Ruth Bader Ginsburg --- a Eugenicist.

Are KKK Democrat Progressive White Supremacists a Danger to the United States?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • No.

    Votes: 3 42.9%

  • Total voters
    7

The2ndAmendment

Gold Member
Feb 16, 2013
13,383
3,662
245
In a dependant and enslaved country.
Listen, with all the research I've done on eugenicist movements and the terror they've wrought in the past 100 years, I am SHOCKED that I never came across this quote. The leftist media really hid this one well, even on the internet they've managed to conceal this:

Ginsburg, in her own words:
The ruling surprised me. 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.


WHAT

Yeah, Margeret Sanger and other KKK Democrats started the Negro Project that has so far succeeded in its mission: To make blacks genocide themselves through abortion.

But holy mother...a justice on the SCOTUS had the audacity to make this statement?

BlackGenocide.org | L.E.A.R.N. Northeast

http://blackgenocide.org/archived_articles/negro.html
 
Every person on this board is likely a eugenicist.

Care to explain that, guy?

I guess I'm kinda sorta of the opinion that at least 50% of this board are part of the population of which Eugenicism wants to curtail the growth. :badgrin:

No one mates randomly. We all seek mates who are fit. No one wants to parent a child who is loaded up with problems. The best way of maximizing the odds for your kid is to pick the best potential parent for that kid.

Jews take it even further:

The genetic mutation disease Tay-Sachs, a fatal inherited disease of the central nervous system that mostly affects Ashkenazi Jews, has been almost completely eradicated, experts say, who claim that a genetic illness has become extinct for the first time.

"Last year not a single Jewish baby throughout North America was born with Tay-Sachs," says Prof. Robert Desnick of the Department of Human Genetics at New York's Mount Sinai Hospital. . . .

Another reason for the eradication of the disease, Bach says, is the work of the ultra-Orthodox association, Dor Yesharim. The association carries out tests on young individuals to check whether they are genetically "suitable." The results of these tests are passed on to the matchmaker. If there is a risk that a designated couple may give birth to children affected with Tay-Sachs, the matchmaker will report that the match is unsuitable.

Bach, who works with Dor Yesharim, says that numerous intended couples have been split up in the wake of genetic testing.​

Eugenics is eugenics is eugenics, but there are different paths people take to implement eugenics. There is "Negative Eugenics" where the State attacks the person and sterilizes them and there is "Positive Eugenics" where the individual makes his own decisions and the State stays out of the process. In both cases we are seeing eugenic ends being realized.

When folks not well versed with the topic talk about eugenics they almost always focus on the coercion seen in "Negative Eugenics." Coercion is not a necessary condition for the concept of eugenics. All eugenics is is a process to improve the population. That improvement can be centrally defined - the state sets the goal - or it can be personally defined - the individual parents set their own goal. In the end, there is effort to improve the children and so eugenics is taking place.
 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg clears up her views on abortion, population control, and Roe v. Wade.

I know you love nothing more than bending out of context quotes to make them fit your arguments, but this one's already been covered, repeatedly.

A fucking slate article that literally makes excuses for Old Ruthie and puts words in her mouth so she can clear the air.. LMFAO You gotta love these liberal nitwits who jump on every damn post as racist then come in here with this JELLO branded slop and decry, NO FAIR.. :lol:
 
Ummmmmmm welll Ruth didn't really mean it.. She let the quote stand until we could get a far left rag to run to her so she could try to change her answer from the obvious RACIST intent she implied to begin with.. NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG..

OMG.. it's soo fucking ridiculous that my damn dog would fart and laugh.
 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg clears up her views on abortion, population control, and Roe v. Wade.

I know you love nothing more than bending out of context quotes to make them fit your arguments, but this one's already been covered, repeatedly.

A fucking slate article that literally makes excuses for Old Ruthie and puts words in her mouth so she can clear the air.. LMFAO You gotta love these liberal nitwits who jump on every damn post as racist then come in here with this JELLO branded slop and decry, NO FAIR.. :lol:

The original quote from a Slate article too.

From the same reporter, in fact.
 
Ummmmmmm welll Ruth didn't really mean it.. She let the quote stand until we could get a far left rag to run to her so she could try to change her answer from the obvious RACIST intent she implied to begin with.. NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG..

OMG.. it's soo fucking ridiculous that my damn dog would fart and laugh.

"Obvious RACIST intent"?

:lol:

I love it when Conservatives play the Race Card.
 
Ginsberg is a kook who also stated that the SCOTUS should take into consideration the rulings of foreign courts in Europe and Israel. Complete socialist goof.
 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg clears up her views on abortion, population control, and Roe v. Wade.

I know you love nothing more than bending out of context quotes to make them fit your arguments, but this one's already been covered, repeatedly.

That was a pretty piss poor CYA exercise on the part of Bazelton and Ginsburg. The entire focus was on the population growth comment Ginsburg made but the criticism directed at her is focused on the use of abortion to manage the "populations we don't want to have too many of." There was no correction or explanation about what she meant by that comment, so what are we supposed to take from this clarification? The only utility I see is that Ginsburg defenders can say that she clarified and hope the critics accept this at face value. If the critics actually read the clarification they find Ginsburg says nothing about the populations she had in mind.

Bizarre and ineffective.

And just so everyone understands where I'm coming from, I have no problem at all with the entirely of Ginsburg's original comment. I'm in this thread because of her subsequent CYA activities.
 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg clears up her views on abortion, population control, and Roe v. Wade.

I know you love nothing more than bending out of context quotes to make them fit your arguments, but this one's already been covered, repeatedly.

That was a pretty piss poor CYA exercise on the part of Bazelton and Ginsburg. The entire focus was on the population growth comment Ginsburg made but the criticism directed at her is focused on the use of abortion to manage the "populations we don't want to have too many of." There was no correction or explanation about what she meant by that comment, so what are we supposed to take from this clarification? The only utility I see is that Ginsburg defenders can say that she clarified and hope the critics accept this at face value. If the critics actually read the clarification they find Ginsburg says nothing about the populations she had in mind.

Bizarre and ineffective.

And just so everyone understands where I'm coming from, I have no problem at all with the entirely of Ginsburg's original comment. I'm in this thread because of her subsequent CYA activities.

I think you missed the entire point of the "clarification" - she wasn't speaking of her views at all, but of prevailing public opinion at the time of Roe v. Wade.
 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg clears up her views on abortion, population control, and Roe v. Wade.

I know you love nothing more than bending out of context quotes to make them fit your arguments, but this one's already been covered, repeatedly.

That was a pretty piss poor CYA exercise on the part of Bazelton and Ginsburg. The entire focus was on the population growth comment Ginsburg made but the criticism directed at her is focused on the use of abortion to manage the "populations we don't want to have too many of." There was no correction or explanation about what she meant by that comment, so what are we supposed to take from this clarification? The only utility I see is that Ginsburg defenders can say that she clarified and hope the critics accept this at face value. If the critics actually read the clarification they find Ginsburg says nothing about the populations she had in mind.

Bizarre and ineffective.

And just so everyone understands where I'm coming from, I have no problem at all with the entirely of Ginsburg's original comment. I'm in this thread because of her subsequent CYA activities.

I think you missed the entire point of the "clarification" - she wasn't speaking of her views at all, but of prevailing public opinion at the time of Roe v. Wade.

HER impression of public views at the time. It's instructive for people to know what she thought of American society. Which groups did she believe the public thought were problematic?

Give your link a quick read-through again. They're focused on the population growth comment but never address the population group aspect. This is misdirection. It's a variant on the public figure who comes out to apologize and the apology takes the form of "I'm sorry that people were offended by my statement." They never actually apologize for the statement's content, just that people were offended. it's misdirection because now they can say that they were big enough people to apologize. Of the variant of a public official coming out and declaring that they're taking responsibility for some act but they never resign nor suffer a consequence. Pantomime, pure and simple.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top