Planned Parenthood: New Video

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-27-2015, 12:30 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Why bother if you think I'm some lameazz troll?

Maybe to prove you're not a lameass troll?  Or is that asking too much? 

Quote:Newsflash:  Not everyone on the internet is going to agree on everything.  That doesn't make the person who thinks differently than you a troll.

 
I completely agree.  Oddly enough that distinction has never caused me to label several posters such as Philhos, rfaulk, devilsadvocate, or numerous others as trolls.  Oddly enough the posters I've called out as trolls seem to share a common distinction.  See if you can guess what that is.

Quote:If you want to have serious conversation, I'm all for it.  Stop with the condescending overtones and BS and converse or put me on ignore and move on. 

I've never ignored anyone.  I'll condescend as long as your posts warrant it.  I find it sad that some posters can't distinguish between my obvious disdain for your posts and a serious attempt at discourse.  That said, I won't change my standards.  Either address points made or duck them.  If you duck them or deliberately distort or obfuscate, as you've proven to do, then be prepared to be called out.  So, either sack up or shut up.  It doesn't affect me either way. 

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-26-2015, 12:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, that was pretty funny. Private sector using money to influence the public sector is where corruption happens.

(08-26-2015, 01:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's funny when folks make passive aggressive comments trying to say somebody is wrong without actually doing anything to refute what was actually said.

(08-26-2015, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not true at all.  The only time governments get out of hand is when the wealthy elite run it unchecked by the influence of the masses.

(08-26-2015, 03:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Tell it to him


As for me, I pointed out no one nor told anyone they were wrong (maybe too "passive aggresive" for your taste). I simply read through the last few pages and found it amusing. Do you really need me to go back and quote for you the various posts that employ this fallacy? Well I'm not going to.

In case you want to do your own research anywhere someone tries to compare government economies/polocies to private sector finances.

Meh...I thought matt and fred refuted it well enough.  I do my own research on subjects that I care enough about.  But I've been posting in the PnR forum for the better part of 7yrs long before you came in here and I've typed out many long thought out responses and sometimes it's just easier to laugh.  However I do find it interesting that you of all people are complaining of others "passive aggressiveness" Mr. Snarky pants.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-26-2015, 11:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  
Or someone who thinks so little of black people that they don't notice an open attempt to enact genocide upon them under the guise of access to birth control.  You know, someone exactly like you.


 
This type of behavior is hardly a racial issue.  Interesting that you don't see that.

Here, I'll seriously address these two arguments, which I'm sure will just get me called a troll again. 

1)  So access to birth control is now a constitutionally protected right?  When did this happen?

2)  Of course it's not just a racial issue.  I never said that it was. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-27-2015, 12:47 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Meh...I thought matt and fred refuted it well enough.  I do my own research on subjects that I care enough about.  But I've been posting in the PnR forum for the better part of 7yrs long before you came in here and I've typed out many long thought out responses and sometimes it's just easier to laugh.  However I do find it interesting that you of all people are complaining of others "passive aggressiveness" Mr. Snarky pants.

Go back, re-read, and tell me who complained about the "passive aggressive" posts. I was simply replying to the commentary of someone trying to espouse proper posting technique.

You don't have to be here 7 years to be amused by the hypocrisy of many on here.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-27-2015, 01:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Go back, re-read, and tell me who complained about the "passive aggressive" posts. I was simply replying to the commentary of someone trying to espouse proper posting technique.

You don't have to be here 7 years to be amused by the hypocrisy of many on here.

But you quoted me and I didn't complain about any ones passive aggressiveness nor did I comment on any ones posting technique.

You have me confused as to what exactly you are trying to convey here.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-23-2015, 12:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes. It is a quote taken out of context if I recall correctly. In context you can see that she was attempting to quell attacks on her work that were lying about her motives. I doubt she would realize that the words used would be used in the same way.

Anyone who has read her own book knows what her motives were. She thought only 13.6% of the population shouod be allowed to have children and none of them black.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-23-2015, 12:14 PM)BonnieBengal Wrote: Planned Parenthood is currently trying to clean up the image of Margaret Sanger, but here is a direct quote, straight from Sanger:  Quoth Sanger: “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the 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.”

How dare you use her own words to describe exactly what she wanted. Ofc not surprising .... There are those here jumping to her defense.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-23-2015, 12:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: She didn't want the word to get out that she was trying to eliminate the negro race because she was not trying to eliminate the negro race.

Makes sense to me.

Yeah but the problem is that she has repeatedly said that being black or Having black genes makes for poor humans.

Where do the blacks fit in with the 13.6%?

[StLucieBengal]

(08-27-2015, 12:13 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'm not even sure if you know what a troll is, but whatever.

I think you and I are pretty much done here. 

That's His go to move when he runs out of insults or legitimate ideas.

He will also start thinking you are other people.

[GMDino]

Quote:When asked about why he supported the man who raped a 16 year old girl after she uttered the phrase "F*** me" to herself when she dropped a bag of groceries Lucy defended the man by saying:

(08-27-2015, 03:07 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: How dare you...her own words to describe exactly what she wanted.  

Do you see how "own words" out of context can not mean what you think they mean?

[StLucieBengal]

(08-27-2015, 08:20 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Do you see how "own words" out of context can not mean what you think they mean?

Read her book. Your trying to focus on one phrase someone here said was wrong. She has a whole book discussing what a scourge the black race was on humanity.

Or do what you always do.... Just assume if it said here and Defending Sanger then it must be true.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-27-2015, 01:06 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Here, I'll seriously address these two arguments, which I'm sure will just get me called a troll again. 

1)  So access to birth control is now a constitutionally protected right?  When did this happen?

Chortle, that wasn't an answer to the question asked.  You're so bad at this.

Quote:2)  Of course it's not just a racial issue.  I never said that it was. 

Good, so you agree that Sanger and her potential arguments over sixty years ago have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.  Now we're cooking with gas.

[GMDino]

(08-27-2015, 10:29 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Read her book.   Your trying to focus on one phrase someone here said was wrong.   She has  a whole book discussing what a scourge the black race was on humanity.    

Or do what you always do....   Just assume if it said here and Defending Sanger then it must be true.

Was the quote Bonnie had in context or not?

[StLucieBengal]

(08-27-2015, 10:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: Was the quote Bonnie had in context or not?

Explain how that quote is good in any context.

Unless your just a believer in Negative Eugenics.

Which evidently some on this board are supporters.

[GMDino]

(08-27-2015, 10:46 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Explain how that quote is good in any context.

Unless your just a believer in Negative Eugenics.  

Which evidently some on this board are supporters.

If someone accused you of thinking sex with animals is Ok and you replied: "There are those think I believe having sex with animals is normal and wonderful but I do not think that at all" and they next day this quote appear on an internet message board

StLucieBengal ' Wrote: "I believe having sex with animals is normal and wonderful"

That is how a quote gets taken out of context.  But again, I don't care what some lady said 60 years ago in relation to a manufactured "scandal" that has been proven to be untrue.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-27-2015, 10:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Chortle, that wasn't an answer to the question asked.  You're so bad at this.


Good, so you agree that Sanger and her potential arguments over sixty years ago have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.  Now we're cooking with gas.

Considering I've never even mentioned Sanger, I think that's a pretty safe assumption.

Any more arguments that I've never made that you need me to refute?

[StLucieBengal]

(08-27-2015, 11:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: If someone accused you of thinking sex with animals is Ok and you replied: "There are those think I believe having sex with animals is normal and wonderful but I do not think that at all" and they next day this quote appear on an internet message board



That is how a quote gets taken out of context.  But again, I don't care what some lady said 60 years ago in relation to a manufactured "scandal" that has been proven to be untrue.

Wow your really grasping to justify negative eugenics. Good for you. Glad your standing for something. Some day you might even realize that your standing in support of monsters.

[GMDino]

(08-28-2015, 11:43 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Wow your really grasping to justify negative eugenics.    Good for you.  Glad your standing for something.   Some day you might even realize that your standing in support of monsters.

Not at all.  You asked how a quote could be taken completely out of context and sound that bad.  I showed you how.

I also said a quote in or out of context from 50-60 years ago has little to do with your fevered dream about PP.  Maybe if you could step back and look you'd see I am not supporting anything.

[Belsnickel]

(08-28-2015, 12:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not at all.  You asked how a quote could be taken completely out of context and sound that bad.  I showed you how.

I also said a quote in or out of context from 50-60 years ago has little to do with your fevered dream about PP.  Maybe if you could step back and look you'd see I am not supporting anything.

Indeed. I mean, corn flakes were intended as a tool for eugenics. So should we not eat them now?