Progressives rekindling of eugenics. (generation, Brown, Byrd, ideology)

[Spatula City]

This thread is the official point where I stop being frustrated by the idiocy of this board and burst out laughing.

Next up:

'Liberals found to be the cause of all cancer'
'Satan is real... and he's a liberal'
'Why God hates liberals-- a lesson in common sense'

Seriously, is there any negative phenomenon in the entire world that Liberals are not the cause of?

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

The policies I just talked about are Republicans.

Cut welfare, cut programs for the poor, to discourage them from having children.

As I said, eugenics through Capitalism

The government shouldn't incentivize having more children than people can afford. That's a lot different than preventing them from having babies...or assisting them in killing them.

[Frank_Carbonni]

Originally Posted by Odo

This thread is the official point where I stop being frustrated by the idiocy of this board and burst out laughing.

Next up:

'Liberals found to be the cause of all cancer'
'Satan is real... and he's a liberal'
'Why God hates liberals-- a lesson in common sense'

Seriously, is there any negative phenomenon in the entire world that Liberals are not the cause of?

I don't blame liberals for everything. I think the majority of liberals (at least the old school type) are alright and even though I disagree with a lot of what they believe; they have their hearts and their brains in the right place. I just hate faux-liberals. The PC, Nanny Statist, quasi-socialists that have infested mainstream liberal thought over the past 20 years or so.

[Supachai]

Do people have a right to have children? If so, then why should society be on the hook for providing for these children once born? If people can't afford to take care of their kids, then they shouldn't have them. Period. If that's eugenics, then call me a eugenecist.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by Supachai

Do people have a right to have children? If so, then why should society be on the hook for providing for these children once born? If people can't afford to take care of their kids, then they shouldn't have them. Period. If that's eugenics, then call me a eugenecist.

According to lefties, you're an "extremist'!

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Eugenics is taxpayer funded abortions for the poor.
Eugenics is DNA splicing implantations for the rich.

Cutting social welfare programs is NOT eugenics.

But those are just forms of Eugenics, not their only definition.

Eugenics in political terms simply means policies to control an undesirable population and boost the desirable. that could be tax payer abortions, that couple be getting rid of poverty programs, it could be anything to control populations in either direction.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Glitch

What a bunch of unmitigated BS.

The original Progressive Party from 1912 to 1924 consisted entirely of former Republicans, including Theodore Roosevelt. They were not leftists by any stretch of the imagination. Nor was Wilson part of the Progressive Party, or supported by the Progressive Party.

You have been brainwashed into believing that liberal freaks today are somehow "progressive." They are not, and never have been. They simply call themselves "progressive" or "liberal" in an attempt to fool people into believing they are something they clearly are not. Apparently it worked with you.

Sanger, Wilson, and FDR are classic examples of leftist bigots. Eugenics was alive and well during the 1930s and 1940s while FDR was President. In fact, FDR's Tennessee Valley Authority, which included the forced sterilization of "undesirables," was suppose to be the model for the rest of the nation. Thankfully, the fascist prick died before it could be implemented.

At no time did Theodore Roosevelt, or any member of the original Progressive Party, support or condone eugenics. You have been indoctrinated by the left into believing something that is not even remotely true.

And you have been brainwashed into believing that Today's Liberals are freaks and some how believe the crap the OP posted.

and no, not all of the Progressives were Republicans, Whitmell P. Martin was a Democrat, as were all the members of the Farmer Labor Party who became Progressives.

But none of that really matters because in 1912, none of these parties resembled what they do today, there were both Liberal and conservative wings of both parties , and Progressive streaks with in each.

[CoolZombie]

How come the Teabaggers love bringing up stuff "progressives" did 100 years ago but kick and scream when anyone brings up conservative efforts preserving segregation, denying gay rights or keeping minorities from voting far more recently? The oversensitive conservative children get mad and throw a hissy fit when their little delicate world views are challenged, as they are indefensible by logical argument.

[Workin_Hard]

Originally Posted by Supachai

Do people have a right to have children? If so, then why should society be on the hook for providing for these children once born? If people can't afford to take care of their kids, then they shouldn't have them. Period. If that's eugenics, then call me a eugenecist.

Poverty could be all but eliminated within a generation or two if the poor and unfit would stop breeding like cockroaches, and the obligation for society to provide for their litters were disavowed. Problem solved.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Workin_Hard

Poverty could be all but eliminated within a generation or two if the poor and unfit would stop breeding like cockroaches, and the obligation for society to provide for their litters were disavowed. Problem solved.

Are you arguing that society itself would clean up poverty if the number of people with in it were small enough to contain

or

That poverty would eliminate itself with in 2 generations if everyone in it only had one kid ?