Obama’s Social Darwinism

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.

Enjoy...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrkrkSiFApA]Mike Wallace Interviews Margaret Sanger - YouTube[/ame]


...:eek:
 
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.

1. If you are not female it don't work.
2. Based on your posts, science is not one of your strong subjects.
3, Creating a decent society starts with NOT crating anyone like you.
4. Yes, it is.
5. You obviously wasted your years since you are still a liberal.

BTW, I stand by my definition of your screen name.
 
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.

1. If you are not female it don't work.
2. Based on your posts, science is not one of your strong subjects.
3, Creating a decent society starts with NOT crating anyone like you.
4. Yes, it is.
5. You obviously wasted your years since you are still a liberal.

BTW, I stand by my definition of your screen name.
Okay, another poster for the burn bin. Have a good one.
 
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.

Enjoy...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrkrkSiFApA]Mike Wallace Interviews Margaret Sanger - YouTube[/ame]


...:eek:

When I have 25 minutes and 7 seconds I will. Thanks.
 
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.

1. If you are not female it don't work.
2. Based on your posts, science is not one of your strong subjects.
3, Creating a decent society starts with NOT crating anyone like you.
4. Yes, it is.
5. You obviously wasted your years since you are still a liberal.

BTW, I stand by my definition of your screen name.
Okay, another poster for the burn bin. Have a good one.

Yes. No more need be said.
 
1. If you are not female it don't work.
2. Based on your posts, science is not one of your strong subjects.
3, Creating a decent society starts with NOT crating anyone like you.
4. Yes, it is.
5. You obviously wasted your years since you are still a liberal.

BTW, I stand by my definition of your screen name.
Okay, another poster for the burn bin. Have a good one.

Yes. No more need be said.
...
 
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.

Enjoy...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrkrkSiFApA]Mike Wallace Interviews Margaret Sanger - YouTube[/ame]


...:eek:
Thanks. Terrific woman. Decent person in a society that is not.
 
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.

Enjoy...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrkrkSiFApA]Mike Wallace Interviews Margaret Sanger - YouTube[/ame]


...:eek:
Thanks. Terrific woman. Decent person in a society that is not.

Margaret+Sanger+and+KKK.jpg


The Truth About Margaret Sanger
"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

The Truth About Margaret Sanger

I'm sure you will share with yo black democratic friends...

Better break out da salunsky rule book for some guidance...:D
 
Last edited:
Thanks. Terrific woman. Decent person in a society that is not.

Margaret+Sanger+and+KKK.jpg


The Truth About Margaret Sanger
"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

The Truth About Margaret Sanger

I'm sure you will share with yo black democratic friends...

Better break out da salunsky rule book for some guidance...:D
Learn how big, and mainstream, the KKK once was in this country. Like them or not they numbered in the millions once. You don't turn down a chance like that to get your message out if your message was her message - healthy, small, planned families.
Picture-DeMarco-Article-011013.jpg

doughboy.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks. Terrific woman. Decent person in a society that is not.

Margaret+Sanger+and+KKK.jpg


The Truth About Margaret Sanger
"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

The Truth About Margaret Sanger

I'm sure you will share with yo black democratic friends...

Better break out da salunsky rule book for some guidance...:D
Learn how big, and mainstream, the KKK once was in this country. Like them or not they numbered in the millions once. You don't turn down a chance like that to get your message out if your message was her message - healthy, small, planned families.
Picture-DeMarco-Article-011013.jpg

doughboy.jpg

Sorry you didn't like the PhtoShop, here go have a good read on me...:D

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
What does Margaret Sanger have to do with Obama being Marxist?

And why hasn't anyone tried to explain how Obama is a Marxist?
 
What does Margaret Sanger have to do with Obama being Marxist?

And why hasn't anyone tried to explain how Obama is a Marxist?

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)

That was from OP post #1

Painter boiy didn’t like it and responded with this:::
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8717532-post15.html

kOOk, you need to read the thread before you go all koo koo…:cuckoo:

Here is a gift for you…
http://www.societyforqualityeducation.org/media/MediaReleaseFeb15-06.html

Hope that helps…:D
 


wait, after you defend it by saying that it was mainstream, you now say photoshop... God you're a moron.

It's true she didn't like blacks, thought birth control (she didn't believe in abortion, so I guess she's an antichoicer) would help prevent the black population from growing and she was a leftwinger so what specifically do you want to debate, I'll be your huckleberry
 
Obama and Putin: Two Totalitarians, One Game

March 27, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

obama-and-putin.jpg


War is what Obama does best. The War on Women. War on Poverty. Class War. Race War.

Walk up to a union member snoozing on a bus, a Latino man crossing the street, a gay cowboy poet earning minimum wage, and community organize him along with a few hundred thousand others into the latest battle in the social justice war that never ends.

“Fight for card check, for birth control, for gay marriage and illegal alien amnesty.”

Every time a battle is won and an election ends, a new source of social conflict is dug up and deployed for war.

As a domestic radical, divisiveness is his natural weapon. Obama plays on fragmented identities, assembling coalitions to wage war against some phantom white heteronormative patriarchy consisting of a middle class barely able to pay its bills.

It’s governing by terrorism. The bombs are ideological. The objective is a constant state of war.

The war that never ends has been good to Obama. Its various clashes have given him two terms and very little media scrutiny. They have given him a post-American army of identity groups with few mutual interests except radical politics and government dependency.

While Obama profits from stirring up conflicts at home, making it easy for him to light some fuses and walk away, he loses from conflicts abroad.

Internationally, it’s the KGB agent, not the community organizer, who profits from conflict. Putin plays Obama’s role in the world community, dividing and conquering, doing to America internationally what Obama does to it domestically.

...

Obama wanted a peaceful post-American transition. Instead he’s getting worldwide chaos and war.

Putin seeks out a conflict with the United States for the same reason that Obama seeks one out with Republicans; he wants an easy target to beat up on to distract from the economy and political corruption. United Russia, like the Democratic Party, is a party of crooks and thieves, which survives by fighting phantom enemies for phantom causes while robbing everyone blind.

For Obama and Putin, it’s not really about Crimea or birth control; it’s about power.

Obama and Putin: Two Totalitarians, One Game | FrontPage Magazine
 
Obama’s Policy Inspires Changes in Cuba—For the Worse
Why the naysayers were right.
March 21, 2016
Humberto Fontova
ft-raul-castro-cuba-democracy.jpg


Let this be a lesson to all the naysayers who claimed Obama’s “engagement” or rapprochement with the Castro-Family-Crime-Syndicate (euphemized as “Cuba” by the media and State Department) was pointless and idiotic —who claimed that the Castros would not budge from any of their policies.

Your humble and hard-working servant himself must now eat crow. Exactly a year ago he went on John Stossell’s Fox Business show to hysterically berate Stossell and a CATO Institute scholar. These dogmatic libertarians claimed Obama’s policy was very wise and sound—and would shrewdly and magically beget modifications in the Castro regime’s modus-operandi.

OK, so there’s absolutely nothing in the actual 57 year history of the Castro regime to support such claims. Nonetheless, such miracles --they calmly explained-- are forecast in the holy texts of all their economic gurus, who shame both Nostradamus and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in their transcendental wisdom and clairvoyance.

I argued otherwise, as seen here (WARNING! Graphically shows typical Crazy-Cuban shouting and arm-waving!)

Well, it turns out that the Castro regime has indeed modified some of its more recent policies. Over the past year, for instance:

*Cubans are suffering a wave of terror –involving everything from thousands, upon thousands of arbitrary arrests by KGB-trained secret police to machete attacks by regime-paid mobs against peaceful women dissidents—surpassing anything seen in decades.

*Cubans are risking their lives to flee Cuba at a rate unseen for decades.

*The teenzy-tiny number of Cubans who Cuba’s Stalinist rulers graciously tolerated as self-employed in such lucrative fields as shoe-shine boys, street mimes and corner fruit and vegetable peddlers, etc. has declined drastically.

“Who cares?!” Some readers retort. “Obama is President of the U.S.—not Cuba! And anyway, those Latin-American banana republics are always hopelessly screwed up. Their people are always trying to sneak into the U.S. !”

In fact, prior to Castro-- when all Cubans were perfectly free to emigrate with all family, and property and U.S. visas were issued to them for the asking, and flights and ferries ran daily from Cuba to Florida—during this entire period slightly more Americans lived in Cuba than did Cubans in the U.S. In 1953, for instance, more Cubans vacationed (then voluntarily went home) from the U.S. than Americans vacationed in Cuba. Alas, none of this features in The Godfather II. So it’s mostly unknown.

...

Obama’s Policy Inspires Changes in Cuba—For the Worse
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top