The 'Couldn't Happen Here' File

[PoliticalChic]

"The aim of the eugenics movement in the United States during the first half of the twentieth century was to prevent the degeneration of the white race.

A central tactic of the movement was the involuntary sterilization of people labeled as feebleminded.

An analysis of the practice of eugenic sterilization provides insight into how the concepts of gender, race, class, and disability are fundamentally intertwined.

I argue that in the early twentieth century, the concept of feeblemindedness came to operate as an umbrella concept that linked off-white ethnicity, poverty, and gendered conceptions of lack of moral character together

and that feeblemindedness thus understood functioned as the signifier of tainted whiteness."

Anna Stubblefield - 'Beyond the Pale': Tainted Whiteness, Cognitive Disability, and Eugenic Sterilization"

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

"So....where did our Progressives take us? Eugenics, the attempts to prevent the breeding by the wrong kind of people, "the multiplication of the unfit, the production of a horde of unwanted souls."
From "The Control of Births," The New Republic, March 6, 1915.

a. " The New Republic (TNR) is a liberal American magazine of commentary on politics and the arts published continuously since 1914... The New Republic was founded by Herbert Croly and Walter Lippmann..." The New Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

From
http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-relations-racism/299869-science-often-supported-racism.html

 

[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.

It is amazing how the human race survived without socialized healthcare. And, it is very obvious that the poor also managed to survive without socialized healthcare. Contrary to your collectivest thought pattern, private charities provided for healthcare for the poor, long before government ever got involved.

In fact, America had excellent and affordable health care, right up to the point where the federal government decided to get involved in the business with the Medicare program. We should have been warned by how well the federal government provided healthcare to native Americans.

The human race in the US survived without outlawing slavery, without ending child labor, without giving women the vote, without having independence, without having a Bill of Rights, without having penicillin, without having electricity, without having the car, or planes, or railroads, and on and on;

if 'the human race survived without it' is the best argument you have against something,

you're pretty much against everything.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"The aim of the eugenics movement in the United States during the first half of the twentieth century was to prevent the degeneration of the white race.

A central tactic of the movement was the involuntary sterilization of people labeled as feebleminded.

An analysis of the practice of eugenic sterilization provides insight into how the concepts of gender, race, class, and disability are fundamentally intertwined.

I argue that in the early twentieth century, the concept of feeblemindedness came to operate as an umbrella concept that linked off-white ethnicity, poverty, and gendered conceptions of lack of moral character together

and that feeblemindedness thus understood functioned as the signifier of tainted whiteness."

Anna Stubblefield - 'Beyond the Pale': Tainted Whiteness, Cognitive Disability, and Eugenic Sterilization"

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

"So....where did our Progressives take us? Eugenics, the attempts to prevent the breeding by the wrong kind of people, "the multiplication of the unfit, the production of a horde of unwanted souls."
From "The Control of Births," The New Republic, March 6, 1915.

a. " The New Republic (TNR) is a liberal American magazine of commentary on politics and the arts published continuously since 1914... The New Republic was founded by Herbert Croly and Walter Lippmann..." The New Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

From
http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-relations-racism/299869-science-often-supported-racism.html

So between the two of us, if nothing else, we've proven that the eugenics 'fad' of the late 19th early 20th century cannot be wholly attributed to either side of the political spectrum.

That of course proves your OP wrong. Thanks for the help.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The aim of the eugenics movement in the United States during the first half of the twentieth century was to prevent the degeneration of the white race.

A central tactic of the movement was the involuntary sterilization of people labeled as feebleminded.

An analysis of the practice of eugenic sterilization provides insight into how the concepts of gender, race, class, and disability are fundamentally intertwined.

I argue that in the early twentieth century, the concept of feeblemindedness came to operate as an umbrella concept that linked off-white ethnicity, poverty, and gendered conceptions of lack of moral character together

and that feeblemindedness thus understood functioned as the signifier of tainted whiteness."

Anna Stubblefield - 'Beyond the Pale': Tainted Whiteness, Cognitive Disability, and Eugenic Sterilization"

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

"So....where did our Progressives take us? Eugenics, the attempts to prevent the breeding by the wrong kind of people, "the multiplication of the unfit, the production of a horde of unwanted souls."
From "The Control of Births," The New Republic, March 6, 1915.

a. " The New Republic (TNR) is a liberal American magazine of commentary on politics and the arts published continuously since 1914... The New Republic was founded by Herbert Croly and Walter Lippmann..." The New Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

From
http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-relations-racism/299869-science-often-supported-racism.html

So between the two of us, if nothing else, we've proven that the eugenics 'fad' of the late 19th early 20th century cannot be wholly attributed to either side of the political spectrum.

That of course proves your OP wrong. Thanks for the help.

You gasbag....you're the explanation of why the Hindenburg ended up the way it did.

You the liar, ....I, the scholar.

And so it shall remain.

 

[daveman]

The rightwing idiocy here is that American liberals, who are the core of the Democratic Party,

want to promote some sort of eugenics based policy, including abortion,

to reduce the birthrate of African-Americans,

from whom the Democratic Party receives 90+% support.

lol, I'm guessing there are even rightwing inmates here who are crazy enough not just to believe that,

but to have what they think is a rational explanation why liberals/Democrats would want to do that.

That's no crazier that the left-wing claim that conservative-owned KKKorporations want to poison the air and water, thus killing their customers, to maximize profits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The rightwing idiocy here is that American liberals, who are the core of the Democratic Party,

want to promote some sort of eugenics based policy, including abortion,

to reduce the birthrate of African-Americans,

from whom the Democratic Party receives 90+% support.

lol, I'm guessing there are even rightwing inmates here who are crazy enough not just to believe that,

but to have what they think is a rational explanation why liberals/Democrats would want to do that.

That's no crazier that the left-wing claim that conservative-owned KKKorporations want to poison the air and water, thus killing their customers, to maximize profits.

To you maybe.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You're worried we're going to start sterilizing elderly women?

That seems rather unnecessary.

Cut the crap.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"So....where did our Progressives take us? Eugenics, the attempts to prevent the breeding by the wrong kind of people, "the multiplication of the unfit, the production of a horde of unwanted souls."
From "The Control of Births," The New Republic, March 6, 1915.

a. " The New Republic (TNR) is a liberal American magazine of commentary on politics and the arts published continuously since 1914... The New Republic was founded by Herbert Croly and Walter Lippmann..." The New Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

From
http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-relations-racism/299869-science-often-supported-racism.html

So between the two of us, if nothing else, we've proven that the eugenics 'fad' of the late 19th early 20th century cannot be wholly attributed to either side of the political spectrum.

That of course proves your OP wrong. Thanks for the help.

You gasbag....you're the explanation of why the Hindenburg ended up the way it did.

You the liar, ....I, the scholar.

And so it shall remain.

Since I've provided more examples of conservatives who supported eugenics in the past than you have provided examples of liberals,

I'd say that either you can't read, or you can't comprehend, or there's some combination of both at work.

 

[daveman]

The rightwing idiocy here is that American liberals, who are the core of the Democratic Party,

want to promote some sort of eugenics based policy, including abortion,

to reduce the birthrate of African-Americans,

from whom the Democratic Party receives 90+% support.

lol, I'm guessing there are even rightwing inmates here who are crazy enough not just to believe that,

but to have what they think is a rational explanation why liberals/Democrats would want to do that.

That's no crazier that the left-wing claim that conservative-owned KKKorporations want to poison the air and water, thus killing their customers, to maximize profits.

To you maybe.

Oh, so you BELIEVE that corporations want to kill all their customers so they make more money.

Y'know -- that doesn't surprise me at all.

You're a dumbass, Carby.

 

[Hyrcanus]

Just ask the Jews in 1940's Germany how they felt about socialism....

Many Jews were Socialists and the Socialist armies of the USSR liberated us from many camps.

 

[daveman]

So between the two of us, if nothing else, we've proven that the eugenics 'fad' of the late 19th early 20th century cannot be wholly attributed to either side of the political spectrum.

That of course proves your OP wrong. Thanks for the help.

You gasbag....you're the explanation of why the Hindenburg ended up the way it did.

You the liar, ....I, the scholar.

And so it shall remain.

Since I've provided more examples of conservatives who supported eugenics in the past than you have provided examples of liberals,

I'd say that either you can't read, or you can't comprehend, or there's some combination of both at work.

What evidence did you provide that they were conservatives? "Because they're racist!!"?

Less than compelling, actually.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If socialism is so awful, one would think that those who deem it so could simply make rational, reasoned, effective arguments against socialism itself,

instead of having to resort to digging up crazy relics of the past and trying to concoct some laughable guilt by association argument.

Of course that's easier than trying to discredit providing public schooling or healthcare to those who can't afford it.

If you are going to use public schools as a reason to support a socialist state, you have picked one of THE WORST examples of government programs.
Look, even in states such as New Jersey where the overall rating of the state public school system is regarded as of high standards, the State's public schools still cannot find enough funding( for what few intelligent people have a clue) without turning to the federal government for financial help.
If public education were the shining example of what you brand as socialism, the system should be working at the highest of levels of student achievement and operated with the greatest of efficiency.
Truth is socialism no mater where it is practiced is inefficient, costly in the form of confiscatory tax rates, has the fiscal appetite of an NFL team and is never satisfied with "we will have to live within a budget"...
Socialism is a fine example of what NOT to do.
BTW, there are more people living in the State of New York than the populations of Sweden and Norway combined and this represents about 8% of US Population.
New York's welfare( socialism) system is an abject disaster. The state government has literally run out things and people it can tax. Billions are poured into the state social program system each year and the conditions do not change or it gets worse. NY has successfully made living off the public dole comfortable.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

DO you really think the Obama care program is going to enhance the health of unhealthy people?
Most people, especially poor unhealthy people are unhealthy by choice.
They have poor dieting habits. They have vices( alcohol and tobacco use)....
All the taxpayer funded medical care that OTHER people's money can buy will not change the fact that most poorer people are irresponsible.
And that is the point of ACA..This thing is the precursor to single payer. It is also the beginning of government control of the most basic behavior.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If socialism is so awful, one would think that those who deem it so could simply make rational, reasoned, effective arguments against socialism itself,

instead of having to resort to digging up crazy relics of the past and trying to concoct some laughable guilt by association argument.

Of course that's easier than trying to discredit providing public schooling or healthcare to those who can't afford it.

No fair bringing up historical examples! This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius...

Nobody said history should be off the table, but it ought to be relevant history.

For example,

let's talk about slavery, a function of CAPITALISM, not socialism.

And then let's talk about Slave Breeding in the old South, a prime example of Eugenics,

and one done for the sake of CAPITALISM, not socialism.

Fair enough?

We no longer permit slavery.
Sweden is STILL a socialist country.
Now that we have that established, your point is?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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."
Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism






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." David Rivkin and Elizabeth Foley: An ObamaCare Board Answerable to No One - WSJ.com



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

Yeah, sounds like they're out to get you. You should run. Fast.

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

Keep up the bad work.

 

[Old Rocks]

If socialism is so awful, one would think that those who deem it so could simply make rational, reasoned, effective arguments against socialism itself,

instead of having to resort to digging up crazy relics of the past and trying to concoct some laughable guilt by association argument.

Of course that's easier than trying to discredit providing public schooling or healthcare to those who can't afford it.

Just ask the Jews in 1940's Germany how they felt about socialism. You on the other hand make no effort to make a well-rationed, wholly reasoned and effectual argument touting the benefits of socialism.

Instead of attacking the OP, try debating her. Of course, it's better for you to attack a superior argument, via your method, than to actually debate it. Intellectual dishonesty.

Gotta love dumb ignorant fucks like you. Nazism and Fascism are corperate statism, not socialism. And the German health care system was established by Bismark. I am sure now that you will say he was a Communist, right?

 

[idb]

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.

DO you really think the Obama care program is going to enhance the health of unhealthy people?
Most people, especially poor unhealthy people are unhealthy by choice.
They have poor dieting habits. They have vices( alcohol and tobacco use)....
All the taxpayer funded medical care that OTHER people's money can buy will not change the fact that most poorer people are irresponsible.
And that is the point of ACA..This thing is the precursor to single payer. It is also the beginning of government control of the most basic behavior.

Taken straight from the GOP manifesto.

 

[Old Rocks]

If socialism is so awful, one would think that those who deem it so could simply make rational, reasoned, effective arguments against socialism itself,

instead of having to resort to digging up crazy relics of the past and trying to concoct some laughable guilt by association argument.

Of course that's easier than trying to discredit providing public schooling or healthcare to those who can't afford it.

Just ask the Jews in 1940's Germany how they felt about socialism. You on the other hand make no effort to make a well-rationed, wholly reasoned and effectual argument touting the benefits of socialism.

Instead of attacking the OP, try debating her. Of course, it's better for you to attack a superior argument, via your method, than to actually debate it. Intellectual dishonesty.

Gotta love dumb ignorant fucks like you. Nazism and Fascism are corperate statism, not socialism. And the German health care system was established by Bismark. I am sure now that you will say he was a Communist, right?

Actually, I am sure the retort would be, "duh, who is Bismark?"

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

DO you really think the Obama care program is going to enhance the health of unhealthy people?
Most people, especially poor unhealthy people are unhealthy by choice.
They have poor dieting habits. They have vices( alcohol and tobacco use)....
All the taxpayer funded medical care that OTHER people's money can buy will not change the fact that most poorer people are irresponsible.
And that is the point of ACA..This thing is the precursor to single payer. It is also the beginning of government control of the most basic behavior.

Taken straight from the GOP manifesto.

The same one that is going to lose them the White House again in 2016.

 

[Old Rocks]

You gasbag....you're the explanation of why the Hindenburg ended up the way it did.

You the liar, ....I, the scholar.

And so it shall remain.

Since I've provided more examples of conservatives who supported eugenics in the past than you have provided examples of liberals,

I'd say that either you can't read, or you can't comprehend, or there's some combination of both at work.

What evidence did you provide that they were conservatives? "Because they're racist!!"?

Less than compelling, actually.

Actually, it is a pretty accurate statement. Kind of like "Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives".