Eugenics, race, abortion, all the words are emotive triggers. Useful for advancing discussion and dividing people.
Words are neutral, they have to be in a context, and the intent of the speaker should be considered before a meaning is arrived at.
While many quotes are thrown around as attributed to Margaret Sanger, many of these are skillfully lifted from their context. Books and articles about her, are often slanted to one view or another.
You can read fairly factual accounts about her very public series of lectures, and her personal writings.
You will find that she does not fit into a tidy niche to be exploited by extreme factions of the Abortion Debate.
I love someone doing the digesting of someone’s views for me, it’s work to find out what some one really said, and figure out what they believe.
So… I learned what the Pro Lifers and the Pro Choicers have done to twist this persons views.
I don’t hide that I believe all human life is equally human from conception to the grave. I also know that few people want to kill babies. That white rich guys really don’t want to tell someone what to do with their womb.
MS Sanger , when you look at the lectures and writings she has, leaned away from abortion. Leaned very heavy to prevention of pregnancy. She was a little caught in the prevailing attitudes of the day in regards to race.
I am not in agreement with all of her views, I do want the context of her writings to be presented. Think about reading, for yourself, I know, it’s work.
Dig around Wikipedia for some things she has written, her words are so twisted on each side of the Abortion debate. The real Margaret Sanger is lost in the screaming.
The SCOTUS strives to be above politics, usually ruling very close to the letter of the Constitution.
Since the SCOTUS is expected to land on the side of fewer impediments to gun ownership, the AGENDA has instructed the court to cave or face the consequences.
The problem seems to be, they won’t be a lap dog of the Liberal Agenda.
They can’t, credibly accuse SCOTUS of being partisan, they rule for Gay Marriage, Obama Care, and threw out Colorado’s harassment of a Christian Baker.
They can be accused of cherry picking cases, the bench is loaded according to the leanings of the President that appoints them.
Over all, they have represented stability in a country that can swing between parties, and ideologies every election cycle. The warning to the SCOTUS should stiffen their resolve to stay above the fray. I would love to see the court excoriate the LEFT’S open attempt to leash the court to the AGENDA.
1799 Philadelphia PA. Haratio wrote, “the horse was against the house in which Sybil Martin was trying to wash clothes and the horse made off with several items of clothing, attached to the halter and caught on the horseshoes of the animal. An unknown person was able to bring the horse to a nearby hitching post, tying the animal, Miss martin retrieved her clothes, while muddy, none the worse for the dragging in the mud.” the story was able to convey a series of thoughts about what happened.
2019, a similar fictional account, might reveal ” a stray horse straggled through several small yards, reaching into the laundry of African American Sybil Martin, taking some of her very few, worn clothes, dragging them in the street. Sybil had been washing clothes at home due to her wages being to low to obtain a washing machine like her better heeled urban neighbors.”
One account, though dry, was factual and described the incident with small inflection to form an opinion for the reader of the account. The second account was pre-digesting the account, with an expose of elements to elicit emotions in the readers with a definite revelation of income inequality.
So the news informed, in the 1700’s, and now formulates what we should think, in our day.
I challenge readers to learn how to understand events, without being managed and groomed to arrive at a pre-chosen agenda.
FOX, CNN, ABC, CNBC and the majority of news outlets manufacture an agenda, then build on the subject relentlessly with small changes, and often leaving out pertinent facts, not supporting their goal of forming an opinion for the reader.
This is not new, it has been going on for decades, with the most glaring examples noted under our current news methods.
So, as a definite conservative, person of faith, a family oriented male, employed as a Nurse, I have no interest in promoting my ideas in a manipulative manner.
I want to see who is paying for the news outlets to exist, I want to see what national interests are served by news outlets. I want to see who sponsors the myriad of studies used to push a view point.
As a student of Orwell, and his novel 1984, I love to use phrases like Double Think, News Speak, and the rest of his phrasology to describe a suspension of TRUTH.
We have heard a prominent member of government use the term ‘Fake News’. This fits in with the current ‘Objective News.
Serious deep pockets, in a small segment of the LGBT arena, are trying to silence opposition to their views.
The slant is that their is something wrong with this group, who for 2000 yrs has taught that same sex intimacy is against the Scriptures.
What is not said is, that any sexual behavior outside of marriage between a man and a woman is prohibited.
Some have used this stance as justification, by God, to batter and kill Gays. This false application, by a minority of Christians, has been exploited by antagonists, to paint Christians as bigots.
Some in the LGBT community have openly disrupted religious services, and have been guilty of singling out Christians for harassment. SPLC has been implicated in inciting shootings at a faith based group.
The overwhelming majority of people really don’t have an interest in inflicting their views on anyone. LGBT people generally have a you got yours, I got mine attitude. Most Christians understand that it’s a rare person who does not understand the Biblical view on same sex union.
The highly editorialized media, in response to moneyed interests, and organizations, including Southern Poverty Law Center, have an agenda. They single out traditional Faith groups as bigots and haters, due to a non-compliance with THIER viewpoint.
Christian groups have singled out gays, and past history contributes to the current climate of contention, sue and counter sue in the Courts.
Many Pulpits don’t elaborate on life behaviors, instead going for Love and Grace, which is where the money really is.
The Biblical Pulpits, and there are a lot of them, emphasize that a walk with Jesus, includes giving up lifestyles that are not Biblical.
Among the lifestyles are, theft, man stealers, worshipping Idols, sex outside of the marriage union, same sex intimacy, and neglecting your family.
In over 40 yrs of church attendance, never heard that Gays are going to Hell. I have heard that God wants a Walk with us, through Jesus Christ. To be in agreement with Jesus teachings, we lay aside those things He asks us not to do.
I can understand some will bristle at any disagreement with their life choices, that’s ok. Many will never be ‘bossed’ around by God, and do what they want to do.
This is where the huge majority says ‘ Cool, you got yours, I got mine.’
So people presenting themselves as ‘Christian’, picket funerals for Soldiers. This narrow little hate group, has their pictures splashed across the world’s media, and ‘ALL Christians are Haters.’
Wrong. Those who live the teachings of Jesus, condemn the damage this group creates, they call them out and expose their very charismatic founder, making money off of hate.
To be clear. The only way to end up in Hell, according to Scripture, is to refuse Jesus offer of Salvation. Period.
Accidents happen, and most people come out with minor injuries, thankfully.
After they found out that no serious injuries were apparent, both Mom’s broke down, hugging, and so thankful it wasn’t so much worse.
So… 80% of this whole thing is, the kids were essentially OK.
We knew knew the lawyers were coming, and the insurance companies would have their time in the sun.
Sharing the waiting room, one party shared too much. The other kid in the accident shared too much. My Grandson, the one with the front end of the Jeep tore off, said nothing, I said, I was so happy we got off pretty easy on both sides. We were agreeable, and the main thing was settled, the kids were alive and not seriously injured.
This is the South, in a Rural County, in a small hospital waiting room. Likely as not these kids were distant cousins, somewhere in the mix.
The only real thing in that room was the Kids being ok.
After years of smearing good people with false charges of
bigotry, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has finally been
held to account. A former Islamic radical named Maajid
Nawaz sued the center for including him in its bogus “Field
Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,” and this week the SPLC agreed
to pay him a $3.375 million settlement and issued a public
The SPLC is a once-storied organization that did important work
filing civil rights lawsuits against the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s.
But it has become a caricature of itself, labeling virtually anyone
who does not fall in line with its left-wing ideology an
“extremist” or “hate group.”
Nawaz is a case in point. Since abandoning Islamic radicalism,
he has advised three British prime ministers and created the
Foundation, to fight extremism. He is not anti-Muslim. He is a
Muslim and has argued that “Islam
is a religion of peace. So how did he end up in the SPLC’s
pseudo-guide to anti-Muslim bigots? His crime, apparently, is that
he has become a leading critic of the radical Islamist ideology he
once embraced. Thanks to his courage, the SPLC has been forced to
pay a multimillion-dollar penalty and acknowledge in a statement
that it was “wrong” and that Nawaz has “made valuable and
important contributions to public discourse, including by promoting
pluralism and condemning both anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist
Let’s hope this settlement is the first of many, because this
is not the first time the SPLC has done this. In 2010, it placed
the Family Research Council (FRC) — a conservative Christian
advocacy group that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage — on
its “hate map.” Two years later, a gunman
walked into the FRC headquarters with the intention to “kill
as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in
victims’ faces.” He told the FBI that he had used the SPLC
website to pick his target.
Unfortunately, many in the media still take the SPLC seriously.
Last year, ABC News ran a story headlined:
“Jeff Sessions addresses ‘anti-LGBT hate group,’ ” in which
it reported that “Sessions addressed members of the Alliance
Defending Freedom, which was designated an ‘anti-LGBT hate group’
by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2016.” The Alliance
Defending Freedom is a respected organization of conservative
lawyers dedicated to defending religious liberty, and it just
argued a case
before the Supreme
Court, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights
Commission. It won, 7 to 2. It is not a “hate group.” If
anything, it is fighting anti-Christian hate.
In 2014, the SPLC placed Ben Carson — later a Republican
presidential candidate and now the current secretary of housing and
urban development — on its “extremist watch list,” alongside
neo-Nazis and white supremacists. After an uproar, the group
removed him and apologized.
The SPLC also lists Charles Murray, a colleague of mine at the
American Enterprise Institute and one of the most respected
conservative intellectuals in the United States, on its website as
Nationalist.” Last year, an angry mob of students, many
citing the SPLC’s designation, physically attacked
Murray during a speech at Middlebury College. He escaped
unharmed, but the liberal professor who invited him ended up in the
Little wonder that Nawaz was not just angry but also afraid
about being designated an extremist by the SPLC. He told the
in 2016, “They put a target on my head. The kind of work that
I do, if you tell the wrong kind of Muslims that I’m an
extremist, then that means I’m a target.”
the settlement that the SPLC reached with Nawaz is not likely to
deter it from smearing others — $3.4 million is a drop in the
bucket for the center, which
raised $132 million between November 2016 and October 2017 and
has a $477 million endowment, including a reported $92
million in offshore accounts. Sliming conservatives is big
The only way to stop the SPLC is if people stop giving it money
and the media stop quoting it or taking it seriously. The SPLC once
did important work fighting the Ku Klux Klan. But when it declares
Maajid Nawaz, the Family Research Council, Ben Carson and Charles
Murray as moral equivalents of the Klan, it loses all integrity and
If I was coming from some of the South and Central American countries, I would take any risk to get out of these places.
My predecessor Samuel Hebert, as I am informed by a grown son who was on ANCESTRY.COM, came down from Canada circa 1770’s. The last name was Anglicized to ‘Abair’, which is how Hebert was pronounced. As in Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear.
He was a furniture builder, a carpenter, who could pay taxes to the new Republic.
So… My family is long time immigrant family of 8 or 9 generations. We, along with millions of others built the Nation.
I realize that we have to sort out the mess at the border. Yes, a lot of wrong stuff is happening, I get it.
I don’t know the end of this, I do know that whoever tackled this would blow it. Trump tackled it, anyone else who would have tackled it, would have messed up too.
Other countries have rules for immigrants. They should make a contribution, should be able to have support, other than government. They need to bring skills that improve the country.
Asylum is a rigged game, I can’t even begin to know the anguish of being in a country that hates me, while I jump through the hoops for application to enter the US.
The Narcos come to schools in Central America, and forcibly conscript teens into gangs, or die. Enforced prostitution and Humans sold like cattle to wealthier countries for household staff, and factories, and the sex trade.
Yes, their are horrendous perils to living down South of the US. border.
Yes we are doing it wrong, hopefully we can make it a little better for desperate families unable to live where they were born.
Like I said, I would do whatever I could to get to the US. If I got here illegally, I would hide and move to high hispanic population areas. I would work and pray for a way to get my family here.
There is a way to converse, discuss, and even argue, in a productive way.
The Ten Golden Rules of Argument
Reading Time: 4 minutes
“You don’t have to attend every
argument you’re invited to.” —
Arguments are tricky. We spend a lot of our time trying to
persuade others. We think that if we show them the facts that we have
they will, logically, reach
the same conclusions we did. Unfortunately that’s not how it
works. When is the last time someone changed your mind this
Sometimes we don’t want to argue. We’d rather avoid. This
doesn’t make the problem go away. In fact the suppressed resentment
that builds up can poison a relationship.
In his book, How
to Argue, Jonathan Herring outlines positive ways of
understanding and looking at arguments.
They needn’t be about shouting or imposing your will on
someone. A good argument shouldn’t involve screaming, squabbling or
fistfights, even though too often it does. Shouting matches are
rarely beneficial to anyone.
We should treat the ability to argue as a skill that needs to be
practiced and developed.
Arguments, and for that matter discussions, should be about seeing
things through the other person’s eyes. They should lead to a
better understanding of another person’s view.
With that in mind, here are what Herring presents the ten
golden rules of argument.
Ten Golden Rules of Argument
1. Be prepared
Make sure you know the essential points you want to make.
Research the facts you need to convince your opponent.
Also, Herring advises: “Before starting an argument think
carefully about what it is you are arguing about and what it is you
want. This may sound obvious. But it’s critically important. What
do you really want from this argument? Do you want the other person
to just understand your point of view? Or are you seeking a tangible
result? If it’s a tangible result, you must ask yourself whether
this result you have in mind is realistic and whether it’s
obtainable. If it’s not realistic or obtainable, then a verbal
battle might damage a valuable relationship.”
2. When to argue, when to walk away I’m sure
you’ve had an argument before and later felt that it was the wrong
time and place. “Knowing when to enter into an argument and when
not to is a vital skill.”
Think carefully before you start to argue: is this the
time; is this the place?
3. What you say and how you say it
Spend time thinking about how to present your argument.
Body language, choice of words and manner of speaking all affect how
your argument will come across.
One clever thing to do here, that shows you’ve
done the work, is to address the arguments against your position
before they arise.
4. Listen and listen again
Listen carefully to what the other person is saying.
Watch their body language, listen for the meaning behind their words.
As a general rule, Herring writes, “you should spend more time
listening than talking. Aim for listening for 75 percent of the
conversation and giving your own arguments 25 percent.” And
listening doesn’t mean that you’re thinking about what you’re
going to say next.
This is often where a lot of arguments, and discussions for that
matter, veer off course. If you’re not listening to the other
person and addressing their statements, you’ll just keep making
your same points over and over. The other person won’t agree with
those and the argument quickly becomes frustrating.
5. Excel at responding to arguments
Think carefully about what arguments the other person
will listen to. What are their preconceptions? Which kinds of
arguments do they find convincing.
There are three main ways to respond to an argument: 1) challenge
the facts the other person is using; 2) challenge the conclusions
they draw from those facts; and 3) accept the point, but argue the
weighting of that point (i.e., other points should be considered
above this one.)
6. Watch out for crafty tricks
Arguments are not always as good as they first appear. Be
wary of your opponent’s use of statistics. Keep alert for
distraction techniques such as personal attacks and red herrings.
Look out for concealed questions and false choices.
7. Develop the skills of arguing in public
Keep it simple and clear. Be brief and don’t rush.
8. Be able to argue in writing
Always choose clarity over pomposity. Be short, sharp,
and to the point, using language that is easily understood.
9. Be great at resolving deadlock
Be creative in finding ways out of an argument that’s
going nowhere. Is it time to look at the issue from another angle?
Are there ways of putting pressure on so that the other person has to
agree with you? Is a compromise possible?
10. Maintain relationships
This is absolutely key. What do you want from this
argument? Humiliating, embarrassing or aggravating your opponent
might make you feel good at the time, but you might have many lonely
days to rue your mistake. Find a result that works for both of you.
You need to move forward. Then you will be able to argue another day.
SO… Walmart sells guns, ammo, holsters, cleaning kits for guns. This mass retailer sells hundreds of thousands of an an item, you know, mass retailer.
So… the store is HORRIFIC scene of a mass shooting. Walmart did not create the problem, they are the victim of a horrendous crime.
They are being pressured to stop selling guns. They are in the crosshairs of a movement that is solving the gun problem by limiting access to guns.
The discussion has been that mentally stressed people react to short term stress, by using horrendous means to vent anger. Often the media blasts the name of the shooter over the news media outlets giving them a payoff, notoriety.
We are learning more and more that any negative gun use is a reason for media to inflame, and incite people into a ‘guns are bad’ frenzy.
Never mind the millions of guns and gun owners not involved in gun crimes, that day.
Guns are misused, and the weapon of choice in getting notoriety. The media gets to beat up guns, and the criminal gets his name in the news.
Never mind that countries that limit Citizen gun ownership still have nutjobs kill lots of people, in mass injuries and mass murders. Cars, trucks, knives, poisons, bad people, wanting to do bad things, find a way.
SO…I still want my gun, on my person, because people are killing people with guns, in Walmart.
How about if Walmart teaches it’s employees to look for people in the community, who are showing classic signs of violence. Maybe they can educate the public how to point violent persons to help.
We’re a long way from disarming the American Citizenry. We are being conditioned and fed an opinion that includes the ‘badness’ of guns.
I do feel anyone under 21 should not buy a gun. Each state, by the vote, should determine storage rules for guns, in personal hands. We can identify, and direct violent persons to help. We should defy the media attempts to divide us, by inflaming these painful horrendous events. We should castigate the media when they give gun criminals notoriety, by repeating their name over and over. This is a pay off for horrendous acts.
Gun owners are accused of being complicent in gun violence by elements of the media that seek to promote a ‘guns are bad’ mentality.
Some people are bad, some people hurt people, people use an amazing number of means to kill people.
Here we are, no solutions, yet good, honest retailers, and good honest gun owners are blamed, again.
What elements benefit from this rhetoric, help me dig up those who are promoting disarming American citizens.
If I get more info on these guys, let me call them out, here.