More Gop War Against Women--sterilize Women On Medicaid

[Rikurzhen]

Why not just have Bristol give them a lecture on abstinence?

While Sarah merits her breast implants...

I have no use for the Palin family. They are not Conservative or Moral in any way. They're no better than Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

What immoral behavior is Chelsea Clinton guilty of?

She earned a BA in History and then took a $120,000 per year job as a consultant with McKinsey, a position normally staffed by MBAs. What they hell did she offer the company when people with BA's in history are normally taking jobs as baristas?

She took a job as an NBC correspondent at a salary of $600,000 per year and had no experience in journalism.

A 20 year aide to President Clinton set up a consulting company to trade on his relationship to Clinton by providing access. Chelsea chimed in that she wanted a salary and an equity stake in the company or she would ruin it. She ruined it and Clinton's relationship with his friend and aide.

She's never accomplished anything in her life. Just like her mother, she's riding the coattails of her father and trading on the family name.

This is the very behavior that a lot of wealthy parents dread will befall their children. No talent, no ambition, an unpleasant personality, etc. People who've worked with Clinton don't have good things to say about her.

As a parent, that's nothing to be proud of. You being a liberal, I can understand why you'd be impressed by the superficiality of checking the right boxes and earning the right degrees and being hired by high status firms. I, a conservative, care more about the substance of the person. I see nothing admirable about building a "career" on the being the daughter of President Clinton.

I know that the liberal hurt feelings are going to lash out and point to President Bush trading on the reputation of his father, but Bush earned an MBA, he was in the Air National Guard, he was in business. Yeah, he traded on his name but he also accomplished something whereas Chelsea has actually accomplished nothing, nothing at all.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Russell Pearce also has ties to white nationalist (neo-nazi) groups and also wrote an article for the National Alliance. He was also in cahoots with T. J. Ready, a well known Arizonan neo-nazi, whom Pearce himself ordained into the "priesthood" of the Mormon church. Of course, Russell Pearce claims that he knew nothing about T.J. Ready's apparent nazi ties.

Poor guy, sad that he wasn't born black for that would have paved his way to being the President and none of his associations would matter. Hang with terrorists, be a candidate for a Marxist party, be mentored by a communist. Join a racist church. No biggie, you're black. Poor, poor Pearce, sad that he had to be born white.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Had he left out "tubal ligations" from his remarks, you assholes who support unceasing government welfare for the scumbags of society would still have made it an issue. He's right. A lot of us would be more than happy to see these subhumans stop procreating on tax dollars, and we'd be tickled to just see a majority of them them quietly die.

I donate to a charity which pays drug addicted men and women to go on long-term birth control or get sterilized. It's my favorite charity.

Oh yeah liberals, a charity is an organization to which one donates one's own money, so it's different than using your vote to steal other people's money to support issues you believe in.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It would be cheaper to sterilize them than pay for abortions year after year.

It would also be cheaper to sterilize them.

No more kids. No more tax money to pay for them. No more medicaid to keep them healthy.

Sterilize the hell out of all of those welfare freeloaders.

And to think it wasn't that long ago when a good many RWnuts on USMB got all sorts of indignant when I pointed out that eugenics in its origins was primarily a conservative initiative.

 

[I.P.Freely]

After Saying Women On Medicaid Should Be Sterilized Russell Pearce Resigns From Arizona GOP
(link)

AZ GOP Vice Chair resigns after advocating that women on Medicaid be sterilized.

That's all nice and nifty.... It's funny how the left is 'pro-kill-the-babies', and yet against sterilization. Apparently, it's just not as appealing, unless you are actually murdering a child, instead of preventing one from being conceived

I'm up for abortion, sterilization and euthanasia of anyone over 3 who shits in a nappy or votes republican which is just like shitting in a nappy.

 

[I.P.Freely]

After Saying Women On Medicaid Should Be Sterilized Russell Pearce Resigns From Arizona GOP
(link)

AZ GOP Vice Chair resigns after advocating that women on Medicaid be sterilized.

That's all nice and nifty.... It's funny how the left is 'pro-kill-the-babies', and yet against sterilization. Apparently, it's just not as appealing, unless you are actually murdering a child, instead of preventing one from being conceived

I'm up for abortion, sterilization and euthanasia of anyone over 3 who shits in a nappy or votes republican which is just like shitting in a nappy.

 

[Rikurzhen]

It would be cheaper to sterilize them than pay for abortions year after year.

It would also be cheaper to sterilize them.

No more kids. No more tax money to pay for them. No more medicaid to keep them healthy.

Sterilize the hell out of all of those welfare freeloaders.

And to think it wasn't that long ago when a good many RWnuts on USMB got all sorts of indignant when I pointed out that eugenics in its origins was primarily a conservative initiative.

That's some powerful shit you're snorting. The principal opponents of Eugenics were the Churches, the same coalition which presently fights against abortion. Eugenics as an affront to God. People here were probably indignant about your comment because it was ignorant.

What is even less well known is that the American eugenics movement not only flourished during the Progressive Era, but was especially influential “under reformist state administrations,” including in the state of Wisconsin, the very beacon of progressive reform.[6] “t is evident,” as historian Rudolph J. Vecoli concludes in a study of the origins of Wisconsin’s sterilization law,

that sterilization was a Progressive measure. . . . it was taken up and agitated by reform groups and organizations, it was advocated by Progressive leaders and publications; and it was enacted by a Progressive legislature and administration.[7]​

The Progressives, at least, understood that their approach to reform was animated by a new conception of government or, more precisely, “the State.” Importantly, this idea, the “German idea of the State,” departs from the American Founders’ understanding of government in a couple of key respects, both of which help explain the Progressives’ enthusiasm for eugenics.[11]

For the Progressives, to begin, the power of government is NOT limited in principle to securing the natural or “inalienable” rights of man, as the Declaration of Independence has it. “It is not admitted that there are no limits to the action of the state,” as the German-trained progressive political scientist and future New Dealer Charles Merriam concludes in a 1903 survey of progressive thinking,

but on the other hand it is fully conceded that there are no ‘natural rights’ which bar the way. The question is now one of expediency rather than of principle . . . each specific question must be decided on its own merits, and each action of the state justified, if at all, by the relative advantages of the proposed line of conduct.​

“n general,” as the German-trained progressive economist Richard T. Ely likewise affirms, “there is no limit to the right of the State, the sovereign power, save its ability to do good.”[12] The first step toward bold, experimental reform was to untie the hands of government.​

But the Progressives did not advocate an indiscriminate exercise of power; rather, in their view, the ultimate aim of “the State,” the “good” or objective whose pursuit determined the need for government action, was a particular conception of human excellence or “perfection.” The guiding object of ethics, and hence the State, Ely explains, is the “ethical ideal,” the idea, that is, that individuals are entitled to the “most perfect development of all human faculties [physical, mental, moral, aesthetic, etc.] . . . which can be attained[.]“ In short, the guiding principle of the Progressives’ domestic reforms, the aim that guided their assessment of existing social conditions, was a felt obligation to improve the relative level of physical, mental and moral development in America.
​

The very idea that a conservative could read from the Constitution a path which could lead to the State sterilizing people is nonsensical. To follow that path one has to reconceptualize the role of government, the very core of the Progressive vision.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It would be cheaper to sterilize them than pay for abortions year after year.

It would also be cheaper to sterilize them.

No more kids. No more tax money to pay for them. No more medicaid to keep them healthy.

Sterilize the hell out of all of those welfare freeloaders.

And to think it wasn't that long ago when a good many RWnuts on USMB got all sorts of indignant when I pointed out that eugenics in its origins was primarily a conservative initiative.

They bought it. They own it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It would be cheaper to sterilize them than pay for abortions year after year.

It would also be cheaper to sterilize them.

No more kids. No more tax money to pay for them. No more medicaid to keep them healthy.

Sterilize the hell out of all of those welfare freeloaders.

And to think it wasn't that long ago when a good many RWnuts on USMB got all sorts of indignant when I pointed out that eugenics in its origins was primarily a conservative initiative.

That's some powerful shit you're snorting. The principal opponents of Eugenics were the Churches, the same coalition which presently fights against abortion. Eugenics as an affront to God. People here were probably indignant about your comment because it was ignorant.

What is even less well known is that the American eugenics movement not only flourished during the Progressive Era, but was especially influential “under reformist state administrations,” including in the state of Wisconsin, the very beacon of progressive reform.[6] “t is evident,” as historian Rudolph J. Vecoli concludes in a study of the origins of Wisconsin’s sterilization law,

that sterilization was a Progressive measure. . . . it was taken up and agitated by reform groups and organizations, it was advocated by Progressive leaders and publications; and it was enacted by a Progressive legislature and administration.[7]​

The Progressives, at least, understood that their approach to reform was animated by a new conception of government or, more precisely, “the State.” Importantly, this idea, the “German idea of the State,” departs from the American Founders’ understanding of government in a couple of key respects, both of which help explain the Progressives’ enthusiasm for eugenics.[11]

For the Progressives, to begin, the power of government is NOT limited in principle to securing the natural or “inalienable” rights of man, as the Declaration of Independence has it. “It is not admitted that there are no limits to the action of the state,” as the German-trained progressive political scientist and future New Dealer Charles Merriam concludes in a 1903 survey of progressive thinking,

but on the other hand it is fully conceded that there are no ‘natural rights’ which bar the way. The question is now one of expediency rather than of principle . . . each specific question must be decided on its own merits, and each action of the state justified, if at all, by the relative advantages of the proposed line of conduct.​

“n general,” as the German-trained progressive economist Richard T. Ely likewise affirms, “there is no limit to the right of the State, the sovereign power, save its ability to do good.”[12] The first step toward bold, experimental reform was to untie the hands of government.​

But the Progressives did not advocate an indiscriminate exercise of power; rather, in their view, the ultimate aim of “the State,” the “good” or objective whose pursuit determined the need for government action, was a particular conception of human excellence or “perfection.” The guiding object of ethics, and hence the State, Ely explains, is the “ethical ideal,” the idea, that is, that individuals are entitled to the “most perfect development of all human faculties [physical, mental, moral, aesthetic, etc.] . . . which can be attained[.]“ In short, the guiding principle of the Progressives’ domestic reforms, the aim that guided their assessment of existing social conditions, was a felt obligation to improve the relative level of physical, mental and moral development in America.
​

The very idea that a conservative could read from the Constitution a path which could lead to the State sterilizing people is nonsensical. To follow that path one has to reconceptualize the role of government, the very core of the Progressive vision.

Apparently you haven't read the conservative posts in this thread starting with the one I replied to.

 

[I.P.Freely]

After Saying Women On Medicaid Should Be Sterilized Russell Pearce Resigns From Arizona GOP
(link)

AZ GOP Vice Chair resigns after advocating that women on Medicaid be sterilized.

That's all nice and nifty.... It's funny how the left is 'pro-kill-the-babies', and yet against sterilization. Apparently, it's just not as appealing, unless you are actually murdering a child, instead of preventing one from being conceived

I'm up for abortion, sterilization and euthanasia of anyone over 3 who shits in a nappy or votes republican, which is just like shitting in a nappy.

 

[Bush92]

Sterilization is a perfect solution to welfare abusing whores.

 

[Ravi]

Nice to see the cons still support eugenics, as UN constitutional as it is.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Nice to see the cons still support eugenics, as UN constitutional as it is.

Every person who turned you down for a date was supporting eugenics. By not having a kid with you they believed that they were improving the species. Eugenics is practiced by all of us in our own lives. No one desires to have a child with genetic handicaps. All of us want our children to be healthy, intelligent, fit, etc.

 

[Bush92]

Nice to see the cons still support eugenics, as UN constitutional as it is.

United Nations is a money pit for US dollars. We are a sovereign nation. Their edicts are useless.

 

[Ravi]

Nice to see the cons still support eugenics, as UN constitutional as it is.

Every person who turned you down for a date was supporting eugenics. By not having a kid with you they believed that they were improving the species. Eugenics is practiced by all of us in our own lives. No one desires to have a child with genetic handicaps. All of us want our children to be healthy, intelligent, fit, etc.

Right, but the cons support government mandated eugenics.

 

[Ravi]

Nice to see the cons still support eugenics, as UN constitutional as it is.

United Nations is a money pit for US dollars. We are a sovereign nation. Their edicts are useless.

Spell check glitch. Unconstitutional

 

[Impenitent]

It would be cheaper to sterilize them than pay for abortions year after year.

It would also be cheaper to sterilize them.

No more kids. No more tax money to pay for them. No more medicaid to keep them healthy.

Sterilize the hell out of all of those welfare freeloaders.

And to think it wasn't that long ago when a good many RWnuts on USMB got all sorts of indignant when I pointed out that eugenics in its origins was primarily a conservative initiative.

This thread is proof that cons don't know what the fuck eugenics really is, they just know they're against it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Nice to see the cons still support eugenics, as UN constitutional as it is.

Every person who turned you down for a date was supporting eugenics. By not having a kid with you they believed that they were improving the species. Eugenics is practiced by all of us in our own lives. No one desires to have a child with genetic handicaps. All of us want our children to be healthy, intelligent, fit, etc.

Right, but the cons support government mandated eugenics.

Only as a reaction to liberal support for slavery. When liberals free their slaves, then the need for eugenics vanishes.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why not just have Bristol give them a lecture on abstinence?

While Sarah merits her breast implants...

I have no use for the Palin family. They are not Conservative or Moral in any way. They're no better than Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

What immoral behavior is Chelsea Clinton guilty of?

She earned a BA in History and then took a $120,000 per year job as a consultant with McKinsey, a position normally staffed by MBAs. What they hell did she offer the company when people with BA's in history are normally taking jobs as baristas?

She took a job as an NBC correspondent at a salary of $600,000 per year and had no experience in journalism.

A 20 year aide to President Clinton set up a consulting company to trade on his relationship to Clinton by providing access. Chelsea chimed in that she wanted a salary and an equity stake in the company or she would ruin it. She ruined it and Clinton's relationship with his friend and aide.

She's never accomplished anything in her life. Just like her mother, she's riding the coattails of her father and trading on the family name.

This is the very behavior that a lot of wealthy parents dread will befall their children. No talent, no ambition, an unpleasant personality, etc. People who've worked with Clinton don't have good things to say about her.

As a parent, that's nothing to be proud of. You being a liberal, I can understand why you'd be impressed by the superficiality of checking the right boxes and earning the right degrees and being hired by high status firms. I, a conservative, care more about the substance of the person. I see nothing admirable about building a "career" on the being the daughter of President Clinton.

I know that the liberal hurt feelings are going to lash out and point to President Bush trading on the reputation of his father, but Bush earned an MBA, he was in the Air National Guard, he was in business. Yeah, he traded on his name but he also accomplished something whereas Chelsea has actually accomplished nothing, nothing at all.

To the bold: SERIOUSLY?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Why not just have Bristol give them a lecture on abstinence?

While Sarah merits her breast implants...

I have no use for the Palin family. They are not Conservative or Moral in any way. They're no better than Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

What immoral behavior is Chelsea Clinton guilty of?

She earned a BA in History and then took a $120,000 per year job as a consultant with McKinsey, a position normally staffed by MBAs. What they hell did she offer the company when people with BA's in history are normally taking jobs as baristas?

She took a job as an NBC correspondent at a salary of $600,000 per year and had no experience in journalism.

A 20 year aide to President Clinton set up a consulting company to trade on his relationship to Clinton by providing access. Chelsea chimed in that she wanted a salary and an equity stake in the company or she would ruin it. She ruined it and Clinton's relationship with his friend and aide.

She's never accomplished anything in her life. Just like her mother, she's riding the coattails of her father and trading on the family name.

This is the very behavior that a lot of wealthy parents dread will befall their children. No talent, no ambition, an unpleasant personality, etc. People who've worked with Clinton don't have good things to say about her.

As a parent, that's nothing to be proud of. You being a liberal, I can understand why you'd be impressed by the superficiality of checking the right boxes and earning the right degrees and being hired by high status firms. I, a conservative, care more about the substance of the person. I see nothing admirable about building a "career" on the being the daughter of President Clinton.

I know that the liberal hurt feelings are going to lash out and point to President Bush trading on the reputation of his father, but Bush earned an MBA, he was in the Air National Guard, he was in business. Yeah, he traded on his name but he also accomplished something whereas Chelsea has actually accomplished nothing, nothing at all.

To the bold: SERIOUSLY?

Yeah, I think the guy's game was Band. See here.