patrick.net

Is TwoScoopsMcGee Tucker Carlson?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-fox-news-anchor-tucker-091806506.html

Or has he just devolved to the point where he parrots FoxNews like a poor man's 10lbbass passing along all of Breitbart's talking points?

YesYNot says

Now you pretend that one has to be alive to know what happened during an era that was less than 100 years ago. That's an 'interesting' point of view. I'd lolz if it were not so sad

You state with absolute certainity about why the statue was erected, in order to justify why it can be removed now. That is sad and very telling of the absolute certainty of the left-very scary.

"Now you pretend that one has to be alive to know what happened during an era that was less than 100 years ago. That's an 'interesting' point of view. I'd lolz if it were not so sad."

It's another sad consequence of the Trumpkins battle to delegitimize facts and truth. Alternative facts. It's OK to lie.

The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery...

TwoScoopsMcGee says

@Rew @Bob

I want to hear their Yes or No answer.

Of course you do, So did Joe McCarthy. So does every prosecutor that ever lived. Want to try to come up with something slightly more creative than the classic did you stop beating your wife yes or no gambit to avoid facing up to the real issues with your trump demi god? I didn't think so.

lostand confused says

You state with absolute certainity about why the statue was erected, in order to justify why it can be removed now. That is sad and very telling of the absolute certainty of the left-very scary.

So, do you agree with the statement in general, but just think that I should express myself with less certainty? Do you think that any statement made without qualifiers implies 100% certainty of the author? I ask, because I never stated a certainty, yet you perceived on. If I take a gander at your posts, I don't see a lot of qualifiers. The 5th one down at the moment, actually has the word 'absolutely' twice. Where am I supposed to read into those comments to find your humility and sage wisdom?

TwoScoopsMcGee says

And of course, similar AltLeft violence has happened in Berkeley, Portland, and elsewhere.

There is no such thing as alt-left. Doesn't exist.
You need to learn how this "improvised" flame thrower came int existence, and you need to also understand why that elderly gentleman is off to the right.

YesYNot says

o, do you agree with the statement in general, but just think that I should express myself with less certainty?

Nope. There is no way you know why the statue was installed-yet you say with certainty and propose the removal based on your absolute certainty. That is so leftie philosophy.

YesYNot says

I ask, because I never stated a certainty, yet you perceived on.

Umm here is what you wrote. LOLz..

The statue of R.E. Lee was not taken down because the guy had slaves. It was taken down, because it was a revisionist statue erected in 1924 (60 years after the war) in an effort to keep the racist fuckers happy and continue to terrorize blacks.

lostand confused says

It was taken down, because it was a revisionist statue erected in 1924 (60 years after the war) in an effort to keep the racist fuckers happy and continue to terrorize blacks.

I'd say that I was referring to the memorials in general rather than that particular one. The basis comes from what others have written and the correlation of monument building with historical events.

I cannot possibly know what was in the mind of the guy who commissioned that particular statue. But, if you that I cannot possibly know what was in general going on in this country in 1924, you must really be critical of the religious right who are pretty sure that some supernatural shit happened in year 0.

lostand confused says

and propose the removal based on your absolute certainty.

Plus, I didn't propose the removal of the Lee statues based on my certainty. I contrasted what Lee represents with what Jefferson and Washington represent. Those are two extremely different things.

YesYNot says

You are struggling to see my point, because you are being dishonest about what other people are saying. You are doing the exact thing that you accuse CNN of doing. You are pretending that the Lee statue was taken down, because the guy had slaves, which Jefferson and Washington also had. That's simply not true. It's bullshit. The statue of R.E. Lee was not taken down because the guy had slaves. It was taken down, because it was a revisionist statue erected in 1924 (60 years after the war) in an effort to keep the racist fuckers happy and continue to terrorize blacks. It was put up during a time when blacks were regularly lynched and were in no way equals under the law.

Not at all. Alt-Left Radicals just tore down a statue to Confederate Soldiers, generally. Most of whom did not own any slaves. This took place in Durham, NC. Perhaps they will dig up the graves next? They are already talking about removing the images from Stone Mountain.

The reason given by the protesters themselves was Slavery, not the mere fact they rebelled against the USA.

It would be hypocritical for them to oppose Lee because he fought for independence from the United States, since so many worship people like Assatta Shakur or Rasmeh Odeh, both of whom were anti-American, ultraleft terrorists - and recent actors, people whose deeds were in the current lifetime of many millions of Americans. They also worship many Native American warriors for fighting the USA. They think America is a horrible place, that White Men alive must suffer today to rectify history. They don't want to right a wrong or two, they loathe the whole package. So the "It's because they fought the USA" is dishonest, inconsistent, and just flat out mendacious coming from them.

YesYNot says

If you truly cannot see the difference here, then we have some sort of fundamental problem.

So what you're saying is that because Washington and Jefferson were Founding Fathers who accomplished things considered very positive, it mitigates their Slavery.

I admit that, why can't you - the Yes or No answer, YesYNot, is No.

One more question - do you support the removal of Margaret Sanger statues?

Does her birth control activism mitigate the fact that she was an open racist and eugenicist?

Notice one thing: Both sides flew flags of foreign entities - Nazi, Soviet, Confederate, Anarchist. Few US Flags in Sight

bob2356 says

Of course you do, So did Joe McCarthy. So does every prosecutor that ever lived. Want to try to come up with something slightly more creative than the classic did you stop beating your wife yes or no gambit to avoid facing up to the real issues with your trump demi god? I didn't think so.

I knew you wouldn't answer.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

They owned slaves!

TwoScoopsMcGee says

We have AltLeft Radicals in government removing General Lee Statues

Lee never owned slaves, even the leftist bastion Snopes refutes this.

"Robert E. Lee, the commander of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia and (from 1865) the general-in-chief of Confederate forces, neither owned slaves nor inherited any, thus it is not correct to assert that he “freed his slaves” (in 1862 or at any other time)."
http://www.snopes.com/confederate-history-slave-ownership/

YesYNot says

Exactly. And the early 20th century was also when the Confederate battle flag started being flown again. It's not southern pride. It's southern racism.

NuttBoxer says

Lee never owned slaves, even the leftist bastion Snopes refutes this.

So the AltLeft, who worships all these insurgents and rebels and terrorists from Che Guevara to Assatta Shakur to Rasmeh Odeh, finally found a Rebel they really don't like.

And SURPRISE! He's a White Male. Even though he owned no slaves but was a rebel.

Amazing.

NuttBoxer says

Lee never owned slaves, even the leftist bastion Snopes refutes this.

That's true, he didn't. He did however kill many Americans in order to let slavers continue to own, beat, murder, and rape slaves including children. So he's every bit as guilty. He's like the Nazi that isn't anti-Semitic, but still fights for the Nazis so they can burn Jews in ovens. He's no hero. He's a traitor.

Teddy Roosevelt on the Chopping Block

Hundreds of activists gathered at the American Museum of Natural History on Monday to take down the “racist” statue of Theodore Roosevelt and an urgent call to rename Columbus Day.

More than 200 people cheered outside the museum as activists covered the statue of Roosevelt on horseback flanked by an African American and Native American on either side and demanded it be ultimately removed.

“A stark embodiment of the white supremacy that Roosevelt himself espoused and promoted,” the group explained in a statement. “The statue is seen as an affront to all who pass it on entering the museum, but especially to African and Native Americans.”

Activists from the groups NYC Stands with Standing Rock and Decolonize This Place organized the protest to draw attention to the museum’s encouragement of racist tropes, and implored New York City to rename Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day.

Democratic Leaders and Voters must denounce.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=98&v=mY0mQUWO9_Q

TwoScoopsMcGee says

So what you're saying is that because Washington and Jefferson were Founding Fathers who accomplished things considered very positive, it mitigates their Slavery.

I admit that, why can't you - the Yes or No answer, YesYNot, is No.

It doesn't mitigate the effects of his use of slavery. I differ from Dan in that I don't judge individuals like Jefferson as harshly as I would someone who wanted to have slaves today. There are lots of reasons for that, but it is not relevant to the difference between Jefferson and Lee. Slavery and the fight for it is not what Jefferson represents. Slavery was one negative aspect of his life. Slavery is not what the US and our flag represents. It's one negative aspect of our history. Slavery and the fight for it is what Robert Lee represents. If you accept that slavery is bad, but that there are many great things about our constitution and government, then you should be able to see the difference between memorials of Lee and Jefferson.
TwoScoopsMcGee says

One more question - do you support the removal of Margaret Sanger statues?

No.
TwoScoopsMcGee says

since so many worship people like Assatta Shakur or Rasmeh Odeh, both of whom were anti-American, ultraleft terrorists - and recent actors, people whose deeds were in the current lifetime of many millions of Americans.

Most people don't know who those people are, and I fall into that most people category. I don't really care if they are hypocrites. What percentage of the population do you think worships them? What percentage is happy to remove some confederate statues?

YesYNot says

Most people don't know who those people are, and I fall into that most people category. I don't really care if they are hypocrites. What percentage of the population do you think worships them? What percentage is happy to remove some confederate statues?

YOU don't know who they are, just like most people can't name many Nazis. But many Nazis know who Ernst Rahm is or some minor member of the Thule Society or some Freikorps soldier who died fighting the Bavarian Soviet Republic. An Assatta Shakur reading opens BLM meetings. That's right, they read the screed of a murdering terrorist. I think it's important that people know that an "Anti-Racist" organization's meetings, along with the founding members, hold a cop-killing racist, ultra left wing terrorist in exile in Cuba in very high regard.

It's important to banish ignorance about these things because a group's ' heroes says a lot about their membership.

Here is the Co-Founder Of BLM repeating EXACTLY what I've been telling you - that Shakur was a cop killer in exile, and that they recite her writings at every meeting:

www.youtube.com/embed/dUZDZaWNOFg

Dan8267 says

He did however kill many Americans in order to let slavers continue to own, beat, murder, and rape slaves including children.

Dan, you've already been owned on this point by many direct quotes, and historical data. Your false beliefs matter little in the face of truth. You should spend less time attempting to re-write three month old threads, and more time reading what people who RESEARCHED this topic have written.

Think about this. If I'm right, then you have been suckered into one of the biggest government propaganda efforts in this countries history. I don't think your ego could take the hit, so continue burying your head on this one.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

@Rew @Bob

I want to hear their Yes or No answer.

@TwoScoopsMcGee, On what? What question? (I infer the question is that posed in the OP)

This should not be hard for anyone in America to answer. If it is, I'd just ask that one honestly think about the reasons behind your desire to seek ambiguity or an equivalence to other symbols.

My Answer:

A "yes no" answer is included. But "yes" or "no" appears inadequate as I believe the "why" is what you seem to be struggling with.

Just like there are no memorials to Hitler in Germany, there should be no memorials to enemy leaders, failed ideas, hate, inequality, and enemy armies, within our borders. We put enemies in museums, not enshrined on pedestals in public spaces of honor. Memorials and pedestals are for the dead who gave all, those brave enough to give their lives for country and citizen, and also those things which most embody the ideals of the United States.

So is the question really what Washington and Jefferson represent to us? Or is the question why doesn't Lee/confederate generals represent the same?

No, obviously, you don't remove Washington and Jefferson memorials. They fought FOR the U.S. and for the equality of all men, despite being slave owners themselves. We don't overlook that by their memorials either.

Contrast with Lee's legacy of leading an army against the United States, to try and create a separate nation, which required slavery as one of its chief tenants. Lee is famous for opposing the ideals of the United States. Lee fought to ensure blacks remained enslaved in the South and preserve being what would have essentially been the last modern nation upholding slavery. He should not be visible, on horse and pedestal, anywhere in the country: except museums, and maybe battlefieds as a recognition of 'honor thy enemy'.

Things I think people might think about to help understand what these "confederacy monuments" and celebrations of the "lost cause" actually are:

- When were the majority of memorials to the confederacy erected? In what states and historical context? Why?
- Do they include any greater scope of what those historical figures did? How were they interpreted by members of the community then? How about now?
- Do any memorials in America celebrate slave ships, stockades, whips, lynchings, and put them on pedestals? Why not?
- What types of things would you oppose being put in your town/public spaces? What things would make you oppose it?

Some additional nuance, if really required:

My great-great-Grandfather started a full blow Indian war ... himself. It doesn't mean there should be a statue of him. There are history books that describe it. I understand it, the conflict, and the "why". It's not something I celebrate as "American" in ideal and principal. It's something I understand as being part of my family and American history.

My Grandfather fought in WWII and Korea. He would be considered racists today by a good many. Also a good many would also claim he is not racist. There are memorials dedicated to him for what he did but not what of all he may have said or believed.

Memorials and statues are for the best things about America and humanity. It's for what we have pride in and what we as a nation, and people, wish to emulate. Museums, books, records help us remember the things which we must confront in our past. But these things we do not elevate in public symbols as something to aspire to.

There is a place for the mistakes and failures of humanity. Failed ideas, and those statues encompassing them, are relegated to spaces designed so that we may remember them in the context of being just that: failures and mistakes.

YesYNot says

It doesn't mitigate the effects of his use of slavery. I differ from Dan in that I don't judge individuals like Jefferson as harshly as I would someone who wanted to have slaves today.

And this brings up the great philosophical debate regarding moral relativism. That's a big enough subject to warrant it's own thread.

YesYNot says

If you accept that slavery is bad, but that there are many great things about our constitution and government, then you should be able to see the difference between memorials of Lee and Jefferson.

It is true that Jefferson wrote many good things. It is also true that he never remotely lived up to his ideas. And some failings are deal killers.

This is why we should have monuments to ideas rather than monuments to individuals.

But yes, there are material differences between Lee and Jefferson and equating the two is incorrect.

YesYNot says

Slavery is not what the US and our flag represents.

The problem with flags, especially the U.S. flag, is that they represent countries not idealized whitewashed images of countries. The American flag is not a symbol of freedom. America has always had the exact same flaws that the nations we criticize have and then some. America did not start out as a free nation. It did not become a free nation after the Civil War. It is still not a free nation today. Per capita, we incarcerate the most people, and they are mostly political prisoners. America is not even close to the most free nation in the world.

It is ridiculous and harmful to call America a symbol of freedom. At best, this country's history has been a very slow and painful march towards freedom with conservatives, particularly those from the south, fighting it every step of the way. The most optimistic and flattering position you can take on America that is also honest, is that America has made a lot of progress towards freedom over the past 240 years.

However, all flags, including the U.S. flag, carry with them the entire history of the country they represent, and this history includes every genocide, every enslavement, every political prison, every body cavity search, every act of torture, every lethal medical experiment, and every miscarriage of justice. If you find that thought unpleasant, then do your best to see that more emotional baggage isn't added to our flag by the USA Patriot Act, the Trump administration, the countless undeclared wars, the militarized police, and the lack of transparency and accountability in government.

The sins of the past are never forgotten and should never be forgotten. The best you can do is to acknowledge them, apologize for them, condemn them, and make sure they never happen again. The failure of Americans to take these steps is exactly why we are still fighting the Civil War and still pouring salt on the wound today.

Rew says

Just like there are no memorials to Hitler in Germany, there should be no memorials to enemy leaders, failed ideas, hate, inequality, and enemy armies, within our borders. We put enemies in museums, not enshrined on pedestals in public spaces of honor. Memorials and pedestals are for the dead who gave all, those brave enough to give their lives for country and citizen, and also those things which most embody the ideals of the United States.

We have the statue of Eugenicist and Racist Margaret Sanger in the Smithsonian. Does her Birth Control advocacy erase the fact that she wanted Blacks, "That Unhappy Race" to disappear from the Earth? She also advocated mandatory sterilization for "morons", Blacks, and poor people generally.
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/13/smithsonian-refuses-to-remove-statue-of-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/

I take it you support the removal of her Statue from the taxpayer-funded (2/3rds of budget) Smithsonian, yes? African-American Community Leaders asked and were rejected by the Museum. No AltLeft groups have taken up this cause.

She is also outside the Old South Meeting House, a public property, where the outspoken racist eugenicist is portrayed as a Victim of the Evil US Government:

http://pennycolman.com/margaret-sanger/

Rew says

Contrast with Lee's legacy of leading an army against the United States, to try and create a separate nation, which required slavery as one of its chief tenants. Lee is famous for opposing the ideals of the United States. Lee fought to ensure blacks remained enslaved in the South and preserve being what would have essentially been the last modern nation upholding slavery. He should not be visible, on horse and pedestal, anywhere in the country: except museums, and maybe battlefieds as a recognition of 'honor thy enemy'.

The Shawnee Indian, Tecumseh, not only fought the Government of the United States, he worked with a Foreign Power (Britain) to destroy the USA in a war (1812). So by your standards, we should remove his statue from public places as an enemy of the United States. Here is just one of his many statues on public display.

Violent Enemy of the United States who incited others to fight the USA and allied with a Foreign Power.

http://www.vincennescvb.org/attractions/16/historic/261/tecumseh-statue

Rew says

Just like there are no memorials to Hitler in Germany, there should be no memorials to enemy leaders, failed ideas, hate, inequality, and enemy armies, within our borders.

So you agree the Democrat Party, the founder of the KKK, defenders of slavery, opposers of female suffrage,should just be disbanded? We could probably throw Islam in there too as a failed ideology full of hate and inequality.

Dan8267 says

And this brings up the great philosophical debate regarding moral relativism. That's a big enough subject to warrant it's own thread.

I agree. At the moment, though, I'm at maximum bandwidth digesting current events..Dan8267 says

It is true that Jefferson wrote many good things. It is also true that he never remotely lived up to his ideas. And some failings are deal killers.

This is why we should have monuments to ideas rather than monuments to individuals.

I agree in that his use of slaves was completely contrary to what I think were his best ideas. The interior of his memorial in DC focuses on his words (his ideas), which I like. These days, Monticello focuses on the lives of slaves, writings, scientific and agricultural experiments, and his profligate romantic and impractical lifestyle (building a house on a hill, spending himself into debt, relying on slaves for his lifestyle, etc). As a living monument, it can change to reflect our current understanding of things.
Dan8267 says

However, all flags, including the U.S. flag, carry with them the entire history of the country they represent

I agree. It represents the country, which is imperfect. The important thing is to recognize the bad with the good. As you wrote: Dan8267 says

The best you can do is to acknowledge them, apologize for them, condemn them, and make sure they never happen again.

IMO, taking the statues down is recognizing a wrong and correcting what we can still correct today.

YesYNot says

I agree in that his use of slaves was completely contrary to what I think were his best ideas.

I hate to chalk up this contradiction to mere hypocrisy, but I have no alternative explanations.

YesYNot says

The interior of his memorial in DC focuses on his words (his ideas), which I like.

Then it should be a monument to those ideas, not the person. No statue of the man should be there. Instead the ideas should be written, but with the acknowledgment that the man who wrote them did not live by them.

Perhaps they will dig up the graves next?

--------------

Logically, this will have to happen sooner or later. Let's get on with it. Demolish the churches and bury the cemeteries, let's put all that prime land to good use, rather than the most inefficient use imaginable that it's being wasted on now. Or at least stop subsidizing them, make them pay their way in this world

We can't just pile graveyards and statues all over our most valuable land. It's stupid

TwoScoopsMcGee says

We have the statue of Eugenicist and Racist Margaret Sanger in the Smithsonian. Does her Birth Control advocacy erase the fact that she wanted Blacks, "That Unhappy Race" to disappear from the Earth? She also advocated mandatory sterilization for "morons", Blacks, and poor people generally.

But she is a womyn and not a white fucking male!!! That makes everything completely different!!!

So, based on your response, I guess we agree on the fate of Jefferson and Washington monuments?
Do you have a defense of Lee/other confederates being able to remain after local votes to remove them? I'll assume you surrender the field there.

Off to the fringes now ...
TwoScoopsMcGee says

Shawnee Indian, Tecumseh

Why and when was the statue put there? What does it represent as a public symbol? I'll help ... Here are the actual pictures of it:

Pay attention to this phrase ... "... defended the rights of his people in meetings in Vincennes with William Henry Harrison, Governor of the Indiana Territory."

A very American ideal? No? An honorable voice of civic opposition and further a warrior that we look to as a symbol of fighting against the oppression of a people. He has many Warships named after him. Interesting, no? He is seen was upholding American ideals relevant to the communities and things that bear his name and image.

Confederate peak KKK era statues were not built and erected to celebrate warrior ideals and history.

Get it yet?

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Margaret Sanger (in the Smithsonian.)

I've seen plenty of symbols of hate and racism in museums. I'm not crying out for their removal. Location matters and, just as above, the context trappings around the statue look very appropriate to me from what I read.

As to asking for it's removal, sometimes there isn't a big enough outcry to get momentum in a direction. Change is often slower than one wishes. The predominant outcry for it's removal appears to be highly tinged with religious anti-abortion sentiment as well. She is a very conflicted symbol for us in current times.

And again, there is no such thing as alt-left. It's like Covfefe: gibberish.

Goran_K says

So you agree the Democrat Party, the founder of the KKK, defenders of slavery, opposers of female suffrage,should just be disbanded? We could probably throw Islam in there too as a failed ideology full of hate and inequality.

@Goran_K

I don't think this is a very rational statement or genuine. If it is, please learn as much as you can about the GOP under Lincoln, and where that party was on the political spectrum.

Rew says

I don't think this is a very rational statement or genuine. If it is, please learn as much as you can about the GOP under Lincoln, and where that party was on the political spectrum.

Why don't you explain? Why are you running away from even presenting your counter-point?

According to the website of the New Mexico Office of the State Historian, Juan de Oñate killed hundreds and “severely punished” the survivors, including women and children. “Men over 25 had one foot cut off and were sentenced to 20 years of personal servitude to the Spanish colonists … young women over 12 years of age were given 20 years of servitude; 60 young girls were sent to Mexico city to serve in the convents there, never to see their homeland again.”

Despite this cruel legacy, the New Mexican government paid tribute to Oñate in 1991, erecting a statue of the conquistador on horseback in the town of Alcalde.

This outraged many Native Americans. During the state’s quadrennial celebration in 1998 someone sawed off Oñate’s bronze left foot. An anonymous letter sent to a local newspaper claimed that the protest was “on behalf of our brothers and sisters of Acoma.”

In a deja-vu-all-over-again moment, the city fathers of El Paso, Texas, later shelled out several hundred thousands dollars for an even more mammoth statue of Oñate. So far, both feet remain intact.

But this is different as he qualifies as Hispanic and due to him not being a Fucking White Male, his statues do not have to be removed.

Edit: this shows the statues, which are not in museums, but in extremely public space. https://storify.com/haimerej/juan-de-onate-a-man-worthy-of-celebration-or

NuttBoxer says

Dan8267 says

He did however kill many Americans in order to let slavers continue to own, beat, murder, and rape slaves including children.

Dan, you've already been owned on this point by many direct quotes, and historical data. Your false beliefs matter little in the face of truth. You should spend less time attempting to re-write three month old threads, and more time reading what people who RESEARCHED this topic have written.

Think about this. If I'm right, then you have been suckered into one of the biggest government propaganda efforts in this countries history. I don't think your ego could take the hit, so continue burying your head on this one.

As much as I disagree with Dan, this is one of the few times he is right.

Rew says

Pay attention to this phrase ... "... defended the rights of his people in meetings in Vincennes with William Henry Harrison, Governor of the Indiana Territory."

A very American ideal? No? An honorable voice of civic opposition and further a warrior that we look to as a symbol of fighting against the oppression of a people. He has many Warships named after him. Interesting, no? He is seen was upholding American ideals relevant to the communities and things that bear his name and image.

Rew, do you know jack shit about the War of 1812? And his battles with US Forces?

Tippecanoe? and Tyler Too? That at least one US President got to the White House largely on their record of fighting his forces?

He fought the US Government, with violence, leading an armed force, and received aid for the main enemy of the US in that war, the United Kingdom.

So did General Lee (well, the UK almost sent him aid, but a well-timed friendly visit from the Russian Baltic Fleet scared off the UK and France from helping the CSA).

If Lee comes down, so should Tecumseh, if you go by the Armed Insurgent against the USA rationale, no?

If the White Male Southern Rebel comes down, so does the Native American Male Rebel. It's a way of signalling unity, anything less is "Picking and Choosing", seemingly about Skin Color.

As for Margaret Sanger, she spent much of her time pushing for mandatory involuntary sterilization, and pseudoscience like anthropometry (somebody is a criminal because their brow shape is a certain way, or their ears abnormally large or whatever). She was incredibly influential in the Government involuntarily sterilizing people, most of whom were poor whites and blacks. Her close associates included Lothrop Stoddard, who praised the Third Reich's eugenics policies, and ABCL (later merging into Planned Parenthood) Dr. Laughin who said "bad strains" had to be purified from America, including the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

In 30 States, Margaret Sanger and her cronies got involuntary Eugenics laws passed in 30 states. Most "Coastal Elites" of the time loved Eugenics and thought opposition to it (correctly) mostly came from Religious Fanatics and those who would destroy the country over excessive adherence to annoyances like Civil Liberties.

"Freeze Peach" "No right to hate Speech" "Three Generations of Idiots Imbiciles is enough"

Nevermind the idiot was an ace student who married and entered the middle class from bone-grinding poverty, only to find she was infertile after she got married.

Some victims didn't even know they were sterilized until they unsuccessfully attempted to have children and saw a doctor; they sterilized girls as young as 11.

Hamilton star open to removal of Jefferson and Washington statues. That was quick. What is next renaming Washington D.C and Washington state-liberals have reached the edge of craziness.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/08/17/hamilton-star-leslie-odom-jr-open-taking-statues-washington-jefferson/

Liberals taking advantage of the Mentally ill.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

As for Margaret Sanger, she spent much of her time pushing for mandatory involuntary sterilization, and pseudoscience like anthropometry (somebody is a criminal because their brow shape is a certain way, or their ears abnormally large or whatever). She was incredibly influential in the Government involuntarily sterilizing people, most of whom were poor whites and blacks. Her close associates included Lothrop Stoddard, who praised the Third Reich's eugenics policies, and ABCL (later merging into Planned Parenthood) Dr. Laughin who said "bad strains" had to be purified from America, including the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."

In 30 States, Margaret Sanger and her cronies got involuntary Eugenics laws passed in 30 states. Most "Coastal Elites" of the time loved Eugenics and thought opposition to it (correctly) mostly came from Religious Fanatics and those who would destroy the country over excessive adherenc...

Well you've managed to bring ignorance of the subject to an art form. Clearly you know nothing about Sanger other than some crap you read on some blog or a wiki post. Don't let the facts like compulsory sterilization laws were passed between 1907 and 1915 while Stanger didn't even address eugenics until after WWI when she joined the Birth Control Review enter into your world. She either was in school, a suburban housewife or a nurse on the east side when most of the laws were passed. She spent very little time pushing for involuntary sterilization. It was a small part of her career. Eugenics was a concept supported by many very prominent people, as well as a big part of the general population, at the time. You do know Sanger was highly praised by Martin Luther King for her work in the black community don't you?

Should her statue come down because of writing in support of a popular concept at that time in history as a small part of her career? Maybe. . Should it happen because you and the right wingnuts in congress are desperately casting around to prove somehow Sanger writings are morally equivalent to taking up arms and actively going to war to further the institution of slavery in the last place in the civilized world slavery was practised. Look she is just as bad because we say so. I don't think so.

I have a copy of Kennedy's biography Birth Control in America: The Career of Margaret Sanger on my bookshelf. If you ever want to actually know what you are talking about then pick up a copy. But why would you want that?

Curiosity overwhelms me. Why is it that right wingnuts have so much trouble with proportion. Breitbart just makes a bunch of shit up it's a minor editing error. CNN misplaces a comma and it's a major fake news conspiracy. Going to war, killing and maiming millions of people, destroying billions of dollars in property to keep millions of people enslaved is pretty much the same as writing in favour of eugenics. Interesting phenomena. Is it something you are born with or did you take some kind of special training?

TwoScoopsMcGee says

Here's your chemical sprays. I see a fat guy who seems to fit a white supremacist, and a black guy who I have a feeling isn't a White Supremacist.

Those 2 opposites aren't fighting, they are working together like brothers, trying to swat away some mosquitos.