Who said the following?

[2quills]

I commented on tolerance. I referenced an incident where a politician called a significant demographic dumb. At no point did i comment either way about abortion nor did i imply any of that with my posts. If the mention of planned parenthood conjures up an abortion discussion, then planned parenthood has an image problem.
Now. Back to Sanger and her quotes.
Who would support the requirement of a permit/license to have children? What would be the punishment for violating this.
I would support it. Why are you dragging up words that some dead woman wrote ages ago and what does it have to do with pro-choice? Yes I support that as well. And if parents wished to eat their own young (the sickly ones) post birth I could care less. Most of these babies are going to be the ones who grow up to be the very same dependant individuals that most religious conservatives complain about anyways.
Who cares? Let them take themselves out. You should be happy about that.
Oh wait, I know what it is. All of those future dependant fetuses are potential recruits for the church aren't they? Religious institutions are losing followers. Gotcha!

 

[darthtang aw]

I would support it. Why are you dragging up words that some dead woman wrote ages ago and what does it have to do with pro-choice? Yes I support that as well. And if parents wished to eat their own young (the sickly ones) post birth I could care less. Most of these babies are going to be the ones who grow up to be the very same dependant individuals that most religious conservatives complain about anyways.
Who cares? Let them take themselves out. You should be happy about that.
Oh wait, I know what it is. All of those future dependant fetuses are potential recruits for the church aren't they? Religious institutions are losing followers. Gotcha!
It has nothing to do with pro-choice. Just curious if government involvement in creating and raising families is a thing our population is ready to embrace yet.

 

[reefraff]

I'd just be happy if the government would end these asinine tax laws where people who have more kids, and are a bigger consumer of public services pay lass taxes than people with fewer kids.

 

[darthtang aw]

Is this the type of stuff you think about between shaving off the hair of another dog?  I've never seen someone with so many pessimistic and negative views on life.  When's the last time you posted a positive, feel-good piece on this site?
As far as your hypothetical question on indirect birth control - go look at China for your answer.
You gave a vague response involving China...which gives no insight to you thoughts on subject.
Where have I been pessimistic and negative in this subject? You are the one that is pessimistic and negative. Need I quote your many comments over the past couple months?
As far as posting feel good topics, You could start those yourself if it really bothers you. Hell, you could start a discussion...instead of commenting in mine since it bothers you so much.

 

[2quills]

It has nothing to do with pro-choice. Just curious if government involvement in creating and raising families is a thing our population is ready to embrace yet.
Well you were the one bringing up Pelosi's comments about pro-lifers so the only logical conclusion one could assume was you were taking some sort of pro life stance. The thread started out rather vague to begin with but I digress.
This government envolvment thing in controlling people's lives is not new. This whole Eugenics business is something that was embraced by many governments at one time including our own. It only fell out of popularity because Hitler took much of the science to heart and used it to take his personal agenda to a whole other level. Not through smart planning but through real extermination. That's the only reason Sangers quotes are taboo today.

 

[darthtang aw]

Well you were the one bringing up Pelosi's comments about pro-lifers so the only logical conclusion one could assume was you were taking some sort of pro life stance. The thread started out rather vague to begin with but I digress.
This government envolvment thing in controlling people's lives is not new. This whole Eugenics business is something that was embraced by many governments at one time including our own. It only fell out of popularity because Hitler took much of the science to heart and used it to take his personal agenda to a whole other level. Not through smart planning but through real extermination. That's the only reason Sangers quotes are taboo today.
I was merely commenting on Pelosi's comments, however I do see how some can run with the assumption.
Regardless, what sort of criteria to procreate would the government set forth? What would be acceptable? And what are the penalties for violation. If a child was concieved illegally and hid for several years, what would happen to the child?

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397431/who-said-the-following/20#post_3542371
You gave a vague response involving China...which gives no insight to you thoughts on subject.
Where have I been pessimistic and negative in this subject? You are the one that is pessimistic and negative. Need I quote your many comments over the past couple months?
As far as posting feel good topics, You could start those yourself if it really bothers you. Hell, you could start a discussion...instead of commenting in mine since it bothers you so much.
Vague? I'm just following your lead. That's your MO on this forum. Pull some outdated quotes from some activist out of the air, then ask some ridiculous question about restricting the number of kids someone could have? Why ask some hypothetical question anyone with half a brain knows would never happen in this country? It's about as relevant as "Why did the chicken cross the road?"

But if you want an honest answer, yeah, I'm all for it for specific groups. Mainly those that believe in religion. Cull that herd, and the majority of these asinine and self-righteous laws would never get created.

 

[darthtang aw]

Vague? I'm just following your lead.  That's your MO on this forum.  Pull some outdated quotes from some activist out of the air, then ask some ridiculous question about restricting the number of kids someone could have?  Why ask some hypothetical question anyone with half a brain knows would never happen in this country?  It's about as relevant as "Why did the chicken cross the road?"
But if you want an honest answer, yeah, I'm all for it for specific groups.  Mainly those that believe in religion.  Cull that herd, and the majority of these asinine and self-righteous laws would never get created.
Never happen in this country? It did Happen in this country. It was even ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in the U.S. under law. Prevented from procreating. Eugenics STARTED in the U.S.
Can you be a bit more specific on asinine and self-righteous laws? I am curious which laws religion has used to infringe on your life style of choice.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397431/who-said-the-following/20#post_3542390
Never happen in this country? It did Happen in this country. It was even ruled upon by the Supreme Court. Over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in the U.S. under law. Prevented from procreating. Eugenics STARTED in the U.S.
Can you be a bit more specific on asinine and self-righteous laws? I am curious which laws religion has used to infringe on your life style of choice.
Eugenics was an archaic practice contrived over 150 years ago. Understanding deformities and mental illness in the medical community was essentially unknown back in those days, and it fell along the same practice of lobotomy's and electro-shock therapy as a way to "cure" someone or insure those traits weren't passed to the next generation. Your Southern states used it against the African Americans, and also the Native Americans in the early 50's. Why Oregon continued with the practice as late as 1981 is beyond me. But you honestly think that same practice would occur again in this day and age?

Try same-sex marriages (not me personally, but several relatives and friends). Try prohibition today in certain parts of the country. Try inhibiting a woman's rights to do as they choose with their bodies. Trying to hide behind the guise of religious rights to deny employees the access to certain benefits. Trying to use laws to justify bigotry and discrimination in regards to how they conduct business ( refusing services to certain groups or demographics based on "religious freedoms").

 

[2quills]

Regardless, what sort of criteria to procreate would the government set forth? What would be acceptable? And what are the penalties for violation. If a child was concieved illegally and hid for several years, what would happen to the child?
Procreation would be limited to income status for both parents at the time of conception.
Any law breakers would be dealt with swiftly and harshly by excommunicating and dumping them on American soil. Oh wait....
Lemme get back with you on that.
Are you worried about a Hitler style take over in this country sometime soon? If so, what do you know that I don't? Seems like Nancy has you a little worked up. Every body knows she's a loon. Nobody really takes anything she says seriously. Dems will make you pull your hair out if you let them. Fortunately I don't feel like dems in Washington are an accurate representation of the average dem.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/397431/who-said-the-following/20#post_3542395
Procreation would be limited to income status for both parents at the time of conception.
Any law breakers would be dealt with swiftly and harshly by excommunicating and dumping them on American soil. Oh wait....
Lemme get back with you on that.
Are you worried about a Hitler style take over in this country sometime soon? If so, what do you know that I don't? Seems like Nancy has you a little worked up. Every body knows she's a loon. Nobody really takes anything she says seriously. Dems will make you pull your hair out if you let them. Fortunately I don't feel like dems in Washington are an accurate representation of the average dem.
And those Tea Baggers like Cruz, Ryan, and Bachmann are? Talk about extreme right.

So you want to base who can have children on income status? How Aristocratic of you. So what is this magical number you have to reach before you can have kids? Oh wait, I missed the "anchor baby" reference. Lucky they didn't have this law in place when your ancestors migrated over here. You'd be sucking on sauerkraut, French pastries, mutton, or whatever European delicacy your ancestors ate right now.

 

[2quills]

And those Tea Baggers like Cruz, Ryan, and Bachmann are?  Talk about extreme right.
So you want to base who can have children on income status?  How Aristocratic of you.  So what is this magical number you have to reach before you can have kids?  Oh wait, I missed the "anchor baby" reference.  Lucky they didn't have this law in place when your ancestors migrated over here.  You'd be sucking on sauerkraut, French pastries, mutton, or whatever European delicacy your ancestors ate right now.
I know, lucky for me right? Mmmm, pastries.
The magical number is no kids below the poverty line. Unless, ofcorse we end some of these useless assistance programs. Something my ancestors had to figure a way to survive with out.
If you want to defend your idol Nancy, be my guest. Let me know when obamacare rolls out so she can tell us what's in it.
I have no desire to stick up for the names you mentioned.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/397431/who-said-the-following/20#post_3542459
I know, lucky for me right? Mmmm, pastries.
The magical number is no kids below the poverty line. Unless, ofcorse we end some of these useless assistance programs. Something my ancestors had to figure a way to survive with out.
If you want to defend your idol Nancy, be my guest. Let me know when obamacare rolls out so she can tell us what's in it.
I have no desire to stick up for the names you mentioned.
Where did I ever say Nancy Pelosi was my idol? Over 7 million have signed up for Obamacare. Sounds like they know what's in it.

If your ancestors would've had to roll in to today's conditions, you wouldn't be here. You're saying they never benefitted from any government assistance of any kind when they came over here? I'd have to see that to believe it.

You also have to define where this poverty line is. In today's economy, that could mean a couple making a total combined income of $30K. You sit there taking advantage of these same poverty level people with your
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/397431/who-said-the-following/20#post_3542459
I know, lucky for me right? Mmmm, pastries.
The magical number is no kids below the poverty line. Unless, ofcorse we end some of these useless assistance programs. Something my ancestors had to figure a way to survive with out.
If you want to defend your idol Nancy, be my guest. Let me know when obamacare rolls out so she can tell us what's in it.
I have no desire to stick up for the names you mentioned.
If your ancestors had to come over here in today's economic conditions, they wouldn't be allowed in. You're saying they never accepted any type of government assistance when they first came here? I suppose they just skated right through the Great Depression.

What is your definition of this "poverty line"? A couple making $30K a year would fall into that category. You castigate the less fortunate, yet you're happy to take their money with your little real estate predatory loans.

Where did I say I supported Nancy Pelosi. Over 7 million people have signed up for Obamacare. I guess someone is happy with how that law was written.

 

[2quills]

Fix your post aggie and get back to me. You're starting to sound reduntant again.

 

[geridoc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/397431/who-said-the-following/20#post_3542395
Procreation would be limited to income status for both parents at the time of conception.
Any law breakers would be dealt with swiftly and harshly by excommunicating and dumping them on American soil. Oh wait....
Lemme get back with you on that.
Are you worried about a Hitler style take over in this country sometime soon? If so, what do you know that I don't? Seems like Nancy has you a little worked up. Every body knows she's a loon. Nobody really takes anything she says seriously. Dems will make you pull your hair out if you let them. Fortunately I don't feel like dems in Washington are an accurate representation of the average dem.
So, you would limit reproduction to the financially successful. That usually means that you are financially successful, and would qualify. Otherwise, you would have specified reproductive fitness as being over 5 feed 10 inches, or left handed, or having big feet, or whatever might include you in the "in group". In fact, prohibiting reproduction by individuals below the poverty line would have eliminated the birth of Jonas Salk, the developer of the Polio vaccine, General Colin Powell, and about one half of the Nobel Prize laureates of the 20th century, and even...me

.

 

[2quills]

So, you would limit reproduction to the financially successful.  That usually means that you are financially successful, and would qualify.  Otherwise, you would have specified reproductive fitness as being over 5 feed 10 inches, or left handed, or having big feet, or whatever might include you in the "in group".  In fact, prohibiting reproduction by individuals below the poverty line would have eliminated the birth of Jonas Salk, the developer of the Polio vaccine, General Colin Powell, and about one half of the Nobel Prize laureates of the 20th century, and even...me:flame: .
Sarcasm is lost here, Geri. My advise is that if you see something that I write directed towards aggie or perhaps a few others around here that it's just about as full of bs as the person it's being said too. Take aggies last comment for instance, he was trying to get my goat by mocking Darths "where did you see me say that specifically?" defense. While he sits back chuckling to himself.
While my comments about breeding limits sound rediculous now, they probably won't be once population becomes a big problem like we've seen in China. And yes I do believe population is heading that way. People bearing children who can't afford to rais them would be the first ones out once we hit the tipping point.

 

[aggiealum]

Sarcasm is lost here, Geri. My advise is that if you see something that I write directed towards aggie or perhaps a few others around here that it's just about as full of bs as the person it's being said too. Take aggies last comment for instance, he was trying to get my goat by mocking Darths "where did you see me say that specifically?" defense. While he sits back chuckling to himself.
While my comments about breeding limits sound rediculous now, they probably won't be once population becomes a big problem like we've seen in China. And yes I do believe population is heading that way. People bearing children who can't afford to rais them would be the first ones out once we hit the tipping point.
Now you're using the sarcasm defense? Based on some of your other imbecilic posts, you may say that out loud, but thinking exactly want you stated in the back of your mind. The first one's that need to go are the one's who think they are better than anyone else.

 

[2quills]

Now you're using the sarcasm defense? Based on some of your other imbecilic posts, you may say that out loud, but thinking exactly want you stated in the back of your mind. The first one's that need to go are the one's who think they are better than anyone else.
It's not a defense because I do think of these things. Actually, these are tactics that I've picked up from you guy's here in the aquarium forum. I'm starting to think y'all are a bad influence on me over here and I'm the victim.
But in reality I'm simply a product of the times. I must not be the only one thinking it or these ideals wouldn't have been favored by people since the dawn of history. If you think worse things can't or won't happen in the future then I'd suggest not fooling yourselves. Once America (the dumping ground for other countries poor, sick and tired) reaches it's capacity then come back to me about who's who.
While I'd actually prefer smarter planning on the part of people to reduce over population, people can't seem to control themselves all on their own. We see this now with democrats saying it's time to force everyone into medical coverage or take away their gun rights bla bla bla. Even Nancy see´s the need to start getting a handle on this stuff. Unfortunately the nice way doesn't always get things done fast enough to prevent major problems.

 

[darthtang aw]

Aside from Geridoc, I dont think anyone understands what Eugenics is and how it was implemented. so we can move on I guess.

 

[2quills]

Aside from Geridoc, I dont think anyone understands what Eugenics is and how it was implemented. so we can move on I guess.
I'm sure we've all read about it by now. And the more I read the more off base I see that you were in starting off your thread. You took words from a practically forgotten time, demonized Sanger as though she was Hitler's equal just so you could drop a shot on Pelosi before you threw her into the category of evil people in this world who preach about tolerance but can't practice it. Did we miss something else?
If ever you had an actual point to starting this thread now might be the time to make it.