Thursday, July 09, 2009

"Populations that We Don't Want to Have Too Many Of"

You know.

Those people.

The reason we started "gun control" in the first place. [More]
Posted by David Codrea at 7/09/2009 11:30:00 AM

9 comments:

Wyn Boniface said...

It is clear to me with them moving to take control over food, water, power, and fuel (also the raise in taxation to the point of constraining all living activity) they are trying to pogrom us, and statements like this just support it.

Here is another gem I saw today:

“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -- involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing -- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.” –Maurice Strong

They will not be happy until we live like the third world.

7/09/2009 1:39 PM
ptg said...

The abortion eugenics scheme doesn't seem to be working very well.

7/09/2009 1:45 PM
W W Woodward said...

Madame Ginsberg’s statement reminds me of that of another prominent woman who got into a hell of a wreck by allegedly making the statement, “let ‘em eat cake.”

A few years ago statements like that would have been labeled Freudian Slips. But these days the elite may say pretty well what they please with complete impunity.

7/09/2009 2:24 PM
Chris K. said...

The incredible irony of someone named Ginsburg making the Eugenic argument is too sweet.

7/09/2009 8:39 PM
Tom said...

More interesting is this:

Q: Does that mean getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion — like a waiting period — that are not deemed an “undue burden” to a woman’s reproductive freedom?


JUSTICE GINSBURG: I’m not a big fan of these tests. I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman’s decision. It’s entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn’t mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.

I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.


Insert any gun law or waiting period in there and see the incredible disconnect between an absolute right listed and one invented by the robed only ones.

Also, does ANYONE think this about giving it to "the state"? Is she THAT whacked out to think that pro-life people want to let the state decide who is murdered?

7/09/2009 9:14 PM
straightarrow said...

You people don't understand. To those of her elevated status the rest of us are livestock, to be sheared, sold, butchered for the herdsmen's profit. They believe they are the herdsmen.

It is not an uncommon occurence for herdsmen to die in a stampede. Perhaps they should be careful as to just how much fear and alarm they spread among the herd.

7/09/2009 11:23 PM
Defender said...

From "staff" to "employee" to "personnel" to a "human resource" to "animate capital."
To "non-essential laborer" and then to "untermensch"? Wouldn't surprise me at all.
On another freedom site I see that residents of a city's public housing may be allowed to own guns for the first time in a long while. See, they've already been declared less-than. "Those people," you know. That actress in "Transformers" reminded us that anyone can be "those people," once a majority of "our kind" exists. The Rappahannock Regional Jail in Northern Virginia is physically cutting Biblical quotations out of mail received by inmates from their families. Could they get away with that with any other religion?

7/10/2009 12:02 PM
Anonymous said...

The unwanted population is unwanted children, regardless of means, class, or ethnicity of the parents.
I will be impressed when those who would ban abortion provide 100% predelivery and 100% postdelivery medical care and support in raising the child.
Several societies have discovered that the burden of bearing and raising children is so high that many elect to not do so, leading to negative birth rates and shrinking populations becasue of the availibility of birth control and abortion. Because of immigration (both legal and illegal), the U.S. does not have this problem.

7/11/2009 12:33 AM
Anonymous said...

You'll be impressed when those who had no choice in a conception bear the burden of those who did?

How about if you don't want to get pregnant, don't? It's not like everybody, and I mean everybody, doesn't know what it takes.

7/11/2009 9:11 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)