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

[southtown4488]

yawn

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by bambino

Nobody fantasizes about you. You stupid, dead dicked, Bulgarian cocksucking Potbellied pig.

You seem to have a real hard on for me.

Just like JDrunk before you, who demanded a picture of my JUNK to further an ethnic slur.

I will never give in to your unwanted sexual fantasies.

Limpdick Lardass, you're creeping me out!

Now tell me what your name calling and hysterical ethnic slurs have to with ANY topic in this forum. Other than the alerts posted about you?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I didn't "forget it," it is a ridiculous position. Many of our founding fathers were racist slave owners. Does anyone who respects our founding fathers also agree with all of their beliefs so, by extension, support slavery? Do you believe it is possible to respect someone while simultaneously disagreeing with some of their positions?

And Hitler was "admired" because he made the trains run on time, eatbibeau, and it should be remembered that his scientists borrowed and enhanced Hildabeast's heroine Sanger's eugenic principles to further their racist agenda, eatbibeau.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And Hitler was "admired" because he made the trains run on time, eatbibeau, and it should be remembered that his scientists borrowed and enhanced Hildabeast's heroine Sanger's eugenic principles to further their racist agenda, eatbibeau.

It was a simple question, why didn't you answer it? I'll try again:

Do you believe it is possible to admire someone without agreeing with every single one of their positions?

and I'll add.

Do you admire the founding fathers? If so, does that mean you support slavery?

Again, they are simple questions, you should have no problem answering them.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

It was a simple question, why didn't you answer it? I'll try again:

Do you believe it is possible to admire someone without agreeing with every single one of their positions?

and I'll add.

Do you admire the founding fathers? If so, does that mean you support slavery?

Again, they are simple questions, you should have no problem answering them.

You're pretending that societal views didn't supposedly changed during the intervening 150 years, eatbibeau. Sanger pioneered what the Nazis did on an industrial scale, eatbibeau. Only a moron claims to admire what the Nazis did in their death camps, eatbibeau.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're pretending that societal views didn't supposedly changed during the intervening 150 years, eatbibeau. Sanger pioneered what the Nazis did on an industrial scale, eatbibeau. Only a moron claims to admire what the Nazis did in their death camps, eatbibeau.

Wow. Again, you avoided the simple questions. Not only that, but you threw in a strawman on top of that! This is getting good. Let's see how long you will avoid the actual point.

Of course societal views change over 150 years, but they also change over 80 years. That doesn't make slavery nor eugenics any less abhorrent. I'm certainly not saying societal views don't change. On top of that, no one is "admiring" what the nazis did. Stop desperately trying to Godwin this thread.

Simple questions, I'll ask again. Please kindly answer them:

Do you believe it is possible to admire someone without agreeing with every single one of their positions?

Do you admire the founding fathers? If so, does that mean you support slavery?

[Guest123018-4]

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

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Wow. Again, you avoided the simple questions. Not only that, but you threw in a strawman on top of that! This is getting good. Let's see how long you will avoid the actual point.

Of course societal views change over 150 years, but they also change over 80 years. That doesn't make slavery nor eugenics any less abhorrent. I'm certainly not saying societal views don't change. On top of that, no one is "admiring" what the nazis did. Stop desperately trying to Godwin this thread.

Simple questions, I'll ask again. Please kindly answer them:

Do you believe it is possible to admire someone without agreeing with every single one of their positions?

Do you admire the founding fathers? If so, does that mean you support slavery?

You're a moron, eatbibeau. Intelligent, educated individuals, not you of course, know that what passed for societal norm in 1800 was radically different from what passed for societal norm in 1930, eatbibeau. That your ignorant ass wants to declaim the Founding Fathers for owning slaves based on a misbegotten theory of racial inequality while you ignore that that is exactly WTF Sanger was still advocating in 1930 -- after the norm had changed -- eatbibeau, further underscores how you are not an intelligent, educated person.

[cowboy8055]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'm pro choice, but I'm tired of hearing about those poor women who can't afford abortion. You can get free condoms almost everywhere. If you aren't going to fuck responsibly, don't fuck. And if you are irresponsible, you pay for it. Make the guy pay at least half.

But now you're talking about holding people accountable for their reckless actions. That's not the politically correct thing to do. I'm pro life and hate abortion but don't think it can made illegal. That would be a disaster. Doesn't mean I have to like it. If a woman is intent on having an abortion she'll get one whether legal or not. Safe options need to be available. But lets be honest about abortion. It's more about providing a solution to reckless behavior than it is about some made up right that permits murdering one's son or daughter.

[cowboy8055]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

Clinton talks about her position on abortion, and people are bending over backwards trying to make it about eugenics and race. Classic politics.

You might want to research Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. It wasn't all about "the right to choose". It was also about limiting certain segments of the population. Heck, we had forced sterilization laws back than. The pro choice movement's hero, Margaret Sanger, was a racist but libs completely ignore that.

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Margaret Sanger, a registered Republican, whose cause had been politically and financially championed by big-name Republicans like Bush and Goldwater while she was still alive. Sorry, I am not buying this nonsense.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Margaret Sanger, a registered Republican, whose cause had been politically and financially championed by big-name Republicans like Bush and Goldwater while she was alive. Sorry, I am not buying this nonsense.

Then you should let Google be your friend, Andy the little Nazi boy. BTW, Andy the little Nazi boy, Hildabeast is a "big-name" dim-retard.

[andymarksman]

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

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're a moron, eatbibeau. Intelligent, educated individuals, not you of course, know that what passed for societal norm in 1800 was radically different from what passed for societal norm in 1930, eatbibeau. That your ignorant ass wants to declaim the Founding Fathers for owning slaves based on a misbegotten theory of racial inequality while you ignore that that is exactly WTF Sanger was still advocating in 1930 -- after the norm had changed -- eatbibeau, further underscores how you are not an intelligent, educated person.

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 cowboy8055

You might want to research Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. It wasn't all about "the right to choose". It was also about limiting certain segments of the population. Heck, we had forced sterilization laws back than. The pro choice movement's hero, Margaret Sanger, was a racist but libs completely ignore that.

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?

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Margaret Sanger, a registered Republican, whose cause had been politically and financially championed by big-name Republicans like Bush and Goldwater while she was still alive. Sorry, I am not buying this nonsense.

Actually there was a time Hillary Clinton was a Republican.


Jim