Obama’s Social Darwinism

American_Jihad

Flaming Libs/Koranimals
May 1, 2012
11,534
3,715
350
Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
Obama’s Social Darwinism

May 10, 2012 by Nathaniel Davidson

Last month, the Marxist-in-Chief blasted the Republican budget proposal as “thinly veiled social Darwinism.” Evidently it was too thinly disguised for anyone but him and his adoring Left-media hacks. In reality, the market is the antithesis of social Darwinism, which in reality has been the domain of the Left.

The problem

Unfortunately, even most conservative parents send their children to government schools, so they are more likely to fall for Obama’s cheap rhetoric. After all, in these schools, members of the fanatically Democratic teachers’ unions indoctrinate their captive audiences in leftist thinking. This includes the false claim that a free market means the “strong” (wealthy) exploit the “weak” (poor).

Certainly, the Darwinian hypothesis is all about “survival of the fittest,” which is really death of the unfit, and even, maybe, eventually their extinction. This is also the official religion of the government schools, so in one sense, the Democrats have themselves to blame if people want to apply this to society.

The Market v. Darwinism

However, this is nothing like the market. By definition, this means free choices of buyer and seller, and no use of force to compel economic transactions. Also, making a profit is evidence that people want the product, while a loss is a signal that not enough people want it (see also my earlier Patriot column Socialism: Stupidity and Arrogance). This will usually mean that scarce resources will end up in their most wanted places.(more)

Democrats are the real “social Darwinists”!

In contrast to the freedom of the Market, leftists believe in the very Darwinian concept of force. That is, they overrule the free choices of millions of buyers and sellers by force, to impose their vision of “equality.” But this means crushing real equality of opportunity and replacing it with equality of outcome, except for the politically connected. There is a certain irony, as recently stated by noted economist and columnist Dr. Thomas Sowell:

“People who believe in evolution in biology often believe in creationism in government. In other words, they believe that the universe and all the creatures in it could have evolved spontaneously, but that the economy is too complicated to operate without being directed by politicians.”



Leftists and eugenics

And far worse than that, the “progressives” were at the forefront of the ultimate social Darwinism: eugenics. This word comes from the Greek εύ (eu) meaning “well” and γένος (genos) meaning “kind” or “offspring.” However, what it really amounted to was trying to prevent the “unfit” to breed, including sterilization against their will. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson signed New Jersey’s sterilization law.FDR, the Depression-prolonging President, was also a staunch supporter of eugenics, like most leading Democrats, as was his distant relative, the Progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt.(more)

Conclusion

Obama’s demagoguery deliberately smears the good name of free-market capitalism, which has done so much to make America’s poor far better off than most people in the world. And it obscures the reality that leftists have long supported social Darwinism—not only in the economy, but also in the horrific eugenics programs.

READ MORE:

Obama
 
Dems fear Obama’s Social Security cut will haunt them in 2014 races

By Mike Lillis - 04/14/13 06:00 AM ET


A growing number of House Democrats are concerned that President Obama's proposal to cut Social Security benefits will haunt the party at the polls in 2014.

Although Democrats have long-championed the retirement program, they say Obama's plan to reduce payments for future beneficiaries through a chained consumer price index (CPI) has weakened their stance and opened the door for Republicans to vilify the president.

The leader of the campaign arm for House Republicans, Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.), on Wednesday called Obama’s plan a "shocking attack on seniors."

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the former head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Walden's comments foreshadow a line of attack the GOP will use on the campaign trail next year. It's a reason, he added, for Democrats to worry.


...



Read more: Dems fear Obama?s Social Security cut will haunt them in 2014 races - The Hill
 
The Lawless Presidency

February 12, 2014 by Arnold Ahlert

Obama-Lawless1-450x324.jpg


In a move both transparently political and utterly contemptuous of the rule of law, the Obama administration has yet again made changes to the healthcare law. The Treasury Department issued a fact sheet Monday, outlining the new regulations (laughingly referred to as “final”). They now give employers with 50-99 employees until 2016 to comply with ObamaCare’s employer mandate. In addition, employers with 100 or more workers who originally had to cover 95 percent of them to be in compliance will only have to offer coverage to 70 percent of their employees next year, transitioning to the original percentage by 2016. In short, a law written and passed by Congress and signed by the president is becoming whatever the Obama administration wants it to be.

And as usual, the administration wants it both ways. Even as it disputes the idea that ObamaCare is causing many companies to eliminate employees as a means of getting below the 50-worker threshold when the mandate kicks in, Treasury officials warned that businesses must “certify” they are not eliminating workers to avoid that mandate. Employers will self-attest to this reality on their tax forms under penalty of perjury.

In other words the IRS, where not even a “smidgen” of corruption has occurred according to President Obama, could end up as the ultimate arbiter of any employer-employee disputes regarding reasons for an employee’s termination. And a decision in the employee’s favor could yield a one-two punch where a business owner is both cited for perjury and required to implement the business mandate from which he was previously exempt.

...

Yet it is precisely those levers of power that appear most vulnerable heading into the 2014 mid-term election. Despite all the support Democrats will get from a hopelessly compromised mainstream media, there is no reconciling their belief in the “wonderfulness” of ObamaCare with the reality that every postponement of the law’s mandates reveals exactly the opposite. “It’s getting difficult and slinking toward impossible to defend the Affordable Care Act,” writes Fournier. For far too many Americans, impossible is already here.

The Lawless Presidency | FrontPage Magazine
 
95% of financial gains since 2009 went to the rich 1% job creators that Republicans love so much.

Why do you insist on calling Obama a Marxist? You just don't what that means.
 
95% of financial gains since 2009 went to the rich 1% job creators that Republicans love so much.

Why do you insist on calling Obama a Marxist? You just don't what that means.

At least the GOP is somewhat honest about it compared to your asshat
 
Obama’s Social Darwinism

May 10, 2012 by Nathaniel Davidson

Last month, the Marxist-in-Chief blasted the Republican budget proposal as “thinly veiled social Darwinism.” Evidently it was too thinly disguised for anyone but him and his adoring Left-media hacks. In reality, the market is the antithesis of social Darwinism, which in reality has been the domain of the Left.

The problem

Unfortunately, even most conservative parents send their children to government schools, so they are more likely to fall for Obama’s cheap rhetoric. After all, in these schools, members of the fanatically Democratic teachers’ unions indoctrinate their captive audiences in leftist thinking. This includes the false claim that a free market means the “strong” (wealthy) exploit the “weak” (poor).

Certainly, the Darwinian hypothesis is all about “survival of the fittest,” which is really death of the unfit, and even, maybe, eventually their extinction. This is also the official religion of the government schools, so in one sense, the Democrats have themselves to blame if people want to apply this to society.

The Market v. Darwinism

However, this is nothing like the market. By definition, this means free choices of buyer and seller, and no use of force to compel economic transactions. Also, making a profit is evidence that people want the product, while a loss is a signal that not enough people want it (see also my earlier Patriot column Socialism: Stupidity and Arrogance). This will usually mean that scarce resources will end up in their most wanted places.(more)

Democrats are the real “social Darwinists”!

In contrast to the freedom of the Market, leftists believe in the very Darwinian concept of force. That is, they overrule the free choices of millions of buyers and sellers by force, to impose their vision of “equality.” But this means crushing real equality of opportunity and replacing it with equality of outcome, except for the politically connected. There is a certain irony, as recently stated by noted economist and columnist Dr. Thomas Sowell:

“People who believe in evolution in biology often believe in creationism in government. In other words, they believe that the universe and all the creatures in it could have evolved spontaneously, but that the economy is too complicated to operate without being directed by politicians.”



Leftists and eugenics

And far worse than that, the “progressives” were at the forefront of the ultimate social Darwinism: eugenics. This word comes from the Greek εύ (eu) meaning “well” and γένος (genos) meaning “kind” or “offspring.” However, what it really amounted to was trying to prevent the “unfit” to breed, including sterilization against their will. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson signed New Jersey’s sterilization law.FDR, the Depression-prolonging President, was also a staunch supporter of eugenics, like most leading Democrats, as was his distant relative, the Progressive Republican Teddy Roosevelt.(more)

Conclusion

Obama’s demagoguery deliberately smears the good name of free-market capitalism, which has done so much to make America’s poor far better off than most people in the world. And it obscures the reality that leftists have long supported social Darwinism—not only in the economy, but also in the horrific eugenics programs.

READ MORE:

Obama
Boy that's some real dogma and junk thinking there. Yikes.

And his site is even worse. This part here for instance: "Another leading eugenicist was Margaret Sanger, the black-hating, KKK-loving founder of Planned Parenthood, the infamous abortion and sex-trafficking business Planned Parenthood. (“Planned Parenthood” at the end of this sentence is redundant.) Sanger explicitly wanted to use abortion to reduce the numbers of blacks, whom she called “human weeds”."

Those are flat-out lies that just happened to catch my eye. The rest of it is probably as bad.
 
Last edited:
95% of financial gains since 2009 went to the rich 1% job creators that Republicans love so much.

Why do you insist on calling Obama a Marxist? You just don't what that means.

WTF is that, broken english, R U an immigrunt...:eek:

Are you surprised?

KNB stands for Know Nothing Bigot/Bastard.

BTW you can't use "Darwinism" and "socialism" in the same sentence.

Socialism is the direct opposite of "Darwinism".

Darwinism promotes self reliance, by acknowledging that the fittest, strongest, fastest, hardest working and those who are most able to adopt survive, will survive, is the direct opposite of the typical socialist dogma that one needs help outside of one self in order to not only to succeed, but survive.

Another BTW: don't make fun of immigrants, who might have a tiny problem expressing themselves in their second language. Just make sure that you are as competent in your first language as they are in their second.
 
95% of financial gains since 2009 went to the rich 1% job creators that Republicans love so much.

Why do you insist on calling Obama a Marxist? You just don't what that means.

WTF is that, broken english, R U an immigrunt...:eek:

Are you surprised?

KNB stands for Know Nothing Bigot/Bastard.

BTW you can't use "Darwinism" and "socialism" in the same sentence.

Socialism is the direct opposite of "Darwinism".

Darwinism promotes self reliance, by acknowledging that the fittest, strongest, fastest, hardest working and those who are most able to adopt survive, will survive, is the direct opposite of the typical socialist dogma that one needs help outside of one self in order to not only to succeed, but survive.

Another BTW: don't make fun of immigrants, who might have a tiny problem expressing themselves in their second language. Just make sure that you are as competent in your first language as they are in their second.
Survival of the best "adopted" eh?

And do you approve of Social Darwinism?
 
WTF is that, broken english, R U an immigrunt...:eek:

Are you surprised?

KNB stands for Know Nothing Bigot/Bastard.

BTW you can't use "Darwinism" and "socialism" in the same sentence.

Socialism is the direct opposite of "Darwinism".

Darwinism promotes self reliance, by acknowledging that the fittest, strongest, fastest, hardest working and those who are most able to adopt survive, will survive, is the direct opposite of the typical socialist dogma that one needs help outside of one self in order to not only to succeed, but survive.

Another BTW: don't make fun of immigrants, who might have a tiny problem expressing themselves in their second language. Just make sure that you are as competent in your first language as they are in their second.
Survival of the best "adopted" eh?

And do you approve of Social Darwinism?

I made the mistake of criticizing someone else's views because of one simple spelling error, so I do not condemn you for same. "Adapt" is what I should have said, mea culpa!!!

Having said that, if you approve of Darwinism, you know, the survival of the fittest, you must approve of social Darwinism, unless you are willing to be called a hypocrite.

BTW, I DO approve of social Darwinism. I never needed social help, other than the six weeks I spent on Unemployment Insurance, because I WANTED TO in 1964, at $27 per week.

Yeah, strange as it may sound to young punks like you, I worked every minute - other than the above mentioned six weeks - all my life. And even more strangely to your ilk, I sometime had to hitch hike to find another job. And to astonish you even more, I became a highly successful computer programmer, in spite the fact that English is my second language and I have no collage degree.

I am retired now, but young punks like you never cease to amaze me. You bitch about EVERYTHING but forget that all you have was given to you by MY generation, and you and your ilk forget that in spite of your degrees in so called sciences with no relations to REAL life you still have to start at the bottom in order to be successful in of your life. If I am wrong to assume that you are a young punk who is a Know Nothing Bigot (or Bastard), I apologize. I have seen all kinds of seemingly young posters declare that they are seniors. So, if you are a senior, go for it!
 
Are you surprised?

KNB stands for Know Nothing Bigot/Bastard.

BTW you can't use "Darwinism" and "socialism" in the same sentence.

Socialism is the direct opposite of "Darwinism".

Darwinism promotes self reliance, by acknowledging that the fittest, strongest, fastest, hardest working and those who are most able to adopt survive, will survive, is the direct opposite of the typical socialist dogma that one needs help outside of one self in order to not only to succeed, but survive.

Another BTW: don't make fun of immigrants, who might have a tiny problem expressing themselves in their second language. Just make sure that you are as competent in your first language as they are in their second.
Survival of the best "adopted" eh?

And do you approve of Social Darwinism?

I made the mistake of criticizing someone else's views because of one simple spelling error, so I do not condemn you for same. "Adapt" is what I should have said, mea culpa!!!

Having said that, if you approve of Darwinism, you know, the survival of the fittest, you must approve of social Darwinism, unless you are willing to be called a hypocrite.

BTW, I DO approve of social Darwinism. I never needed social help, other than the six weeks I spent on Unemployment Insurance, because I WANTED TO in 1964, at $27 per week.

Yeah, strange as it may sound to young punks like you, I worked every minute - other than the above mentioned six weeks - all my life. And even more strangely to your ilk, I sometime had to hitch hike to find another job. And to astonish you even more, I became a highly successful computer programmer, in spite the fact that English is my second language and I have no collage degree.

I am retired now, but young punks like you never cease to amaze me. You bitch about EVERYTHING but forget that all you have was given to you by MY generation, and you and your ilk forget that in spite of your degrees in so called sciences with no relations to REAL life you still have to start at the bottom in order to be successful in of your life. If I am wrong to assume that you are a young punk who is a Know Nothing Bigot (or Bastard), I apologize. I have seen all kinds of seemingly young posters declare that they are seniors. So, if you are a senior, go for it!
1. I was teasing you. 2. I don't need to approve of science. 3. I believe in creating a decent society, it's not a "natural" thing. 4. Good for you. 5. I'm not young.
 

Forum List

Back
Top