinic in Brooklyn in 1916. In the late 1930s, she sought to bring clinics to black women in the South, in an effort that was called the “Negro Project.” Sanger wrote in 1939 letters to colleague Clarence James Gamble that she believed the project needed a black physician and black minister to gain the trust of the community:

Sanger, 1939: The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Sanger says that a minister could debunk the notion, if it arose, that the clinics aimed to “exterminate the Negro population.” She didn’t say that she wanted to “exterminate” the black population. The Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University says that this quote has “gone viral on the Internet,” normally out of context, and it “doesn’t reflect the fact that Sanger recognized elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow south, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim.”
It goes on to characterize beliefs such as Cain’s as “extremist.” The project says: “No serious scholar and none of the dozens of black leaders who supported Sanger’s work have ever suggested that she tried to reduce the black population or set up black abortion mills, the implication in much of the extremist anti-choice material.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/cai...ed-parenthood/

You're forgetting part of the quote. On purpose. No matter how many times you try to stick it in the argument, it will never mean she wanted to exterminate black people. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You'd be the one forgetting the quote within the context of the greater body of Sanger's work to exterminate the 'undesirables' in society, Masterdickmuncher.

Not difficult to see that her vision is being carried on by looking at the demographics of their clinic locations. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

So when are you going to look at the locations? Or do you believe she never intended the results you claim she did?

"the organization built 75 percent of its clinics in black communities, but there’s no evidence that was true then (Mar. 2011). And today, only 9 percent of U.S. abortion clinics are in neighborhoods where half or more of residents are black, according to the most recent statistics"

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/cai...ed-parenthood/

No, IBIdiot. YOU would.