I am ashamed to be labeled as part of the human race.

I agree wholeheartedly, Arnold Scharwzenneger landed in Venice Beach in the 60's with nothing more than the clothes on his back and a few bucks. Now he's considered one of the most successful action movie star of all time and he's a Governor. That is the good thing about capitalism, anyone can make it with willpower. The downside is that you will see millions of immigrants flocking to your country every year. Like they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

Yeah that part sux all the more reason not to make it evenmore dummy proof

 

If one argues the point that the hypothesis of eliminating certain ailments from mankind would relieve both the society and economics of future generations from many burdens, how can that not be seen as a broad concern with humanitarianism as it's root?

If this is the case, then I would assume you would extend your conclusions to the arena of natural selection, correct? You're absolutely right with regard to a small business owner pumping more money into the workforce by being able to hire more workers and creating more jobs, and for that matter, cannot find fault with the entire statement. I don't understand how that paragraph supports your argument - is there some connection in that last sentence that equates paid medications to an increase in productivity, or am I missing your point entirely?

Jawohl. This is a benefit of the day and age we live in, and hopefully we can pass this torch to our offspring.

 

I think that looking at a particular lower-status group with natural selection goggles is a little skewed. You can't hope to eliminate elements of society through a deprivation of health care. You would create a world where only the rich deserves to live. And how would the rich thrive without a low-status workforce to do their menial tasks or work in their factories? Truth is, you need low-status groups for the economy to grow. They buy the lottery tickets, the soda drinks, the fast-foods, the concert tickets, and etc... Health care will keep the low-status groups healthy and productive, so they can afford the products they buy therefore, enriching the higher-status groups.

Economics isn't all black and white (no pun intended). There is a whole lot of gray areas and no one can claim to have a perfect answer.

This takes me to the will of the founding fathers. They founded America on christian values and I think that the country is moving away from that. It's hard to imagine Jesus being in favor of tax cuts for the rich while the poor dies in hospital hallways. This is an aspect of modern republicans that I dislike; pretending to be christian to please a demographic while going against the religion's doctrines.

My thoughts on the subject.

 

Natural selection its mother natures way.

When you interfere with it then inferior populations breed and more problems abound.

And Democrats create a support base of people who need them, who need government. Vote for the nanny state when your not qualified to wipe your own ass and wish someone else to do it for you.

 

The hidden compassion of conservatism no one ever see's for what it is. And that same can be said of the hidden cruelty of liberalism.

 

whether signing health care bill could ensure decreasing violated actions?
__________________
Watch Death at a Funeral Movie Online Free

 

You guys are talking about weeding out certain elements of society to better future generations? I wonder where I have heard this before... Breeding programs.... Removal of undesirables from the society.... It's on the tip of my tongue... Oh right! Nazis! Right, it's coming back to me now. Hitler believed that future generations should be populated with "perfect" human beings by removing blacks, jews, gays, mentally ill people, and disabled people from the gene pool. Worst of all, he cited economic reasons for the breeding programs. He claimed that "useless" people are a burden to the state and therefore, shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. They also called them "useless-eaters", nice huh?

Nazi Eugenics Programs


Here is an excerpt:

"The next year, the National Socialists-Nazis-took control of Germany. On July 14, 1933, the new government issued its "Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases." This law was far more directive than the Weimar government's plan. People with so-called hereditary illnesses had to be sterilized, even if they objected. And the list of persons classified as hereditarily ill included those suffering from "congenital feeble-mindedness, schizophrenia, manic depression, hereditary epilepsy, Huntington's chorea, hereditary blindness, hereditary deafness, and serious physical deformities." People with chronic alcoholism could also be sterilized. The law established some 200 Genetic Health Courts at which teams of lawyers and doctors would subpoena medical records in order to choose candidates for sterilization. The Court proceedings were secret, and the decisions could rarely be reversed."

As you can see, the "hidden compassion of conservatism" has already been explored by Nazis. You give us conservatives a bad name when you say shit like that Joe. Crawl back into your bunker and put your tin foil hat back on.

 

And what you are proposing is the opposite like fertility treatment for the unfit. I'm in the middle saying just leave well enough alone.

And you're to hysterical take a chill pill and think about it.

 

You're not in the middle, you just don't like facing the fact that you said something really morbid. Furthermore, you make an awkward attempt at a retort by saying that I advocate "fertility treatment for the unfit", even though I made no such claim. As if criticizing your position means that I must be cast into some sort of extreme opposite. Just observe your choice of the word unfit. Unfit for what? And I should be the one having to "think about it"? I said it before Joe, your mad far-right-mindfuck ideas give us conservatives a bad name.

Enough said, how is a raven like a writing desk?

 

I don't recall using the terms 'status' or 'group' in this discussion. I'm not looking at any 'particular lower-status group' when I make my points. I refer strictly to the individual ailments that are undesirable, and detrimental, to the future development of the human race. This is inclusive of diseases or ailments, not any particular group.

To draw parallels with failed dictatorships of the past is to be expected, all the history books tell us of the horrors and evils associated with even the notion of selective breeding because they all equate the fundamentals of the theory with the Nazi regime. Many scientific discoveries can be stalled by taking the right idea and running in the wrong direction.

I think your use of the term 'status' should be replaced by the word 'health.' My point has nothing to do with status nor race.

I beg to differ. Our founding fathers gave birth to this country out of disgust with English taxation of the colonies they populated. It had little to nothing to do with Christian values other than the inclusion of a few words in any ceremonial pledge.

The beauty of our system is that it allows for you to have those thoughts and express them. I fear it won't last long.

Personally, I couldn't give two shits about religious views. I think the entire notion that people are bred to believe that there's an invisible, omnipotent, deity in the sky that watches over everything you do is the most completely absurd, ignorant, bullshit hogwash ever imagined by mankind. It's a ridiculous form of control over the masses that has been propagated throughout the ages, and people blindly accept it as truth, when their minds are capable of understanding far more real truth than they're encouraged to do. To me, that's even sadder than anything the government does (except, of course, to continue to exploit it.)


I'll apologize in advance, but I can't help but throw a major wrench into the gears driving the generic pessimism forming the basis of your argument. Despite any added viewpoints thrown into the mix during the Third Reich, it can't be argued that the measures put in place (unfortunately, including ethnic or religious basis) during that time had a major influence in shaping the overall demographics of the country today.

With that being said, let's contrast Germany and China. Until 2007, Germany was the largest exporter of goods in the world, despite their relative lack of natural resources and the need to import raw materials from the rest of the world. China, with a population of over 1.3 billion, and nearly 3.4 billion square miles, only surpassed Germany recently, with it's population of only 80+ million & less than 138,000 square miles.

That's quite a disparity, wouldn't you say?

One could postulate that such a massive and undeniable higher standard that Germany sets is a result of selective breeding, or the fact that in an economy such as Socialist China, people are viewed more as a 'hive' of workers than actual productive members of society.

I will argue that the latter notion alone, coupled with the guarantee of the government's nipple to suckle on for every child born, is directly responsible for the downward spiral that the American people have seen in the past 50 years or so.

 

*Crickets*

 

Nope not really

 

From a purely objective point of view, casting aside any feelings of compassion for fellow human beings, it is true that healing the sick does contribute negatively to the gene pool. Hereditary diseases are less likely to occur if the host doesn't survive and fail to pass it on. But this is all talk, applying these principles in a "real-life" setting is monstrous. If your son or daughter suffers from a chronic illness, I don't think you will leave them to die to "benefit" future generations. Caring about one another is what allowed these diseases to spread, so you could say that the degradation of the gene pool is inversely proportionate to the love we have for one another.

Mixing love and genetics is never a good thing.

 

Yeah, really.

 

I see you are against abortion, infanticide, baby killing.

 

Hell Medicare does not cover it either.



Obama Regime Drops Cancer Victim's Medicaid, Sentences Her to Death

 

As a Canadian citizen, my perspective on abortion is different than yours. Although opposed to any form of child abuse or "baby killing" as you call it, I do recognize the possibility of extreme circumstances. Such as a woman being impregnated by a rapist, extreme malformation detected in the fetus, or to save the mother's life. Canadian law declares that life begins at birth, therefore abortion is perfectly legal. I don't condone it and I don't condemn it either. I'm not christian enough to lead a crusade against it, I heard that's more of an American issue anyway. The whole abortion thing has been settled years ago by the Canadian legislature, Americans should really get going on finding a legal definition of "Life".

 

A lot of people have the opinion if its a hassle and all just kill it. Funny some claim after conception a fetus really isn't alive. So then why they want to kill it is beyond me. I say however give them freewill to choose their idea of morality. But do not enable their decision using my money.

 

Like I said, there are extreme circumstances. In all honesty, I really don't care much about that debate. The dust has settled over that one in Canada and we moved on to more constructive issues.