Your "belief" is not more important than my reality.

[RobDownSouth]

The "Margaret Sanger Hates Negroes" meme pops up regularly here on the General Board, usually by one of the bitter white racist grampas.

The truth about Margaret Sanger


In a nutshell, Sanger advocated sterilization of poor women who had already had children so they'd stop having children and could theoretically have a better life for their existing kids.

 

[Lorilei]

What is Hobby Lobby’s argument?

People who support Hobby Lobby generally believe that the government should not be in the business of compelling anyone, including insurance companies, to provide contraceptive care to women. They don’t believe that sexual health is a medical issue and what this is really all about is women wanting to have no-consequence sex. Therefore, their argument boils down to: I don’t want to pay for your birth control pills either through my tax dollars or as part of the pool of money through which all insurance companies cover costs. Also: you are a whore and isn’t it enough that I have to pay for your STD treatments, you disease-ridden skank?

Sometimes they’re not even that nice…

 

[John Doe]

No. "Truth" is a word that we use to refer to things that agree with facts and reality. If you fell the need to call something "your truth", then it's probably because it's not true, and you are misusing the word. You can do whatever you want, but you absolutely cannot use "your truth" to restrict my rights.

There is no such thing as a fact, and what reality is (or whether there even is such a thing) is up for debate.

 

[John Doe]

What is Hobby Lobby’s argument?

People who support Hobby Lobby generally believe that the government should not be in the business of compelling anyone, including insurance companies, to provide contraceptive care to women. They don’t believe that sexual health is a medical issue and what this is really all about is women wanting to have no-consequence sex. Therefore, their argument boils down to: I don’t want to pay for your birth control pills either through my tax dollars or as part of the pool of money through which all insurance companies cover costs. Also: you are a whore and isn’t it enough that I have to pay for your STD treatments, you disease-ridden skank?

Sometimes they’re not even that nice…

When they're being particularly impolite it comes across as something like "I don't want to pay for you being a slut."

 

[eyer]

As Seanh - in his own uniquely insecure way - has pointed out at least twice in this thread...

...this is really all about belief in God and, secondarily, what role that belief will play in the future of the USSA and, finally, to what degree the federal government's role over individual liberty will either increase, remain the same, or decrease.

An individual's choice to believe in God or not is most likely the greatest individual liberty man possesses...

...I doubt there is any other issue, throughout the entire length of human history, which even comes close to that choice as to what all humans, at one time or another, contemplate.

America's founders attributed that individual liberty and the natural human rights of all mankind to be endowed by their Creator...

...America's framers then constituted that all individuals have the liberty to believe as they wish by not granting the federal government any say in religious matters at all; two years later the First was amended to the Constitution to make even more clear that government has absolutely no power whatsoever in regards to man's natural right of freedom of conscience.

So...

...what we have here is the eternal question of the existence and place of God in society, and the likewise eternal question of government's role in the minds of man.

As it becomes more and more clear in America that the desire of gashes from Canada and bozos from limeyland is the eradication of every trace of God and religion from occupying any place in the public square, and that they champion government tyranny over individual liberty to accomplish this wish...

...a great many Americans will finally have eyes to see.

 

[unregistered]

 

[evesdream]

Stop the madness.

 

[neci]

they are nowhere close to stopping. it is a cult. funded and brought to you by the pulpit.

 

[neci]

Stop the madness.

quit killing babies.

 

[Disgustipated]

Neither can the President, where did he go to law school?

What laws did he break?

 

[phrodeau]

What laws did he break?

http://makethemaccountable.com/images/saved/BushSignsFlag.gif

 

[John Doe]

Stop the madness.

I disagree with your proposition on personal grounds. The madness is what makes life interesting to me.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I am a little fuzzy on this.

So even if we say that when a person incorporates their business, and lets the business carry all the liability, obligations, debts, etc, that is cool. And we do this so that there can be a complete disassociation of the assets and a complete severance between the legal entity of the owner and the legal entity of the corporation. OK.

So even if we do that, let's say that the inalienable right of the corporation is a conveyance of the freedom of speech to the corporation as the only thing you can't truly sever from the owner and their business. (I guess that is what Citizens United determined anyway). And even if we do THAT can we now say that another inalienable right of the corporation is that it now has the same right to religious freedom of the owner?

Can it really be true that a legal fiction can be said to observe, be devout or have a freedom of religion? Does it make any sense that a corporation, which is so completely severed from its ownership financially, should be so coupled in matters of culture and public policy?

It does not make any sense to me whatsoever.

 

[snugglestruggle]

The "Margaret Sanger Hates Negroes" meme pops up regularly here on the General Board, usually by one of the bitter white racist grampas.

In a nutshell, Sanger advocated sterilization of poor women who had already had children so they'd stop having children and could theoretically have a better life for their existing kids.

That was only part of her motive. She embraced the Eugenics movement and surrounded herself with like minded people. Her magazine published several articles (which she was the editor of) pushing Eugenics. Her dislike was not restricted to blacks alone although they were targeted. Google 'THE NEGRO PROJECT"

Here's a bit Planned parenthood never mentions about her. ..

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian."

And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South. I suppose they were the "White trash contingent".

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.

She also spoke of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." This is a reference to THE NEGRO PROJECT


That many Americans of African origin or African Americans (whatever way you want to look at it), they were considered by Sanger as "unfit" because of their religous beliefs" That can't be denied. Well you can deny it but it's true never the less.


The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917.

She published such articles as ......

"Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920),
"The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "
The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924),
"Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925),
"Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and others.

To say she was only concerned with the quality of life of the poor is a half truth at best.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Oh wow, yet another unattributed cut-n-paste from blackgenocide.org. This is, what, the third or fourth time someone's done an unattributed cut-n-paste from there, passing it off as their own words.

 

[snugglestruggle]

There was a Negro Project...She was an Advocate of Eugenics..she associated with like minded people.....she did want to control who reproduced and who didn't. All true.

You can ignore inconvienent historical facts, you can lie about them...You can even run from them. However you can't unmake them. The ends do not justify the means.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

There was a Negro Project...She was an Advocate of Eugenics..she associated with like minded people.....she did want to control who reproduced and who didn't. All true.

You can ignore inconvienent historical facts, you can lie about them...You can even run from them. However you can't unmake them. The ends do not justify the means.

Hey, did you hear about the Bat Boy they found in a cave? See, here's the proof:

http://dullumfile.areavoices.com/dullumfile/images/batboy_1_2.jpg

SEE, FACTS.

 

[Phelia]

I have a few posts to catch up on in this thread, but isn't this the guy lamenting the potential loss of a loose egg with a tail because they're *dramatic pause* human cells?

How do we break the news that shaving and haircuts are genocide?

 

[badbabysitter]

There was a Negro Project...She was an Advocate of Eugenics..she associated with like minded people.....she did want to control who reproduced and who didn't. All true.

You can ignore inconvienent historical facts, you can lie about them...You can even run from them. However you can't unmake them. The ends do not justify the means.

yes, there was a Negro Project ( which she fired racist employees from)


yes, she was a fan of eugenics.. so was teddy Roosevelt and Churchill


she belonged to an organization of 27, 500 medical and social engineering professionals in the 20's...what the fuck do you think the odds are they would have racist in the organization....dumbass

no, she did not want to control who could reproduce.,, in fact Sanger was anti-abortion..she saw birth control as health concern.. after the nazi's took pwer she abandoned her support for eugenics having seen the face of it...something you also don't mention


funnily enough... Churchill continued to support eugenics after the war... why aren't you C&P something about him?


we aren't lying about facts.. you are.. if not intentionally, then because you are too slack witted to do any research for yourself

 

[Lorilei]

Well, well, well. http://www.motherjones.com/politics...rgency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

 

[phrodeau]

Well, well, well. http://www.motherjones.com/politics...rgency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

It's because they invested in birth control companies that they don't want insurance to cover birth control. Insurance companies get price breaks, and individuals who have to shell out will pay full price.

 

[Lorilei]

It's because they invested in birth control companies that they don't want insurance to cover birth control. Insurance companies get price breaks, and individuals who have to shell out will pay full price.

Precisely. "Deeply held Christian values" my ass.

 

[patient1]

Should they win, how long before corporations want to vote?? I mean they've already achieved "personhood", so should they be allowed to vote?

I am a little fuzzy on this.

So even if we say that when a person incorporates their business, and lets the business carry all the liability, obligations, debts, etc, that is cool. And we do this so that there can be a complete disassociation of the assets and a complete severance between the legal entity of the owner and the legal entity of the corporation. OK.

So even if we do that, let's say that the inalienable right of the corporation is a conveyance of the freedom of speech to the corporation as the only thing you can't truly sever from the owner and their business. (I guess that is what Citizens United determined anyway). And even if we do THAT can we now say that another inalienable right of the corporation is that it now has the same right to religious freedom of the owner?

Can it really be true that a legal fiction can be said to observe, be devout or have a freedom of religion? Does it make any sense that a corporation, which is so completely severed from its ownership financially, should be so coupled in matters of culture and public policy?

It does not make any sense to me whatsoever.

This is a key point. Corporations are great as legal entities to facilitate business. They aren't people. They are property. If they tried to be both they would be slaves, which is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court got it wrong. Soulless corporations are not in jeopardy of hell. They don't go to church. They can't go to jail. They aren't overcome by passion. They aren't allowed to vote, and they shouldn't be exempt from truth in advertising or liable laws simply because they choose to get involved in politics.
They don't have a conscience, so obeying the law isn't going to hurt the feelings they don't have.

 

[John Doe]

I have a few posts to catch up on in this thread, but isn't this the guy lamenting the potential loss of a loose egg with a tail because they're *dramatic pause* human cells?

How do we break the news that shaving and haircuts are genocide?

Don't forget fingernail and toenail clippings.

 

[StrangeLife]

It's because they invested in birth control companies that they don't want insurance to cover birth control. Insurance companies get price breaks, and individuals who have to shell out will pay full price.

Or maybe it's simply because birth control doesn't deal with a "disease" but a deliberate self-inflicted condition. You want insurance to pay for your orgasms?

Don't forget fingernail and toenail clippings.

"Stop masturbating now! Let go of the penis Sir... slowly... and put your hands behind your back. You are hereby detained on suspicion of intended genocide...."