What's with the commie anthem? Shouldn't the leftist tools be singing "deutschland uber alles"? Oh, that's right, they were red before they were brown. Pathetic.
And just where did these geniuses from the University of California at Berkeley get the money to conduct their vital research, including the $10 bills they so generously passed out? That's right, rich people. Rich people pay almost all of the income taxes which in turn are used to fund academic research and to provide subsidies to the poor:
"IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. (The top 10 percent pay more than 70 percent of all income taxes) This is the highest percentage in modern history ... Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined ... To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined." - The Tax Foundation
In 2009, 47 percent of households paid absolutely no taxes and more than half of those got a check from the federal government. The value of subsidies paid to those in the bottom 20 percent of households averaged more than $30,000. It's so much easier to be generous with other people's money.
Of course, only an academic would consider money received in exchange for completing a questionnaire "hard earned". We may have learned something of value from this experiment; teaching "poor" people to save money would go a long way towards eliminating the "economic inequality in society".
Had he been eaten? No one knows for sure, but it would seem a fitting end for a man who helped cannibalize (er, colonize) much of the South Pacific.
Ah, yes, in the leftist, multiculturalist dreamworld no one would ever venture out from their basements. Unless, of course, it's to secure more pot and Doritos.
Che is dead needs to learn a bit more history. Support for eugenics occurred across the ideological spectrum.
I assure you that I've read extensively on the eugenics movement and stand by everything that I've said. If anyone "needs to learn a bit more history", it's you. It's interesting how every sin of the left becomes a sin of America generally, while every sin of the right remains just that, a sin of the right. The Dixiecrats were southern populists most whom were "New Dealers" supporting every part of FDR's massive expansion of the government. The real "southern strategy" was the multi-generational alliance between northern progressives, who had no problem with racism, and southern populists. In fact, the early labor movement was racist to the core and routinely faulted capitalists/conservatives for not caring what color the workers in their factories were. Read up.
If a group - say, the U.S. - also has a record of ideals and values, it's important that the country (and it's state) be held accountable to it's own standards.
How convenient for the Stalin's, Mao's, Hitler's and Pol Pot's of the world. And, lacking all standards, for the left in general. Of course, your view has - from your perspective - the benefit of lowering the bar for socialism generally and avoids embarrassing comparisons to the obvious successes that America has achieved. Here's a radical thought for you, standards and ideals are what people and societies strive to live up to. And their true measure is how high they set those standards and how hard they strive to live up to them.
Americans were not only uninterested in the plight of the Jews in Germany, but many even supported the forced sterilization of the mentally incompetent, crippled or criminally-inclined ...
Yes, they called themselves "progressives" and their ranks included H.G. Wells, Margaret Sanger, Oliver Wendell Holmes and other leftist icons. They were for the most part committed socialists and fascists. The people that resisted them called themselves "conservatives" and "libertarians". Of course, that's another "little known fact" about American history.
This "poll" simply confirms that the current controversy isn't about "torture" or what constitutes "torture". It's about the left wanting to label those that they disagree with as "torturers".
What they didn't tell you is that Evangelicals were also much less likely to support communism, fascsim and other leftist pathologies and therefore never support mass murder.
"His cousin Sir Francis Galton said this principle could be applied to humans as well. The idea came to be known as “eugenics”."
In fact, it was Darwin himself who expressed these views, his cousin merely coined the term "eugenics".
From "The Descent of Man":
“Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”
You ask, "Who is qualified to judge what traits are truly undesirable and which persons deserved to be sterilized?"
Apparently a lot of "progressives", like Margret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood, H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw, thought that the government had the right and capacity to decide.
Yes, Barack Obama with his hand in your piggy bank!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4&feature=related
LINK
"IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. (The top 10 percent pay more than 70 percent of all income taxes) This is the highest percentage in modern history ... Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined ... To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined." - The Tax Foundation
In 2009, 47 percent of households paid absolutely no taxes and more than half of those got a check from the federal government. The value of subsidies paid to those in the bottom 20 percent of households averaged more than $30,000. It's so much easier to be generous with other people's money.
Of course, only an academic would consider money received in exchange for completing a questionnaire "hard earned". We may have learned something of value from this experiment; teaching "poor" people to save money would go a long way towards eliminating the "economic inequality in society".
Ah, yes, in the leftist, multiculturalist dreamworld no one would ever venture out from their basements. Unless, of course, it's to secure more pot and Doritos.
I assure you that I've read extensively on the eugenics movement and stand by everything that I've said. If anyone "needs to learn a bit more history", it's you. It's interesting how every sin of the left becomes a sin of America generally, while every sin of the right remains just that, a sin of the right. The Dixiecrats were southern populists most whom were "New Dealers" supporting every part of FDR's massive expansion of the government. The real "southern strategy" was the multi-generational alliance between northern progressives, who had no problem with racism, and southern populists. In fact, the early labor movement was racist to the core and routinely faulted capitalists/conservatives for not caring what color the workers in their factories were. Read up.
If a group - say, the U.S. - also has a record of ideals and values, it's important that the country (and it's state) be held accountable to it's own standards.
How convenient for the Stalin's, Mao's, Hitler's and Pol Pot's of the world. And, lacking all standards, for the left in general. Of course, your view has - from your perspective - the benefit of lowering the bar for socialism generally and avoids embarrassing comparisons to the obvious successes that America has achieved. Here's a radical thought for you, standards and ideals are what people and societies strive to live up to. And their true measure is how high they set those standards and how hard they strive to live up to them.
Yes, they called themselves "progressives" and their ranks included H.G. Wells, Margaret Sanger, Oliver Wendell Holmes and other leftist icons. They were for the most part committed socialists and fascists. The people that resisted them called themselves "conservatives" and "libertarians". Of course, that's another "little known fact" about American history.
What they didn't tell you is that Evangelicals were also much less likely to support communism, fascsim and other leftist pathologies and therefore never support mass murder.
In fact, it was Darwin himself who expressed these views, his cousin merely coined the term "eugenics".
From "The Descent of Man":
“Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”
You ask, "Who is qualified to judge what traits are truly undesirable and which persons deserved to be sterilized?"
Apparently a lot of "progressives", like Margret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood, H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw, thought that the government had the right and capacity to decide.
I thought the purpose of these boards was to comment on the subject(s) of the article and not to launch personal attacks on other posters.
While I, like everyone else, am quite capable of engaging in the latter, I think most people find it infantile.