custom2006 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI67MuPwsX0 ....Fact:
Hilliary Clinton received the Margaret Sanger award last week...
Exactly how did we get from "all you can eat" Chinese buffets to birth control, eugenics, Hillary Clinton, Margaret Sanger, and Joseph Goebels? I must have missed something.
You obviously put a great deal of work into your post. I consider myself a smart guy, but I don't think I underdstand what you are getting at. Are they putting salpeter in the mashed potatoes at my favorite buffet to keep me from reproducing my inferior self. Was the general in Dr. Stranglove correct? Are they stifling my vital juices and making me impotent with their plot to fluoridate my water? I knew that genral wasn't crazy after all. You seem to be saying:
Margart Sanger advocated birth control. Margaret Sanger also advocated eugenics. Hillary Clinton won the Margaret Sanger award for her work in birth control education. Margaret Samger has been dead for decades, and had nothing to do with the award. Ergo Hillary Clinton believes in selective human breeding.
Your apparent inference that Hillary supports eugenics follows about as logically from the facts as your conclusion that your reply post is on topoic in a thread about buffets.
Using your logic, I can prove that Ronald Reagan believed our armed forces are filled with traitors and that Jane Fonda is a staunch anti-communist Republican Conservative.
Senator Joseph McCarthy was a Republican Conservative Senator from Wisconsin who chaired the now-reviled House Un-American Activities Committee. McCarthy rose to incredible power through the expert use of the tactics of Joseph Goebbels, with whom you seem to be familiar. McCarthy's big mistake was to attempt to attack the US Army. He did so on TV, thereby letting the American public laern the truth about McCarthy's tactics. Goebbels was right. Revealing the truth to the public ended McCarthy's career and he died in disgrace.
McCarthy was a Republican, and it was the Republicans who nominated McCarthy for re-election and who appointed him to and kept him in his position of power in the UnAmerican Activities Committee.
Ronald Reagan won an award from the Young Republicans and, worse yet, he was nominated by the party of McCarthy to be President,
Ergo, Ronald Reagan was in league with those who would attack our armed forces.
Jane Fonda claims to be a Democrat and a Liberal. Like McCarthy, her big mistake was to attack the Pentagon for being filled with traitors.
Ergo, Jane Fonda, despite her claims to a different potitical affiiliation, must really be a staunch anti-communist Republican Conservative in the tradition of McCarthy.
Finally, since Jane Fonda is a card-carrying Democrat, the Democrats and Republicans are obviously involved in a conspiracy to eliminate our Armed Forces and allow the Commies to take over
custom2006 said:
Really, you can not make this stuff up!
Yes you can! I just did. You also made up your incorrect definition of "eugenics" and your claim that "Margaret Sanger started eugenics."
custom2006 said:
To understand why all of this is happening, you have to understand Eugenics! (the scientific purifying of the human gene pool) Eugenics means population reduction! Margaret Sanger started Eugenics....via the "American Birth Control League"
in 1921. It later became "Planned Parenthood"....with abortion having
ended more then 50 million lives in America (true genocide) since it
has been legal in this country. She also believed that....
To understand why all WHAT is happening? At any rate, to understand you say I must understand Eugenics. I think you mean I must understand your personal incorrect definition of the science of Eugenics. Eugenics is not defined in any generally recognized dictionary or science publication as "the scientific purifying of the human gene pool." Not only does "eugenics" not "mean population reduction, as you falsely claim, but part of the science of Eugenics has to do with increasing the population of desirable traits such as intelligence and long life span, while decreasing the population of undesirable traits such as schizophrenia, hereditary mental retardation, and varous birth defects.
The Random House Dictionary, copyright 2009 defines eugenics as:
"the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of
the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as
discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed
to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)." (Emphasis added by me).
Although birth control can be a tool that is used to accomplish a particular result in the science of eugenics, abstinence is equally a tool.The advocacy for the universal dissemination of birth control information is actually antithetical to eugenics. To achieve a particular result within eugenics, one must advocate giving birth control information selectively to those whose populations you chose to decrease, while keeping it a secret from those populations you chose to increase.
Most government practitioners of eugenics have done so by the use of genocide and forced sterilizatioin, while encouraging the favored populations to have children, and even forbidding the favored population from using birh control or abortion. No government has ever engaged in eugenics by trying to use universal birth control or universal abortion. That would be impossible.
As for your claim that "Margaet Sanger started eugenics" (quoted above) that is also grossly i,ncorrect. Wikipedia states, citing various authority:
"The basic ideals of eugenics can be found from the beginnings of humanity."
"The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[9] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg, Winston Churchill, and Sidney Webb.[10][11][12]
I'll bet all those economics students who won awards for their work in Keynesian economics never reliazed that we all knew the truth that they are also supporters of Hitlerian genocide through their adherence to the philosophy of John Maynard Keynes.
Eugenics, like most sciences, can be used for good or evil. The human genome project that mapped human DNA and will lead to predictting in advance who is prone to certain diseases, and will likely lead to attacking cancer on the gene level, can be categorized within the science of eugenics. Pre-marital testing for the tasax gene and the sickle cell anemia gene are part of the science of eugenics. Planned Parenthood supports premarital genetic testing. Is that evil? You wouldn't think so if you saw the suffering of the children born with those diseases. Or maybe you would think so anyway.
.Margaret Sanger has been celebrated for her fight against laws forbidding birth control, and not for her cotoversial beliefs in the popular (at the time) science of eugenics, or her controversial beliefs regarding negative genetics. The Margaret Sanger Award has nothing to do with Sanger's opinions regarding negative eugenics any more than Presidents Day has to do with George Washinton's popular (at that time) views favorable to slavery.
In the meantime, I still don't understand your point. Are you in favor of uncontrolled reproduction among blacks, immigrants and poor people? Or do you agree with the thoughts you attribute to Margaret Sanger that we should teach birth control to those groups to limit their numbers? Somehow I get the feeling that you don't exactly want huge populations of minorities and poor people. (I could be wrong of course.)
If you believe those opulations should get bigger, then you are correct, Margaret Sanger is evil. If you believe those populations should not get bigger, then Margaret Sanger is your hero and you are quoting her to convince us all to spread the birth control word.
How do you feel about Nadya Suleman, the unwed mother from a minority group who had octuplets, and has had six previous children while single with no means of support. Are you trying to say that Margaret Sanger was wrong to advocate giving Nadya birth control information, and that Nadya should receive an award for her work against eugenics by continually adding to the population of poor people on welfare?
More on topic, do you believe that welfare should pay for all-you-can-eat buffets for Nadya and her 14 kids, or should she only get food stamps and be required to cook for them at home? If the buffet allows chidren to pay a reduced price, is Nadya taking unfair advantage by bringing in 14 kids? When these kids are ready for school, should they consitute their own class?