Now John Holdren supports my theory on Liberalism and Eugenics

Now John Holdren supports my theory on Liberalism and Eugenics

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

Good grief, I'm getting freaky good at this for an "average" guy.

You know my theory - that modern liberalism has heavy roots to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. I've said this before and cited Planned Parenthood as a direct product of the Eugenics movement under eugenicist Margaret Sanger. I've also referenced U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's quote showing she believed Roe v. Wade was about population control.

Now, we have Barrack Obama's new "Advisor for Science and Technology", John Holdren.

Remember! This all started before Ginsburg ever made that stupid quote of hers, when I called out a liberal for espousing eugenicist beliefs. I don't blame him directly - the liberal leadership has done a good job of disguising eugenics within their "social justice". I do blame the leaders thoug and I don't need their quotes to know a eugenicist when I see one. I know their philosophies. However, quotes like this affirm what I know about these people and should be evidence that you need to trust you gut with those who would try to control you.

I could state what this guy says, but you know what - I'll just quote him directly and let you read quotes from the book Ecoscience that he coauthored and let you deduce it for yourselves.

From pages 786-787

"The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens the additional possibilities for coercive fertility control."

Coercive fertility control?

"The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

With official permission? Say from a government run healthcare system?

I don't post this for the liberals. I've become convinced that that they have a faith-based devotion to Obama and can't be swayed otherwise. This is for the "average" American to see what those who have self-applied labels of "above average" believe in, believe about you and intend to do with you and your children and grandchildren.

0Reply
22 views

15 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Select a State · Member since 2009 · 156 posts · 17 votes
    17y

    Do you really think that "average" Americans will buy your ridiculous theory? Your time would be better spent chasing black helicopters. Go join a militia.

  • Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
    17y

    J Scott. If you see this thread, please don't feed the animals... :shake:

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y

    I saved a little bit for later. As you read this, try and grasp the magnitude that this is what the President's current adviser on Science and Technology thinks.

    From page 837 of John Holdren's coauthored book Ecoscience

    "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

  • Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
    17y

    Tim, I'm looking at the time you posted your last one. It was after 3:00am. I think you really need to catch some sleep. Your brain gets cloudy. Propfol, anyone?

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Eddie Ziv:
    Your brain gets cloudy. Propfol, anyone?


    You mean Propofol? Seems you're getting cloudy at 12:30 in the afternoon buddy. Nap time. :wink:
  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Eddie Ziv:
    J Scott. If you see this thread, please don't feed the animals... :shake:


    I hadn't seen this thread (I skip most of Tim's political threads that I'm not already involved in...which is funny because there are probably a dozen threads that he's started just to taunt me and I haven't even seen them :)...

    That said, I'm not sure of the point of Tim's original post?

    He includes two statements from a book:

    "The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens the additional possibilities for coercive fertility control."

    "The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

    Both of those statements are fact and say absolutely nothing about the opinions of the author given their lack of context. Let's look at them:

    Regarding the first statement, yes, a sterilizing capsule could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired. In fact, this already exists. It's called Norplant and has been around for 15 years or more. I'm not sure why this statement is controversial, considering the technology is widely used and accepted, by people of all political bents.

    Tim - Why is that a controversial statement? Why did you post it? What was the point?

    As for the second statement, that sounds factual as well. A sterilization implant COULD be implanted at puberty and removed with permission. Based on the specific statement Tim posted, I have no idea whether the author of this statement is claiming this is a good thing or a horrible thing, so why should I assume the author is claiming this is a good thing? For all I know, the next sentence is, "This would be a horrible injustice, and should never be implemented!"

    Tim - Can you post more of this text so that we know if the author is claiming this is a good thing or a bad thing?

    By the way, Tim - I don't know if you really thought that posting two out-of-context statements from a book would really get people to rally around some contrived point you're trying to make, or whether you're just not that bright and don't quite get it. Either way, apparently no-one thought this post was very worthwhile...

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y

    Tim -

    Just wondering if you wanted to answer any of my questions with some more context from the book or if you just wanted to concede that my points were valid and that you haven't actually read the textbook.

    As an English lit major, I'd think you'd be more careful than to post some out-of-context quotes from a textbook without additional support for the context.

    How about just posting the couple paragraphs before and after each of these sentences to provide some more context for the quotes (hint: I've already read those pages, so I already know the answer...but others here don't, and I think they'd be interested in seeing how an English lit major does with his reading comprehension :).

  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y

    I ignored it because there's not a bit of substance to your post. Not a single citation, quote or reference to anything to support your opinion. You didn't even bother to look up the author to see if he denies to be a eugenicist. You simply are saying you doubt my theory because you do. Oh wow, there's a position worth 5 minutes of my time to refute. :roll:

    Tim

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
    I ignored it because there's not a bit of substance to your post.

    Huh? My post asked you for the context of your quotes. The onus is on you to support the claim you made in your original post.

    Without any context, you are simply slandering...


    You didn't even bother to look up the author to see if he denies to be a eugenicist.

    I've found no evidence that anyone has ever asked him the question and that he gave it any credence.

    Please show me where he was asked this question and didn't deny it.


    You simply are saying you doubt my theory because you do.

    No, I'm saying I doubt your theory because you provide no good evidence to support it.

    I know you dropped out of your science major, but you still should understand that to put forth a theory, you need some evidence. Without any evidence (like quotes with some context), your theory has no ground to stand on.

    Clearly, you CAN'T support what you wrote in your original thread. In fact, it's pretty clear that you just copied these quotes from another website, without actually verifying the context for yourself.

    Tim - Stick with English lit...quantitative things just aren't your forte...

  • Investor · Mableton, GA · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 465 votes
    17y

    I'm not sure what's so wrong with Eugenics? Natural selection happens in nature all the time. Its humans that decided to allow defected humans to exist even if they cannot support themseves. Ironically, the very people who oppose this notion are the ones also oppose any government support for those "Imperfect humans"

  • Real Estate Investor · OH · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y


    Yeah - the Nazis were so successful, it's no wonder Obama and the socialists wants to be just like them! You did know the word Nazi comes from the German word Nationalialsozialist, didn't you (national socialists)? The Nazis were socialists just like the Obama crowd!



    I don't know ANY conservatives that don't want to pay for the "defected humans" as you put it. I am 100% in favor of supporting the mentally ill and those with birth defects. I am NOT in favor of supporting lazy deadbeats that are simply too lazy to work (about 1/4 of the population). Even then, I'm not in favor of exterminating the deadbeats - just allowing them to decide for themselves whether they want to work or starve. The Eugenicists in Germany started by rounding up the mentally ill and deformed and killing them. I guess here in the US, Obama wants to start by denying the elderly and "defective" medical care (too expensive). Just 'give them some pain medicine' and let them die! That seems to be the plan!

    Mike

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by MikeOH:

    Yeah - the Nazis were so successful, it's no wonder Obama and the socialists wants to be just like them! You did know the word Nazi comes from the German word Nationalialsozialist, didn't you (national socialists)? The Nazis were socialists just like the Obama crowd!


    Wow, using the words "Nazi," "Socialist," and "Obama" in the same sentence to try to discredit and create negative associations...that's real sophisticated, Mike.

    What's next - using Obama's middle name every time you refer to him to subtly imply he's out to destroy America?

    If I can point out a Democracy that is majorly screwed up, are you going to argue that all Democracies are bad? Never mind...with your twisted way of thinking, you probably would...

    Sounds like you and Tim are reading the same debate books...and listening to the same idiots on talk radio...


    I don't know ANY conservatives that don't want to pay for the "defected humans" as you put it. I am 100% in favor of supporting the mentally ill and those with birth defects.


    So, just to be clear, you'd be okay with the socialized health care for the mentally ill and those with birth defects?

    And, you don't know any Conservatives who wouldn't be okay with this?

    I look forward to your answers...


    I guess here in the US, Obama wants to start by denying the elderly and "defective" medical care (too expensive). Just 'give them some pain medicine' and let them die! That seems to be the plan!


    Okay Tim...I mean Mike...please provide some proof that "That seems to be the plan?"

    Where are you getting your information?
  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by MikeOH:

    Yeah - the Nazis were so successful, it's no wonder Obama and the socialists wants to be just like them!


    By the way, the Nazis are generally considered to have been on the far, far right of the political spectrum, which means Hitler was the further thing from a liberal.

    And, since Tim and others like to characterize Obama as the ultimate liberal, that means he's much less like Hitler than any President in history...

    In fact, that would mean that Sarah Palin is MUCH more related to the Nazis in terms of her place on the political spectrum than Obama is...

    Interesting...guess I won't be voting for that Nazi in 2012...

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Mike...
  • Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by J Scott:
    on talk radio...


    For anyone other than Jason who has the possibility of a free mind, check the dates on this. I identified the link between eugenics and liberalism before talk radio caught on.


    Originally posted by J Scott:
    some proof that "That seems to be the plan?" Where are you getting your information?


    I wouldn't bother Mike. He can't handle direct quotes where liberals admit to it.
  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 18k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    17y
    Originally posted by Tim Wieneke:
    I identified the link between eugenics and liberalism before talk radio caught on.


    Wow, you're more on the ball than Rush Limbaugh the drug addict...you should be so proud...that's an awesome claim to fame...

    Originally posted by J Scott:

    I wouldn't bother Mike. He can't handle direct quotes where liberals admit to it.


    Okay, let's hear some direct quotes...

    Or is this just your awesome debating skill in action again? For all the words you type, it's amazing how little you actually say...


Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.