The 'Couldn't Happen Here' File

[NYcarbineer]

Gee, I'm shocked no one wants to talk about the selective breeding of human slaves as a for-profit capitalist business practice...

...in the old states rights conservative American South...

lol, I thought you people loved to talk about eugenics!!

Eugenics as a symbol of the American entreprenurial spirit!!

Eugenics as a symbol of free market capitalism unfettered by the onerous ball and chain of government induced social welfare and the greater good.

lolol.

Yeah. How long ago did that happen? Sweden's forced sterilizations continued until 1974. PP's eugenics program against blacks is happening today.

This is no different than prog terror apologists complaining about the Crusades when someone criticizes Islamic atrocities that happen right now.

You got nothin'. And pathetically, you seem to be proud of it.

There are no forced abortions occurring at Planned Parenthood.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, I would much rather not. It is irrelevant. Stay on topic. Don't move the goalposts. I could care less what economic form they took. You should research history, Carbine. Slavery started in the Neolithic era, not in the Antebellum South. You want to label people who live in the south and pigeonhole them all into one racist redneck, slave loving collective, and then blame capitalism for their so-called behavior.

Knock it off. Your diversion is quite easy to see.

Where in Sweden is government sanctioned forced sterilization being performed today?

What are you talking about? You are all over the place. Missing the forest for the trees, aren't you?

Articulate in your own words what the point of the OP is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Healthcare minus all socialism would be a system where if you could afford it, you'd get it,

and if you couldn't afford it, you'd go without.

The richer you were, all else being equal, the healthier you'd be. The poorer you were, the less healthy you'd be.

That would amount to Mother Nature's eugenics, aka, survival of the fittest with some law of the jungle thrown in.

Yes, it was very benevolent to sterilize those people without their consent and not charge them for it.

What does it have to do with anything? What is the argument for or against in the OP?

Tell us in your own words.

 

[daveman]

Would you like to argue whether or not the plantation system of the antebellum South, with a large part of its labor done by slaves,

was a capitalist or socialist economy?

Go ahead. Convince me that privately owned plantations, with the property and the means of production, as well as the capital investment, done by private citizens,

was socialism, not capitalism.

No, I would much rather not. It is irrelevant. Stay on topic. Don't move the goalposts. I could care less what economic form they took. You should research history, Carbine. Slavery started in the Neolithic era, not in the Antebellum South. You want to label people who live in the south and pigeonhole them all into one racist redneck, slave loving collective, and then blame capitalism for their so-called behavior.

Knock it off. Your diversion is quite easy to see.

Where in Sweden is government sanctioned forced sterilization being performed today?

Where in the United States is selective slave breeding being performed today?

 

[daveman]

Someone tries to associate eugenics with socialism and it's off-topic to point out that the most salient example of eugenics ever practiced in the U.S. was selective slave breeding in the South,

with a capitalist motive?

That's called a refutation of a claim.

Most salient?

In your fevered imagination.

There were almost 4 million slaves by 1860. Not all of those were selectively bred, of course. Some were imported.

Since 1973, 13 million black babies were aborted.

Looks like your refutation is refuted, Skippy.

Given your support abortion on demand, your weeping for black slaves is less than convincing.

Prove that there have been 13 million forced black abortions since 1973.

Forced? Why should I prove a claim I haven't made?

But it's certainly been encouraged, hasn't it? Hint: The correct answer is "Yes".

Nevertheless, you weep for black slaves. You're silent on aborted black babies.

Why is that?

 

[daveman]

Gee, I'm shocked no one wants to talk about the selective breeding of human slaves as a for-profit capitalist business practice...

...in the old states rights conservative American South...

lol, I thought you people loved to talk about eugenics!!

Eugenics as a symbol of the American entreprenurial spirit!!

Eugenics as a symbol of free market capitalism unfettered by the onerous ball and chain of government induced social welfare and the greater good.

lolol.

Yeah. How long ago did that happen? Sweden's forced sterilizations continued until 1974. PP's eugenics program against blacks is happening today.

This is no different than prog terror apologists complaining about the Crusades when someone criticizes Islamic atrocities that happen right now.

You got nothin'. And pathetically, you seem to be proud of it.

There are no forced abortions occurring at Planned Parenthood.

Impressive strawman.

 

[jasonnfree]

Based on how deftly you rebutted the OP, sounds like you're a dim-wit.

Keep up the bad work.

Your daily "they're out to get me" manifesto holds no interest.

That's two tries......and still, not a word about the OP.....

What kind of fool are your?

.....assuming that there are various varieties of fool, and you've been labeled enough to choose one.

Why don't you answer the question, is slavery (cheap labor=greater profit) more a form of capitalism or socialism.
You're pretty good with the copy paste stuff though.

 

[daveman]

Healthcare minus all socialism would be a system where if you could afford it, you'd get it,

and if you couldn't afford it, you'd go without.

The richer you were, all else being equal, the healthier you'd be. The poorer you were, the less healthy you'd be.

That would amount to Mother Nature's eugenics, aka, survival of the fittest with some law of the jungle thrown in.

Yes, it was very benevolent to sterilize those people without their consent and not charge them for it.

What does it have to do with anything? What is the argument for or against in the OP?

Tell us in your own words.

Simple, really. Just echoing your own views:

1. The State knows best.

2. Some people should not have children (as evidenced by your silence on the horrific number of black babies aborted and lack of condemnation of State eugenics programs).

3. The State is benevolent by providing free medical care.

You can claim you don't hold these views, but you can't do so credibly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The main proponents of forced sterilization for eugenic purposes in the US were white supremacist racist anti-immigrant conservative types, such as Harry H. Laughlin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_H._Laughlin

and Charles Davenport

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Davenport

 

[TemplarKormac]

The main proponents of forced sterilization for eugenic purposes in the US were white supremacist racist anti-immigrant conservative types, such as Harry H. Laughlin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_H._Laughlin

and Charles Davenport

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Davenport

John Maynard Keynes

Margaret Sanger

Sidney Webb

Henry Havelock Ellis

John Harvey Kellogg

 

[daveman]

Gee, I'm shocked no one wants to talk about the selective breeding of human slaves as a for-profit capitalist business practice...

...in the old states rights conservative American South...

lol, I thought you people loved to talk about eugenics!!

Eugenics as a symbol of the American entreprenurial spirit!!

Eugenics as a symbol of free market capitalism unfettered by the onerous ball and chain of government induced social welfare and the greater good.

lolol.

Yeah. How long ago did that happen? Sweden's forced sterilizations continued until 1974. PP's eugenics program against blacks is happening today.

This is no different than prog terror apologists complaining about the Crusades when someone criticizes Islamic atrocities that happen right now.

You got nothin'. And pathetically, you seem to be proud of it.

There are no forced abortions occurring at Planned Parenthood.

Well, except for the ones that are.

Mother sues Planned Parenthood over forced, botched abortion

According to that complaint, when Byer arrived at the Planned Parenthood clinic, it was determined that her pregnancy was too far along to be terminated through the use of a pill, therefore a surgical abortion was recommended. Ms. Byer agreed upon the condition that she would receive IV anesthesia, for which she would be charged extra. Although the employees could not get the IV started, the doctor came to start the procedure anyway.

The complaint states:

At this time, Plaintiff immediately told the Planned Parenthood Doctor to stop and that she did not want to go through with the abortion procedure because she had not received any anesthetic. Plaintiff also informed Planned Parenthood Doctor and agents or employees of Planned Parenthood Defendants that she believed this to be a sign she should not go through with the abortion. The Planned Parenthood Doctor did not stop despite Plaintiff’s request, and assured Plaintiff the I.V. would be administered and the procedure would only take a few minutes.

At this time, the Planned Parenthood Doctor turned on the vacuum machines and told Plaintiff it was too late to stop.
​

Seven minutes later, due to Ms. Byer crying from pain, the procedure finally stopped. She received an apology and a prescription for a painkiller and antibiotics and was sent on her way. Planned Parenthood never followed up with her.

About two days later, Ms. Byer went to the hospital due to pain and bleeding, where it was found that part of the aborted baby was still inside her, resulting in an infection. She had to have emergency surgery.​

No means no -- except at Planned Parenthood.

 

[CayLargo]

To get right to the point, there are two truths that a study of history makes eminently clear:

1) Progressivism, Liberalism, socialism, communism...whatever appellation is applied...all are permutations based on the same ideas.
2) Viewing the collective as a higher value than the individual, the life of any under their purview become inconsequential.




Consider this history of socialist paradises Sweden and Norway....a cautionary tale for Obama voters.

1. "Sweden is the poster state for those who believe in the power of the government to solve all problems. Frequently referred to as a "benevolent" socialist or social democratic state, to distinguish it from the run-of-the-mill socialist butcher shop, such as Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, and most of Africa, Latin and Central America, and Asia, Sweden is the Promised Land of the Left. Where the USSR was a departure from the genius of Karl Marx, Sweden shows the potential.





2.... the Swedes have not always acted benevolently, as reported on page A1 of the August 29, 1997,Washington Post,
From 1934 to 1974, 62,000 Swedes were sterilized as part of a national program grounded in the science of racial biology and carried out by officials who believed they were helping to build a progressive, enlightened welfare state...In some cases, couples judged to be inferior parents were sterilized, as were their children when they became teenagers.

a. ... "there was nothing secret about the sterilization program. It was carried out in the light of public debate at a time when Swedes believed they were creating a society that would be the envy of the world." The Swedish Institute for Racial Biology, founded in 1922, was the first national institute of the kind. The Swedes were also the first to sterilize the mentally ill, beginning in 1934.

b. ...the ruling party at the time — the Social Democrats — "accepted the policy as an essential part of their overall philosophy." This claims is supported by the fact that, as noted above, the Social Democrats came to power in Sweden in 1932. In other words, they waited a mere two years before embarking on a program of eugenics.

c. ... that "90 per cent of [those sterilizied] were women," and that "the practice, which predated and outlived Nazi Germany, started as an attempt to weed out perceived genetic weaknesses, mental or physical defectsand ended as a method of social control." According to Professor Gunnar Broberg, "Young girls were told they would be set free from [mental] homes and prisons ‘if we are allowed to make you calmer.'"

d. .... supporters of the sterilization program were Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, according to a 1991 Swedish radio documentary produced by Bosse Lindquist. Gunnar Myrdal was a socialist economist who shared the 1974 Nobel Prize for Economics with Friedrich Hayek. Gunnar Myrdal has also been praised as a "pioneer" in race relations.





3. Unfortunately, sterilizations are just the tip of the iceberg. As the Irish Times and Agence-France Presse reported on April 7, 1998, a Swedish Television documentary reveals that Sweden lobotomized perhaps 4500 "undesirables," in some cases without the consent of their families:

Some 500 lobotomies were conducted on patients who were not from mental hospitals...including a seven-year-old boy in Umeaa in northern Sweden in 1949. Diagnosed as "mentally retarded, hyperactive", he died during surgery.





4. Sweden, however, is not alone in hiding its past. As the Irish Times also reports,
Since the Swedish revelations, other apparently "clean" countries have found similar skeletons in their cupboards. Both Norway and Denmark had similar policies. And this week a Swiss history professor, Hans Ulrich Jost, said Swiss doctors sterilised mentally-handicapped patients (again most of them women) against their will under a law passed in 1928.
"Even Hitler requested a copy of the law from the canton and from the government in Berne as a basis for Nazi Germany's own racist laws."




5. Europe and the rest of the world indeed ought to face facts and admit their hypocrisy where eugenics and human rights are concerned. Europe and the rest of the world should also give up their search for a magical socialist solution to the material conditions of human existence."

Hmmm, not sure with what the Swiss history has to do with America today, but good resaearching on your part.

Where does the current socialist regime in Washington fit into this?

6. Hand in glove:

" Signs of ObamaCare's failings mount daily, including soaring insurance costs, looming provider shortages and inadequate insurance exchanges. Yet the law's most disturbing feature may be the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB, sometimes called a "death panel," threatens both the Medicare program and the Constitution's separation of powers....

For a vivid illustration of the extent to which life-and-death medical decisions have already been usurped by government bureaucrats, consider the recent refusal by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to waive the rules barring access by 10-year old Sarah Murnaghan to the adult lung-transplant list."

How long will the Obama supporters rely on vincible ignorance???

Yep, why didn't the republicans support 100% national health care and save us all some money? Not sure what your concern is with a 10 year old girls lung, when you have no problem with Bush's murder, torture & rape of other young girls who were innocent.

And if you really care about this little girl I am sure you favor 100% national health care so that will never be a problem again. Oh!! Also you didn't mention that her mom had two healthy lungs, why didn't she donate her own that would be completely compatiable so the poor little girl wouldn't have to be on rejection drugs all her life. How heartless of her uncaring mom to rob another patient of a lung, rather than give her own to her own daughter. Sniff, sniff............

 

[Plasmaball]

Negged for trolling.

not to worry, i gave him a pos rep.

This thread is a mess...

Lmao. Stupid defending stupid. Yes, this thread is a mess.

My 545 neg beats your 464 neg. Still negged! HAH! You are such an idiot.

Omg you are so pokemon dude! You so cool....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, it was very benevolent to sterilize those people without their consent and not charge them for it.

What does it have to do with anything? What is the argument for or against in the OP?

Tell us in your own words.

Simple, really. Just echoing your own views:

1. The State knows best.

2. Some people should not have children (as evidenced by your silence on the horrific number of black babies aborted and lack of condemnation of State eugenics programs).

3. The State is benevolent by providing free medical care.

You can claim you don't hold these views, but you can't do so credibly.

So it's horrific for black women to choose abortion, so you would like the State, which 'knows best' to intervene with the long arm of the law to criminalize abortion?

And I'm the one you want to label as thinking the State knows best?

 

[daveman]

The main proponents of forced sterilization for eugenic purposes in the US were white supremacist racist anti-immigrant conservative types, such as Harry H. Laughlin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_H._Laughlin

and Charles Davenport

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Davenport

Conservatives? Not likely. Sounds like they were good Democrats.

 

[TemplarKormac]

not to worry, i gave him a pos rep.

This thread is a mess...

Lmao. Stupid defending stupid. Yes, this thread is a mess.

My 545 neg beats your 464 neg. Still negged! HAH! You are such an idiot.

Omg you are so pokemon dude! You so cool....

You're so lame. Just shut the fuck up.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What does it have to do with anything? What is the argument for or against in the OP?

Tell us in your own words.

Simple, really. Just echoing your own views:

1. The State knows best.

2. Some people should not have children (as evidenced by your silence on the horrific number of black babies aborted and lack of condemnation of State eugenics programs).

3. The State is benevolent by providing free medical care.

You can claim you don't hold these views, but you can't do so credibly.

So it's horrific for black women to choose abortion, so you would like the State, which 'knows best' to intervene with the long arm of the law to criminalize abortion?

And I'm the one you want to label as thinking the State knows best?

Time to go home Carbine. You ran out of argument a while back.

 

[daveman]

...when you have no problem with Bush's murder, torture & rape of other young girls who were innocent.

Okay, I can safely ignore as irrelevant everything you say. Thanks.

 

[Plasmaball]

Lmao. Stupid defending stupid. Yes, this thread is a mess.

My 545 neg beats your 464 neg. Still negged! HAH! You are such an idiot.

Omg you are so pokemon dude! You so cool....

You're so lame. Just shut the fuck up.

Good one

 

[daveman]

What does it have to do with anything? What is the argument for or against in the OP?

Tell us in your own words.

Simple, really. Just echoing your own views:

1. The State knows best.

2. Some people should not have children (as evidenced by your silence on the horrific number of black babies aborted and lack of condemnation of State eugenics programs).

3. The State is benevolent by providing free medical care.

You can claim you don't hold these views, but you can't do so credibly.

So it's horrific for black women to choose abortion, so you would like the State, which 'knows best' to intervene with the long arm of the law to criminalize abortion?

Again, you utterly fail to recognize that unborn babies are genetically-distinct human beings. They are not part of their mother.

Conservatives stand up for the rights of those human beings -- because liberals sure as hell won't, despite their lofty rhetoric about standing up for the little guy.

And I'm the one you want to label as thinking the State knows best?

Since we're still waiting for you to condemn State eugenics programs, I guess the label is accurate.