To Steady Pie: I agree. I think most people who see that movie also agree. Jordan Belfort was nothing more than a casino owner in the gambling industry. So long as he did not use force to separate the suckers from their money he did not deserve jail time. Im sure he never would have done a day had he donated TAX DEDUCTIBLE dollars to the charities the eugenics crowd run. Ditto Bernie Made-off. Note that it was easier to paint the fictional Gordon Gekko as a villain even though he was not much different than Belfort. To Steady Pie: Always. Interestingly, Robin Hood stole from the tax collector. In that sense Americas Founders became Robin Hoods when they gave Americans a government that gave the people the Right to keep what they earned as well as property Rights for everyone rather than just the ruling class. The XVI Amendment put the tax collector of olde back in the drivers seat. One need only look at contemporary eugenicists to see how the tax collectors morality works.
Those were my thoughts exactly. Fraud should be restricted to knowingly making clearly fallacious statements. Just saying "oh well this stock is gonna do (*)(*)(*)(*)in fantastic!" is innocuous to me. If you're stupid enough to listen to wall street types for financial advise you deserve to lose your money. Yeah Robin Hood is mostly a myth. I meant what most people think of as the Robin Hood story. You know, the valiant working man's man taking the money back from the rich to give to the proletariat. How agreeable! Robin Hood style action is only justified if the person you're taking stuff from used similar force to obtain that wealth. I don't think that holds for the wealth holders of today. Wage slavery is complete nonsense.
To Steady Pie: Justified to be sure. The difficulty is in taking “stuff” from tax dollar millionaires/billionaires without harming deserving wealth holders. To Steady Pie: But all too real thanks to the income tax.
I am of the opinion that our current situation is at least partly similar. It wasn't so much the rich Robin Hood was supposedly robbing, but the aristocracy who derived their wealth from the use of force. We have something similar going on today, namely the unprecedented scale of collusion between government and industry. The handing out of special privileges is vast. This sort of thing I'd quite like to go full Robin Hood on. 20th Century Fox's IP privilege, the privilege of corporate meat producers who have their competition eliminated by regulations making it illegal for normal people to sell poultry. Monsanto's patents. (*)(*)(*)(*) like that. But I have no desire to extend this "Robin Hooding" to legitimate voluntary interaction. I have no desire to interfere in employment contracts, to enforce anti-discrimination legislation, to extort even a cent of tax from anyone. Pretty much. We only just passed the tax-free holiday. Up until late April the average American was working for the government.
when the message comes from sources such as the ones you have used then there is no real message to dispute, its all BS. Try finding the same message in a non-radical right-wing place and maybe it would have some semblance of creditability, till then it doesn't and neither do you. No need to defend anything, the quote was taken out of context and the videos are doctored, plenty of places confirm that and yet you choose to ignore that as it doesn't fit your agenda. Says a lot about you really.
Funny enough I have done some research and guess what most of what I see reported by right-wingers is gross misinterpretation and cherry picking. The one in the OP is a blatant example of it. - - - Updated - - - Yeah right
I so enjoy the stupidity of pro-lifers especially radical ones, and this above really is stupid at it's best. Show me anywhere that a pro-choice person has stated that human life does not start at conception - even though in reality stating human life starts at conception is incorrect, human life started millions of years ago, but for the context of this debate it's good enough - you like all ill informed pro-lifers make the same basic mistake .. there is a HUGE difference between human (adj) life and a human (noun) life, everyone one of the cells in my body are human and alive and as such are human (adj) life, but I am a human (noun) life, it is such a basic error that pro-lifers make every time, and even the case quoted above only talks about human (adj) life, nothing more.
It's not misrepresentation. Right wingers have nothing to gain by slandering bill gates and associating him with planned parenthood.
There are no infants killed in abortion. Infant (noun) 1. the human young from the time of birth to one year of age. - Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. 2. A child in the earliest period of life, especially before he or she can walk - The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary 3. a child who is in the earliest stage of extrauterine life, a time extending from the first month after birth to approximately 12 months of age, when the baby is able to assume an erect posture. - Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition 4. a human child from birth (see newborn infant) to the end of the first year of life. - Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition 5. A child between birth and age 1 (or 2). - McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine 6. A child younger than 1 year old. - Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary 7. A child younger than 1 year of age; more specifically, a newborn baby. - Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing The term infant is typically applied to young children between the ages of 1 month and 12 months; however, definitions may vary between birth and 1 year of age, or even between birth and 2 years of age. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant Infant: A young baby, from birth to 12 months of age. - http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3966 Got to love the way pro-lifers try to redefine what words mean simply to meet their own opinions and to project onto other people. Me I simply calling lying.
Perhaps one from the point of view of an article on Huffington Post, a left-wing source, would be of help for perspective? I wasn't trying to bring politics into the discussion, but rather my disgust with Gates and his motivations. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/monsanto-in-gates-clothin_b_696182.html
Sam, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Do you even know what misrepresentation means, you should you do it often enough. What part of the comments where Gates talks about vaccines decreasing world population due to the fact that third world country families would NOT need to be so large because more of their offspring would survive childhood do you fail to understand and fail to see the misrepresentation of the OP.
I see no problem in trying to introduce GMO's so long as the relative safe guards are adhered to and sufficient testing is done prior to major usage.
The stench emanating from Barack Taqiyyas cabinet is overpowering. Now you can add another piece of foul-smelling garbage to the long list of filth Barack Taqiyya appointed to run a bureaucracy.
First of all, you have no idea what Eugenics is. Second, population control in an overpopulated planet is not necessarily a bad thing. (best way to do this would be to keep people fed but whatever) Third, Eugenics has little to do with abortion and finally, why are you so down on abortion ?
Eugenics is an old concept of selective breeding. We can do this now Genetically and certain things like increase life span....muscle density...bone density...enhanced immune system...enhanced mental capacity and intelligence....a 3rd set of teeth....etc....are all possible....NOW!!! Never mind such trivial things as height, weight, eye color and skin tone. AboveAlpha
True but it was more than that. The selective breeding was based on the idea that strength and/or weaknesses in character were rooted in our genes and thus the position that we rise to in society was rooted in the genes. The "selfish gene theory" was that structures in society were the natural outcropping of genetic survival of the fittest and we should not challenge this "natural order". These ideologies were then used to justify societal hierarchy. Eugenic ideologies were very popular prior to WWII. Everyone who was anyone had jumped on the Eugenics bandwagon. Everyone rapidly jumped off after Hitler took the ideology to its extreme but his ideas did not arise out of a vacuum and in the early days he had tremendous support from the West. The ideologies themselves however did not go the way of the dinosaur. They just became renamed "biological determinism" Maggie Thatcher and Rotten Ronnie were prominent proponents of biological determinism. There are some aspects of Social engineering that are actually good. Unfortunately because of the Eugenics stigma such ideas are pretty much verboten.
The thing was Hitler who had absolutely no scientific training and no one in his Third Rich willing to tell him that Blue Eye's were actually WEAKER than brown eyes....or that Dark Brown or Black Skin was actually more protective to Solar Radiation...Hitler did not have a clue as far as what people needed to breed to create via Eugenics a superior Human Race. In the next 20 years the United States will be the nation where selective Genetic Engineering will allow people to improve themselves on many levels and let's hope regulations are put in place. AboveAlpha
The flaws of Eugenic ideology are many. There is no guarantee that because one king is smart that his son will also be smart. Genes may give someone "potential" but that potential has to be realized through socialization. "Nature/Nurture" debate. Took a class on this in University. By social engineering I mean that implementing immigration policies to favor folks that share our culture, are intelligent, have money and so on are not necessarily bad things. At minimum we should ensure folks have an understanding that we believe in freedom and that means that if their daughter wants to wear western clothes after the age of 18 they do not have the right to kill them.
Yes...environment and social interaction has a lot to do with it but if a very smart man has a kid with a very smart woman and no pregnancy issues occur and no issues of toxicity or lack of nutrician are present then that child is going to be born very smart. There is a point where a child that has obtained a certain level of very high intelligence will succeed no matter what obstacles are placed in that child's way. AboveAlpha
