Cain smears Planned Parenthood

[BotanyBoy]

She's the female Spidey. "No YOU prove it!"

With a far less articulate helping of UD, "Words don't mean what they say...here let me randomly highlight some words in hopes of changing the meaning."

Even given in context, context means nothing to her.

As I said elsewhere if she were to hold the position that, "Yes, but her organization founded in ignominy has had such positive results."

Nope. Sanger's a saint. You know- solving woman's health issues like malignant pregnancy.

It took me like weeks just to get her to admit that domestic violence is a societal issue and not a women's issue. But I'm willing to bet she still holds that DV is a women's issue....because you know only women get abused...

 

[Que]

A disproportionate number of blacks get abortions. What exactly is the controversy here?

I am a bit puzzled about that myself. BBS was at first arguing that my statement to that effect was untrue. (see her example of 50/100 apples is sill less apples than 300/1000 apples)

She goes on to state with such authority that that means something about the disproportionate effect this has had in for example the current size of the Black community. I think the concept of "disproportionate" is where she gets lost.

I gather that since there are less blacks, less of them get killed. I guess if Planned Parenthood can get blacks down to say 1% of the US population you would see an even less significance to the number of black babies aborted in the grand scheme of things.

I don't know for example what the abortion vs live birth rate is for Basques, but what ever it is it is a small number of abortions.

Lets say hypothetically that it did. If people take themselves out I'm still lost as to where the problem is. I mean it's not grounded in reality but even if that answer truth I'm still lost.

It was the goal at inception of Planned Parenthood to reduce the population growth of genetically less viable (to them) strains of humanity.

I don't see how it makes a difference whom they try to select out. If someone wanted to encourage growth in minority population percentages through incentivizing births through the tax code of immigration policy it strikes me as equally silly.

You can;t KNOW whether the child you want to prevent or encourage is going to Fredrick Douglas or Caeser Chavez. Both great men in their own right, but of different political philosophy.

Even in the Black community, their shrinking influence in the political marketplace is irrelevant. You each still get one vote. Same with the reduction in the proportion of white voters.

You want your ideas and goals to succeed, not necessarily the monolithic goal of a particular subset of society based on skin color.

If we continue to blow the Ozone layer (is that still I thing? I forget) we are going to be pissed at Margaret Sanger for reducing the occurrence of the soon to be all important melanin gene.

By, the by, Sean:

How do you think Rand Paul's outreach to the "Black" community is being received? I don't disagree with his policies on for example drug incarcerations, expunging of records and the like, but even though Blacks ARE disproportionately affected by mandatory minimums and so on...doesn't making that a "black" issue kind of come off pandering, or is it received as I hope intended?

Kind of like in the 80's when welfare reform was painted as "anti-black" when more recipients are of course white... (of course that gets into the above in that they are disproportionately more dependent...circles in circles...)

 

[Que]

It took me like weeks just to get her to admit that domestic violence is a societal issue and not a women's issue. But I'm willing to bet she still holds that DV is a women's issue....because you know only women get abused...

Weeks?

Your patience exceeds mine. I notice that she will occasionally take a tiny step back and concede a small point then rush forward two or three more steps.

Spidey, on the other hand, never needs to concede a point because he will not set his feet.

I kind am disingenuous on my actual position on abortion. I favor it for anyone that disagrees with me.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

-snip-​

It was the goal at inception of Planned Parenthood to reduce the population growth of genetically less viable (to them) strains of humanity.

While all the reading I've done makes that sound at best a stretch does it really matter one bit what the goal was originally? To put it another way should I be concerned that the Founders only wanted rich (land owning anyway) white males to vote and use that as a metric to gauge America by. (Rather than bringing it up when someone tries to tell me that an idea is clearly perfect because a Founding Father signed off on it. They were flesh and blood and made mistakes and also lived in a completely different society than I do.)

I don't see how it makes a difference whom they try to select out. If someone wanted to encourage growth in minority population percentages through incentivizing births through the tax code of immigration policy it strikes me as equally silly.

The problem is those are almost polar opposites. One gives people a last ditch way to get out of creating a situation they are financially unable to handle and the other for no particular reason encourages them to create one. And regardless of the goal abortions were never more available to blacks than whites. Hell if you look at the states that try to outlaw them black population centers the opposite is true.

You can;t KNOW whether the child you want to prevent or encourage is going to Fredrick Douglas or Caeser Chavez. Both great men in their own right, but of different political philosophy.

No, you cannot know. You can make a damn good bet that they will be neither however. Which isn't the point. Can't take care of a baby, don't have a baby. You don't know if you're kid is going to come out as Stephen Hawking either but he's still an expensive man to maintain and a country that isn't going to give you resources you can't or have not for whatever reason gathered on your own has no right to insist that you keep that life. I'm not sold that even one that does has the right to tell you what to do with your body but I'd be willing to discuss it if that were the case.

Even in the Black community, their shrinking influence in the political marketplace is irrelevant. You each still get one vote. Same with the reduction in the proportion of white voters.

I'd actually be curious to see how well that works out math wise. I mean yeah we get one vote, but the electoral votes are tied (numerically before you correct me) to Congress so the twelve people in Alaska's vote counts more than the million in California. Just an exercise in curiosity.

You want your ideas and goals to succeed, not necessarily the monolithic goal of a particular subset of society based on skin color.

Duh. They happen to have considerable overlap but anybody who tells you that poor whites especially in the South don't vote against their own self interest and should be voting with the minorities isn't paying attention. At the moment the 47% certainly and really the majority of the 99% should have the same goals of a more equitable division of wealth in this country and the greater opportunities.

In the end your correct of course. We just don't, in general, as minorities have the clout to spread our vote around as you address to some extent below.

If we continue to blow the Ozone layer (is that still I thing? I forget) we are going to be pissed at Margaret Sanger for reducing the occurrence of the soon to be all important melanin gene.

Not really, we lefties got that shit mostly under control Once CFCs were removed from damn near all aerosals we seem to have gotten a decent handle on that.

Honestly there are still plenty of us and if you need more of the all important melanin gene there's an entire continent of people with it and many of them live in rotten shit holes and would literally run on water if we told them we'd cleared out Idaho for them.

By, the by, Sean:

How do you think Rand Paul's outreach to the "Black" community is being received? I don't disagree with his policies on for example drug incarcerations, expunging of records and the like, but even though Blacks ARE disproportionately affected by mandatory minimums and so on...doesn't making that a "black" issue kind of come off pandering, or is it received as I hope intended?

I haven't personally spoken to any of my friends or family on that particular subject, I'll ask around. I've only half followed Rand on this issue myself, I find his foreign policy to be a bit naive and his economic policies like those of his father to depend far to heavily on the concept that people are too dumb to game the system.

However I don't think he's pandering, even if I ignore the Ron Paul letters that always surface when it's time to smear him, I don't think either Paul are really the type to "pander". But in this context I don't really like that word because it sounds negative. When it comes to a lot of law enforcement issues it is a "black" issue. Now whether you agree with some of my older family members and think that it (and some of welfare reform) were grand plots by the government to harm the black community. I find that plot requires too many moving pieces to be true. (even if taking away a large portion of the communities voting rights, shattering the community does make a kind of sense I don't generally believe in "evil" either. And that plot strikes me as cartoonishly evil with little pay off other than maniacally laughing.)

I do however think that the handling of the drug war and it's effects on minorities as as whole and in South America is a sign of apathy.

In short if he's pandering and gets results then pander on good sir, pander on.

Kind of like in the 80's when welfare reform was painted as "anti-black" when more recipients are of course white... (of course that gets into the above in that they are disproportionately more dependent...circles in circles...)

Something being "anti-black" doesn't mean it only effects blacks. In some cases it's a matter of perception.

Either way our law enforcement needs a complete overhaul.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Weeks?

Your patience exceeds mine.

Don't confuse patience with boredom...I was stuck with nothing to do but internet, metal, fuck, booze and smoke 24/7 for like 3 years while I earned a couple of degrees.

I notice that she will occasionally take a tiny step back and concede a small point then rush forward two or three more steps.

Yep. In my example it was....

"Men get abused too...but more women are abused and more of them are injured as a result so it's a womenz issue!!" and on and on and on. Fucking sexist femnazi just wouldn't admit "Violence Against Women Act" is sexist as fuck right in the god damn title. Nope....DV= Female only issue.

Spidey, on the other hand, never needs to concede a point because he will not set his feet.

Ever...

I kind am disingenuous on my actual position on abortion. I favor it for anyone that disagrees with me.

Fuck it....I say late term abortions as far as the 5th grade should be legal....it's the only way to be sure.

 

[Que]

Fuck it....I say late term abortions as far as the 5th grade should be legal....it's the only way to be sure.

Laughed.

On the "took to long to stop breathing" thread I suggested that we use time machines to abort the condemned before they were born.

Idea not well received.

Sean said 'Of course not they haven't done anything wrong at that point.'

...if it is a collection of cells it does no harm to rub that human out, another hopefully genetically less malignantly predisposed to do what ever the guy did would take its place, no?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Laughed.

On the "took to long to stop breathing" thread I suggested that we use time machines to abort the condemned before they were born.

Idea not well received.

Sean said 'Of course not they haven't done anything wrong at that point.'

...if it is a collection of cells it does no harm to rub that human out, another hopefully genetically less malignantly predisposed to do what ever the guy did would take its place, no?

Only if you're stupid enough to believe in genetically disposition to evil.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Laughed.

On the "took to long to stop breathing" thread I suggested that we use time machines to abort the condemned before they were born.

Idea not well received.

Sean said 'Of course not they haven't done anything wrong at that point.'

...if it is a collection of cells it does no harm to rub that human out, another hopefully genetically less malignantly predisposed to do what ever the guy did would take its place, no?

Sorry....the Temporal Prime Directive strictly forbids fucking about the time line like that.

Unless you're me of course HAHAHAH!!!
https://i.chzbgr.com/original/4643340544/6800C7D0/1

 

[Que]

Only if you're stupid enough to believe in genetically disposition to evil.

We do genetic testing now to decide whether or not to abort.

 

[Sean Renaud]

We do genetic testing now to decide whether or not to abort.

Not based on evil we don't. We do it based on the likelihood they will have a severely compromised quality of life. Well and also to get dicks. Nobody wants girls but in the US that doesn't seem to be a huge problem.

 

[badbabysitter]

appropriate bump