Ginsburg supports my theory on liberalism and eugenics.

Off Topic
17yFollow

Ginsburg supports my theory on liberalism and eugenics.

Timothy W.
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes

I need a radio show. I'm getting too good at this.

The day before yesterday I was attacked for making the assertion that the many of the roots of modern liberalism (in both parties - liberalism is not just about Democrats) can be found in early 20th century eugenics. One obvious link is Planned Parenthood - a product of the eugenics movement, founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger.

But just today we have another! A surprising admission by Clinton appointee and liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I'll just quote her here and let you read her words:

"Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

So Roe V. Wade, a "victory" for liberals everywhere is about population control. Specifically "populations that we don't want to have too many of." Where have we heard that before? Maybe I should quote the logo of the Second International Eugenics conference, "Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution." I'm also curious as to who the "we' is that decides what populations we want to "limit"?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103457

Oh Tim....you silly conservative. You don't have any idea of what eugenics or science is about.... You're just an Obama hater who can't think for himself....

0Reply
246 views

Most Popular Reply

J ScottPro Member
Moderator
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
17y
Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
But living debt free, in a house that you own with no mortgage, no commute, spending more time with your family, being in touch with nature in a smog free environment on daily basis, and no bills crushing you every month - some people see value in that.


Some people see the value in education.

Some people see the value in individualism.

Some people see the value in wealth.

Some people see the value in vacation and leisure.

Some people see the value in experiencing world culture.

In my opinion, the American Dream is the pursuit of whatever it is you see the value in, without undue constraint.

Podcast Guest on Show The Truth About Real Estate Investing in 2024 (What Investors NEED to Know)
2Reply
See this reply in the discussion

106 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Josh Green
    Financial Advisor · Tampa Area, FL · Member since 2008 · 956 posts · 214 votes
    17y

    wow tim!

    that quote is almsot scary. i do miss her though, i loved looking at her little body/head and those big ole glasses. i just wanted to hug her!

    i will say though, that is not why i am a pro-choice (for population control). i'm interested to see if that quote will ignite many fires in the bellies of pro-lifers.

    0Reply
  • Timothy W.
    OP
    Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y

    Nothing to say JScott? You were the one who told me I didn't know what I was talking about.

    0Reply
  • Scott R.
    Real Estate Investor · Northern Territory · Member since 2009 · 136 posts · 10 votes
    17y

    yup, henry kissinger is big on this to. the georgia stones or whatever it is has it written on there that the goal is a population of 5 million people

    0Reply
  • Jeff Warner
    Real Estate Investor · North Central Arkansas · Member since 2009 · 509 posts · 178 votes
    17y

    Population control huh? And they call Palin a nut job.

    By the way, where is choice in "pro choice"? Is it to choose the abortion route, because if your CHOICE is life, then your not "pro choice". I've always thought that was interesting.

    Jeff

    0Reply
  • Timothy W.
    OP
    Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y

    Since Jason (J Scott) is mute on this thread, I will quote him from another thread - namely the Sara Palin Resigns as Governor thread. And the point of this is to illustrate the real danger with the eugenics of liberalism. Twice he linked a person's political choice to their intelligence level.

    On 7/8/2009 he stated, "She scares everyone with with an IQ over 70!!! " Now that comment alone could be seen as jest, but when one continues to repeat that line of thinking then it is another matter.

    On 7/9/2009 he stated, "Perhaps this is why I didn't feel the need to rally around any of those people. Perhaps if I were more average, I would feel compelled to rally around her. Luckily, I'm not." In this statement he has reiterated his position that he believes he is in a different class of people based on his political choices.

    Now I don't think Jason's a bad guy. I think what happened is someone, somewhere taught him to think this way and he actually believes it. Look throughout the Palin thread and you will see every attack on her by every self-proclaimed and self-evident liberal is laced with the "we are smarter" mentality. Now in fairness many conservatives think they are smarter than liberals and that's a separate debate, but conservatism does not espouse the philosophies of physical eugenics. The dangers with conservatism is getting to a place of a type of capitalism that could become "financial eugenics" which is an entirely separate topic.

    Here's the problem and while this is purely theoretical, it is what I believe to be one of the great dangers we face in liberalism that I don't think we recognize. The philosophy of eugenics from which much of liberalism is from (as previously documented in this thread) had no qualms in forcibly sterilizing people they considered to be "of lesser intelligence". They based this on testing of their day. This was not a Nazi practice only. This was a eugenics practice that was performed throughout the United States - even here in Indiana. Thankfully they saw the inhuman brutality in such a practice and outlawed it. But then you have Ginsburg now saying she believed Roe V Wade was set in place to control populations - which in philosophy is the continuation of the work of sterilization but in a different manner. While this alone should be enough to give you pause, when you consider the rampant attitude and marketing throughout liberalism that liberals are smarter (remember how they found George Bush got better grades than John Kerry and Kerry was still portrayed as the intellectual?) how difficult is the leap to base someone's intelligence off their politics. Jason already thinks this way. Again, Jason's not a bad guy. He's been taught to think this by someone. Now that the precedence is set, what is next. Since Roe V. Wade is about controlling population and intelligence can be measured in terms of one's political choices, how do we "improve" the "intelligence of the US population?

    It's quite simple when you have nationalized pre-natal care and a bureaucrat sets standards into place determining who's dumb enough to have an abortion as part of their nationalized pre-natal care.

    Is Jason the bad guy here? Absolutely not. I think the bad guy trained folks like Jason to believe they are exceptional. Is Barrack Obama the bad guy here? I don't think so. I do think he's setting up the bad guy's infrastructure. If there is a history of forcibly sterilizing people, it's not hard to see the implementation of forced abortions (or get the abortion or be denied care and since it's nationalized you have no other options).

    Tim

    0Reply
  • Timothy W.
    OP
    Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y

    Geeze I sound like a conspiracy theorist. The scary part is I would have never believed a liberal Supreme Court Justice to make the kind of admission she did....

    0Reply
  • Jim Wineinger
    Real Estate Investor · ten mile, TN · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 374 votes
    17y

    There is always an upside to any program. It can get turned around and applied to them!

    0Reply
  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
    Since Jason (J Scott) is mute on this thread,


    I'm on vacation...I'm sorry if responding to people I don't know isn't my highest priority while on vacation...

    As to your post...

    Again, you have a major reading comprehension problem. Because of it, it's very difficult to debate with you, as you just change the topic on a whim, without realizing it. Because you choose the same words in each post/thread (in this case, liberal, eugenics, etc), you think it's the same discussion. But, because you continually change the context in which you use these words, you try to ascribe arguments to me that I never made.

    I'll try this one more time, and then I give up...

    In my previous posts, I claimed that calling someone a eugenicist had a negative connotation.

    That's the point I made.

    You said that the the term eugenicist had its roots in liberalism, and therefore shouldn't be considered a negative thing to liberals (yours was a complete non-sequitor there, but I'll ignore it).

    So, regardless of your tangent on this thread, the specific thing we were debating was:

    Does the term eugenicist carry a negative connotation?

    I have no idea how this thread touches on that question in the least, but again, in your mind, it seems like if you use the terms "liberal" and "eugenics" in the same sentence, you are addressing the question.

    You are not.

    Again, the question we were debating was, "Does the term eugenicist carry a negative connotation?"

    Based on this thread that you started, you clearly believe that it does, as you associate "eugenics" with things you believe are bad.

    So, it sounds like our debate from the other thread is now resolved. We both agree that being called a "eugenicist" carries a negative connotation.

    I'm glad we resolved that.

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

    Now, if there is something else you'd like to debate, please clarify what it is we're debating, as it's certainly not clear what your point is in this thread (other than the fact that I'm clearly not a bad guy).

    In fact, if you could clearly state your belief and my belief at the top of the thread, I can at least verify that we're arguing about the same thing, and maybe we can try to stay on topic.

    Again, it's very hard to debate with someone who randomly changes the argument just to make a completely unrelated point (as this entire thread did).

    Podcast Guest on Show The Truth About Real Estate Investing in 2024 (What Investors NEED to Know)
    0Reply
  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
    I need a radio show. I'm getting too good at this.

    Just like many on the radio, you are very good at stringing together two statements and claiming they are related when they're not.

    Let's take a look...


    The day before yesterday I was attacked for making the assertion that the many of the roots of modern liberalism (in both parties - liberalism is not just about Democrats) can be found in early 20th century eugenics.

    Well, you weren't attacked. I just asked for evidence of this fact.

    First, let's be clear on your thesis...you claim:

    "many of the roots of modern liberalism (in both parties - liberalism is not just about Democrats) can be found in early 20th century eugenics"

    Let's see if you provide any support for this thesis in your post...


    One obvious link is Planned Parenthood - a product of the eugenics movement, founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger.

    Whoa! Above you said that the ROOTS of liberalism were in eugentics. Here you claim a relationship.

    There is a HUGE difference between something having its roots in something and something having a tangential relationship with it.

    There is a relationship between conservativism and capital punishment, but I would never say that conservativism has its roots in capital punishment (that would be an insult and is certainly not true).

    So, your statement above does not support your thesis.


    But just today we have another! A surprising admission by Clinton appointee and liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I'll just quote her here and let you read her words:

    "Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

    Okay, so points to some evidence that a liberal court made a ruling for something related to eugenics.

    Again, this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH liberalism having its roots in eugenics.

    And again, I could use the example that a conservative administration pushed through the Patriot Act, but it would be ridiculous for me to say that conservatism has its roots in the Patriot Act.

    So, again, your statement does not support your thesis.


    Oh Tim....you silly conservative. You don't have any idea of what eugenics or science is about...


    I disagree with that.

    What I would say is, Tim, you made a claim that I thought was ridiculous, and I asked you to support it.

    But, you didn't support it. You strung together sentences using the same words (liberalism, eugentics) in your thesis that didn't support your thesis.

    Just bad debating.

    Podcast Guest on Show The Truth About Real Estate Investing in 2024 (What Investors NEED to Know)
    1Reply
  • Timothy W.
    OP
    Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by J Scott:
    Whoa! Above you said that the ROOTS of liberalism were in eugentics. Here you claim a relationship.

    There is a HUGE difference between something having its roots in something and something having a tangential relationship with it.

    Oh geeze.... Do you honestly think we're so "average" to believe you can honestly claim some semantic difference between roots and relationship. Roots ARE a relationship. Good grief. :roll:

    Originally posted by J Scott:
    There is a relationship between conservativism and capital punishment, but I would never say that conservativism has its roots in capital punishment (that would be an insult and is certainly not true).

    That's too bad because I would be proud to have capital punishment as rooted in conservatism. There are some people who deserve nothing better than to die at the hands of justice. The difference between justice and eugenics is that you choose the justice you incur by your choices.


    Originally posted by J Scott:
    Okay, so points to some evidence that a liberal court made a ruling for something related to eugenics.

    Again, this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH liberalism having its roots in eugenics.

    Oh sure. It's just some evidence pointing to some liberal court pointing to some ruling. It's a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE admitting she wants to control population - in essence control the direction of mass reproduction! She's 1/9 of the entire Supreme Court judicial power of the United States and I like how you try to downplay Roe V Wade as a "liberal court made a ruling" when this ruling is one of the hallmark's of modern. liberalism.

    Originally posted by J Scott:
    And again, I could use the example that a conservative administration pushed through the Patriot Act, but it would be ridiculous for me to say that conservatism has its roots in the Patriot Act.


    If you think this was a piece of conservative legislation, you need to recheck your history. Republican does not equal conservative as I made abundantly clear.

    Jason, you are so caught up in the belief of your own exceptionalism that you can't take the blinders off to see where your line of thinking is taking you. There could not be a clearer link between a liberal Supreme Court justice's line of thinking and eugenics than if she said, "we need to legislate means to abort undesirable portions of the populace since legally we can't sterilize them anymore". But you just won't admit to it because it could dare to mean that you could be wrong and an "average" person could be right (Be careful who you refer to as less intelligent than you, btw. You never know who you're talking to).

    By the way, since you're so much smarter than us have you yet figured out that you're not a Libertarian? Libertarians tend not to support the Federal Government controlling people's reproduction. Crazy I know....

    Tim

    0Reply
  • Josh Green
    Financial Advisor · Tampa Area, FL · Member since 2008 · 956 posts · 214 votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Jeff And Cheray Warner:
    Population control huh? And they call Palin a nut job.

    By the way, where is choice in "pro choice"? Is it to choose the abortion route, because if your CHOICE is life, then your not "pro choice". I've always thought that was interesting.

    Jeff


    i've always thought that 'pro-lifers' blowing up buildings and shooting people in the head were interesting.

    have a CHOICE is what i am for. would i personally advocate someone having an abortion or not is not relevant. allowing them a choice if they want to is another story.
    jeff, you are implying that all pro-choicers are pro-abortion. thats not the case.

    many people want the govt to not control their personal lives yet want the govt to tell them what they can do with thier body. interesting.

    0Reply
  • Timothy W.
    OP
    Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Josh Green:
    i've always thought that 'pro-lifers' blowing up buildings and shooting people in the head were interesting.

    I'm anti-abortion and I think these kinds of people should fry in the chair. Every ideology has it's nutjobs. You can't blame liberalism for Ted Kaczinski building bombs. He chose to be a muderer. We recognize domestics terrorists for who they are and they aren't granted the authority to be citizens, much less Supreme Court justices. That's the issue here.

    0Reply
  • Jeff Warner
    Real Estate Investor · North Central Arkansas · Member since 2009 · 509 posts · 178 votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Josh Green:
    Originally posted by Jeff And Cheray Warner:
    Population control huh? And they call Palin a nut job.

    By the way, where is choice in "pro choice"? Is it to choose the abortion route, because if your CHOICE is life, then your not "pro choice". I've always thought that was interesting.

    Jeff


    i've always thought that 'pro-lifers' blowing up buildings and shooting people in the head were interesting.

    have a CHOICE is what i am for. would i personally advocate someone having an abortion or not is not relevant. allowing them a choice if they want to is another story.
    jeff, you are implying that all pro-choicers are pro-abortion. thats not the case.

    many people want the govt to not control their personal lives yet want the govt to tell them what they can do with thier body. interesting.




    I think people blowing up buildings and shooting people over abortion is down right insane. The same can be said for the "environmentalists" that blow up buildings. Just because there are nut jobs with similar view points doesn't mean everyone with that point of view is crazy like they are.

    Are you saying that "Pro Choice" is about not having the govt. intervene in peoples right to either have or not have an abortion?

    This is an interesting comment:

    "many people want the govt to not control their personal lives yet want the govt to tell them what they can do with thier body. interesting."

    Are you assuming that this applies to anyone who is Pro Life? I can only speak for myself but I don't want the govt. controlling any aspect of my personal life or abortion. I think we are better off educating people then we are creating legislation making abortion either legal or illegal. In my opinion, the govt. has no business being involved in the issue. Having govt. control abortion would only result in higher taxes and a program that does not do what it was intended to do.

    Jeff

    0Reply
  • Josh Green
    Financial Advisor · Tampa Area, FL · Member since 2008 · 956 posts · 214 votes
    17y

    jeff-

    i think we are in agreeance. education is the key! i believe that with proper education, there will in-turn be less abortions in general. i think the option should always be there, however, the 'need' should not.

    0Reply
  • Debbie B.
    Real Estate Investor · Hurst, TX · Member since 2008 · 76 posts · 10 votes
    17y

    What I find interesting is I have talked with people who will not vote for a party who will not let them make their own decision about their body (referring to the Republican's proposal to ban abortion), yet they think a system where the government would dictate their health care is great. "You can get that abortion, but the liver transplant you need to survive? Denied."

    0Reply
  • Sorin T
    Investor · colorado springs, CO · Member since 2009 · 283 posts · 45 votes
    17y

    What I find interesting is I have talked with people who know exactly how an universal health care sytem would run (and fail) in this country without ever seeing or experiencing how the system runs in just about any other developed western world country. Well, it's because Rush himself said so!

    0Reply
  • Jeff Warner
    Real Estate Investor · North Central Arkansas · Member since 2009 · 509 posts · 178 votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Sorin T:
    What I find interesting is I have talked with people who know exactly how an universal health care sytem would run (and fail) in this country without ever seeing or experiencing how the system runs in just about any other developed western world country. Well, it's because Rush himself said so!


    More assumption here on your part. I have friends in Canada that HATE their "Free" health care. I also know people in Italy that have it even worse, insanely high taxes and you can't pick your own doctor. If you don't like your doctor, you have to move to get another one. Even the doctors in Italy hate their system.

    That being said, health care in this country while far better then those countries has issues. If there was a way to eliminate or reduce the number of fraudulent claims the rates would be way lower. I don't know what the answer to the health care problem is but allowing the govt. to handle it is NOT the answer. You think a group of people that could not handle the Post Office have any business being in control of health care?

    How about the DMV? Ever walk into one of those? Another fine example of govt.

    Jeff

    0Reply
  • Tod R.
    Investor · Southlake, TX · Member since 2009 · 950 posts · 338 votes
    17y

    I'm really too new to this website to jump into this discussion, but I'm also not disciplined enough to stay out!

    Ok, it sounds like most reasonable people agree that, in general, abortion is not a good thing. For those who believe it's a right for someone to do whatever they want to their own body is right to a point, but when your actions knowingly terminates another human life, it is no longer your right. It's time that we as a society focus this debate on the life of the baby, which overrides the right to do what someone wants to their body, except maybe in extreme circumstances. I'm sorry, I'll stop now.

    1Reply
  • Jeff Warner
    Real Estate Investor · North Central Arkansas · Member since 2009 · 509 posts · 178 votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Tod Radford:
    I'm really too new to this website to jump into this discussion, but I'm also not disciplined enough to stay out!

    That's funny, welcome to BP.

    Jeff

    0Reply
  • Sorin T
    Investor · colorado springs, CO · Member since 2009 · 283 posts · 45 votes
    17y

    Well Jeff, I guess it's a matter of perspective. I have friends in Canada also who are not entirely content with their system but in their own words "at least we're not in the US to worry about coverage at any time and to be on the brink of personal bankruptcy (caused by medical bills) should we decide to change a job to one without benefits or God forbid lose our job". But hey, them canucks are socialists, let's not listen to them.

    Second, funny you should mention Post Office, I always thought was kinda cool to be able to send a letter across thousands of miles in 2 days for the mere cost of pocket change. But that must be a socialist perception as well...

    Yeah, I heard someone in Iceland had a real bad experience with their doctor, therefore... (you fill the blanks with your conclusion here).

    Bottom line, check out how many countries in the truly developed world have coverage for ALL their citizens, as imperfect as that may be, and how many allow their weak to go uncovered, with all the consequences that stem from that. And tell us what the results are...

    1Reply
  • Timothy W.
    OP
    Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Sorin T:
    check out how many countries in the truly developed world have coverage for ALL their citizens....And tell us what the results are...


    There is actually something interesting about this. I'm going to list some modern western countries and then their average life expectancy as of 2008.


    Switzerland 80.62
    Sweden 80.63
    Australia 80.62
    Iceland 80.43
    Canada 80.34
    Italy 79.94
    Spain 79.78
    Israel 79.78
    Germany 78.95
    Belgium 78.92
    United Kingdom 78.7
    United States 78.06
    Cyprus 77.98
    Denmark 77.96
    Ireland 77.9
    Portugal 77.87

    There you go. What difference does it make in terms of life expectancy? Not a whole heck of a lot. The stunning UK system gets you about 6 months more of a socialist life. Switzerland at the top is actually a combination of private and public healthcare. As an insurance professional who knows something of actuarial data, there's not enough variation to warrant sweeping changes. Basically they don't have to reinvent the wheel for a fake "problem".

    I will say this having visited a few countries further at the top. They don't eat crap. Very hard to find a McDonalds in Germany. There was 1 in all of Munich when I went there and I had to do a lot of walking to get to it because it's so hard to own a vehicle there. I do have a photo of a small restaurant called "Wurst Fuchs" that I kept as a momento, the irony being that was I was there on my honeymoon and it turned out the be more prophecy than a menu. Something else about these countries further up the list....a lower drinking age and a much higher cultural tendency to daily moderate consumption of alcohol. So rather than national healthcare, let's spend the money on wine.

    Anyway, all kidding aside and back to the reality of the issue - national healthcare is about control. You have a liberal judge admitting legalizing abortion was about population control. Now the liberals in power want to have the control over your overall health, and I guarantee you abortions will be part of it. So, the people who want to control populations who can no longer sterilize you will have the ability to tell you when to abort. If this is not a eugenicist at work, it sure as hell is a eugenicist's infrastructure being built.

    0Reply
  • Sorin T
    Investor · colorado springs, CO · Member since 2009 · 283 posts · 45 votes
    17y

    Thanks for proving my point Tim, that just about every other civilized country out there has universal coverage.

    As far as life expectancy goes, I read that small villages in Greece and China hold the record. It's more about lifestyle than about coverage, you agreed to it.

    I'm talking about middle class people driven to bankruptcy and despair by the combination of a job change (or loss) and a severe illness. That's normalcy in an alternate absurd existence not in a country claiming to sit atop of all others.

    0Reply
  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
    Oh geeze.... Do you honestly think we're so "average" to believe you can honestly claim some semantic difference between roots and relationship.

    I didn't...until you wrote the following:


    Roots ARE a relationship.

    Now I do.

    If you really believe those two things to be synonomous, I can't continue this discussion, as it's clear that the way I use the English language is different than the way you use the English language.

    I curious to see if others on this thread will support your belief that "relationship to" is the same as "roots of".

    If they do, I will come back and respond to your post. My guess is that even those who love to agree with everything you say will decide that's a ridiculous statement.

    And I reserve the right to not respond to ridiculous statements.

    Podcast Guest on Show The Truth About Real Estate Investing in 2024 (What Investors NEED to Know)
    0Reply
  • Timothy W.
    OP
    Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y

    Before I answer Sorin, I need to take care of something.

    Ahem, *Clearing my throat* - OBAMA

    There, now since J Scott said he won't respond to any threads I unnecessarily bring up Obama in we won't be bothered by anymore of his condescending posts intended merely to ignite conflict.

    Originally posted by Sorin T:
    Thanks for proving my point Tim, that just about every other civilized country out there has universal coverage.

    Do we do it just because about every other civilized country is doing it? There's a reason George Washington refused to be king even though just about every other civilized country did it. My point is that you don't get different results from doing it, so you need another reason than results.

    Originally posted by Sorin T:
    It's more about lifestyle than about coverage, you agreed to it.

    I agree, and that's one of the great things about the US. You have the choice over many factors that determine your death.

    Originally posted by Sorin T:
    I'm talking about middle class people driven to bankruptcy and despair by the combination of a job change (or loss) and a severe illness.

    Having been a middle class person who was driven to bankruptcy and despair and come back from it, I can tell you that 1. It's not as bad as you make it sound and 2. There's not another country on earth that you can bounce back from that position as quickly as the US free enterprise system. In 12 days, it will have been two years since I went from being bankrupt to re-owning investment property again. In that 2 years time I've rebuilt a half million dollar portfolio with enough cashflow to support me off of it's passive income and I did that with under $20,000 in earned income each year and a credit score below 500. I don't know another country in the world where you can pull that off in 2 years.

    Now previously I spoke of a sort of "financial eugenics" that I warned against (it's likely what Eddie refers to as pure capitalism). While we don't have that in place, there certainly is a level of survival of the financially fittest that is in operation here in the US. The difference between "financial eugenics" (for lack of a better term) and the eugenics of liberalism is that in financial eugenics a person can change their status in one generation, usually within a good 5 year plan. You can't do that in a system where you are classified by virtue of whom you're born to - thus the control that liberals like Ginsburg wish to exert over birth.

    Originally posted by Sorin T:
    That's normalcy in an alternate absurd existence not in a country claiming to sit atop of all others.


    We don't sit atop them, we show them our excellence. Don't you believe that the US is the greatest country in the world?

    Tim

    0Reply
  • Jim Wineinger
    Real Estate Investor · ten mile, TN · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 374 votes
    17y

    The difference Sorin is that they are Socialized countries and we are not. Which is why everyone wants to come here and tear us down. We by far have the higher standards of life and possess the greatest opportunities and freedoms, which those who are of the socialist persuasion want to have taken away from us.

    Socialism does have its benefits as does dictatorship (if you dont wnat to think for yourself) but the drawbacks with those systems far outweigh the benefits.

    But in our system the benefits of freedom far outweigh the drawbacks.

    0Reply
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.
Log InJoin for Free