Obama "Science Czar" is a total lunatic

[pixelsmith]

comparing a 3 yr old and a car to a eugenicist.. that is nuts jose.
fight or flight... i don't blame you for running, you have painted yourself into a corner.

 

[skunkape]

In somewhat related news, clinical trials have begun on a GM strain of contraceptive corn. I'm sure nothing could go wrong here.

Contraceptive Corn
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[bsvalley]

why do some people read a thread they do not like, then comment on the thread they do not like, then say they do not come here very often because they do not like to read threads they do not like?

bsvalley, eugenics is alive and well. it is practiced in many forms.

dB, there is nothing wacky about eugenics, nuff said there i think.

cottonzway, thanks for reporting on this monster. obama's handlers are all cut from the same cloth. obama is very quickly showing his true color.

Pixelsmith, I guess people can comment on any thread they want. That indeed is the idea of a "FORUM" Do my comments about negative topics need to only be positive for you? Apparently I am not the only one. David is right though. There are other threads.
I used to like to hang out on the free wheelin chit chat because there were interesting topics. Fun stuff too.
Now it is just a platform for Obama bashing.
But it is just a Forum after all. and I don't have to come to this thread, you are right.
Sorry I intruded on Your forums. Won't happen again.

 

[pixelsmith]

overreact much? read any thread you want and yes by all means comment on ANY thread you want. i just find it curious that you complain about something you did not have to read. it is not required that you read every thread. maybe consider reading the fun stuff and leave the important topics to those that find them interesting and pertinent to current events. to me and a few others this thread is extremely interesting.

 

[bobheck]

jose you cannot be serious. you compare a car to a eugenicist ideology?!? wtf?

compare this guy to hitler and/or the early american eugenics movement and we have something to talk about.

oop - Godwin's Law

 

[skunkape]

Tonight in the news...flame wars rage, meanwhile the man-eating robots have surrounded the city. No shit. Man-eating robots.

Upcoming Military Robot Could Feed on Dead Bodies - Science News | Science Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[truthseeker]

I find this messianic adulation of the Obama administration wildly fascinating. Any criticism online is either labeled right wing propaganda or conspiracy theory when in fact, it's often simply fairly accurate journalism.

Because He is the Chosen One, don't you know? Change... can I hear change!!

 

[pixelsmith]

Tonight in the news...flame wars rage, meanwhile the man-eating robots have surrounded the city. No shit. Man-eating robots.

Upcoming Military Robot Could Feed on Dead Bodies - Science News | Science Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

wow. no surprise there. the eugenicists in power are going to need a bunch of them real soon.

 

[cottonzway]

What a cop out for people to simply make absurd claims that this is some "conspiracy theory."

You do realize I posted direct quotes from the guys book, right?

Willful denial.

This isn't some op-ed piece from Alex Jones and whatnot, it's direct quotes from a book written by the man who is the head of the science in the US in our current administration. Do you understand?

Tell you what, more quotes:

If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.

But, it doesn't exist, if you wish to be ignorant by your own will....

 

[cottonzway]

Many people look into population controll. Some day that book might be reality. but then again catfish might grow legs and mary goats.
who the hell knows and I get so sick and tired of people coming up with stupid shit like this.
FYI,
I don't think population control is such a bad thing. I think we should all practice it so the government doesn't have to step in someday.
Why the hell is ok for people to keep poping out kids they can't afford and everyone else has pay for anyway.
Not to say rich people should have a bunch either.
Our resources are not endless. They will and are becoming limited.
We shouldn't just dismiss someone for thinking ahead.8)
This is the kind of crap that keeps me from coming here very often anymore.

How much of a "good idea" is population control if one day it effects you or your family directly? It's ALWAYS such an easy thing to suggest until you take into consideration when making that claim.

What if you one day are not "allowed" to have children or your children not "allowed" to have children? That sure sounds like FREEDOM to me.

If this is the kind of crap that keeps you from coming here then simply don't read it. That simple.

 

[truthseeker]

It's appalling that this guy is our "Science Czar". Reading some of his quotes it sounds like a typical communist doctrine - control, control and more control. Then again, what do you expect from Obama who salutes the likes of Hugo Chavez and Castro?

 

[pixelsmith]

It's appalling that this guy is our "Science Czar". Reading some of his quotes it sounds like a typical communist doctrine - control, control and more control. Then again, what do you expect from Obama who salutes the likes of Hugo Chavez and Castro?

why not salute them? after all, he IS one of them.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

It's appalling that this guy is our "Science Czar".

Actually, this appointment makes perfect sense. In modern western civilization, it's not "science" unless it is totally divorced from any notions of morality or the understanding that we are answerable to a higher authority than our current earthly handlers.

There are LOTS of people who have been warped by a crude, 19th century Darwinian view of human life, and now they're controlling our universities and establishing government policies at all levels. In such a worldview, it's not life but death that is the highest good: death of the unfit, death of the maladapted, and then ... eugenics is born. (WWII taught most of us all we needed to know about this topic.)

They say we are just another animal in need of management. Some of us are more fit and thus more deserving than others of life. They view many of the elderly, the handicapped, the infirm as examples of useless eaters, mouths that are wasting precious resources that others could put to better use. You can even sense from some of the forum members that there is almost a hopefulness that someone will come along who is willing to make the hard decisions of who is allowed to advance and who must step aside. And that's how it starts.

It seems easier for some to swallow because the talk is not about killing off a race of people that is judged to be unfit--not yet. These modern enlightened exterminators are not talking about discriminating on the basis of race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion (well, maybe religion), so they pass the PC litmus test. And of course those who find this move appealing can't imagine that their own names or the names of a loved one might some day be written on the axeman's list.

They argue with very little patience that ideas such as the existence of the soul and of human rights are figments of the human imagination, which itself is an accidental phenomenon created by simple chemical reactions in the brain. And if you disagree, you are one of those damn God freaks who can't understand real "science" ... there's that word again.

Prepare yourself for the brave new world! And get ready for history to repeat itself.

 

[CapnG]

Actually, this appointment makes perfect sense. In modern western civilization, it's not "science" unless it is totally divorced from any notions of morality or the understanding that we are answerable to a higher authority than our current earthly handlers.

A higher authority? Who? Santa Claus?

As for morality, it is a human construct, entirely goverened by era and culture and nothing more. What is moral and good in ancient times is appalling and criminal in modern times (and most likely vice versa). I know you'd PREFER to think otherwise, that some mystical skydaddy sits with a pen and paper on a cloud writing down sins like a grocery list but it's simply not the case. I suppose you'd convince me if you could prove it somehow but for that you'd need... GASP! SCIENCE! Which is of course inherently evil.

Except when it provides things like heat and light, electricity, entertainment, life saving medicines, labour saving technologies, instanteous communications and the countless millions of others things we take for granted every day. Ignoring all that, science is the devil's work for sure... :

They argue with very little patience that ideas such as the existence of the soul and of human rights are figments of the human imagination, which itself is an accidental phenomenon created by simple chemical reactions in the brain.

Precisely so. And here I thought you didn't underst... oh wait, you kept writing...

And if you disagree, you are one of those damn God freaks who can't understand real "science" ... there's that word again.

Yup... "God"... it is a troublesome word, isn't it? Cudgel of the backward, ignorant and superstitious. Amazing how it keeps popping up everytime science moves us forward. A few religious zealots get up on soapboxes and beat their chests about the evils of whatever-it-is. Then years later, when whatever-it-is becomes an indespensible staple of society and no one can imagine life without it and even those who cried out against it so vehemently seem content to make use of it, suddenly God has left the building.

Funny, that.

 

[Anders]

I Wonder if he's pro Eugenics?.... Has anybody here read WAR AGAINST THE WEAK by [SIZE=-1]Edwin Black? It should be on every colledge reading list. The guy also wrote IBM & The Holocaust. Which is even scarier. Black is a true Historian who deserves more credit then he gets... anyway[/SIZE]

 

[jpw.in.wi]

A higher authority? Who? Santa Claus?

Well, where does the buck stop in these sorts of questions for you? The Supreme Court? Yourself? If you were in an important decision making position--which you may be, we don't know--where and how do you draw the line?

Just curious, since you seem comfortable with all of this, if you had to decide, which category of human would you order the extermination of first?

I suppose you'd convince me if you could prove it somehow but for that you'd need... GASP! SCIENCE! Which is of course inherently evil.

No, that's you putting words in my mouth. That's coming from your own personal prejudice. Anyone can spend 15 minutes on the Internet researching the true history of science and the Church. Here's just one good article anyone could start with:

Fathers of Science, by Matthew Bunson

A few religious zealots get up on soapboxes and beat their chests about the evils of whatever-it-is.

You mean like killing the "unfit," or the "unwanted"? Yeah, I would think most right-thinking people would find that troublesome.

Then years later, when whatever-it-is becomes an indespensible staple of society and no one can imagine life without it and even those who cried out against it so vehemently seem content to make use of it, suddenly God has left the building.

Funny, that.

Okay, could you provide two or three examples of the "whatever-they-are" that are now "indespensible staples of society" but which the Church "vehemently" cried out against? The internal combustion engine? Electric lightbulbs? Antibiotics? iPods?


And please don't bring up the whole Galileo thing as an illustration. G.G. thought the sun was the center of the universe, the Church asked for more evidence, and G.G. got all uppity, lampooning and thus kicking his former benefactor, the Pope, in the face--leaving his Jesuit scientist colleagues shaking their heads in dismay. Things went downhill from there. That's really it in a nutshell.

But I know the Church as the enemy of "science" makes a much better story for us to teach our kids.

 

[truthseeker]

There is absolutely no reason why religion and science need to be in conflict with each other. There are and were many brilliant scientists who upheld some kind of a religious belief, while at the same time vehemently pursued scientific endeavors. Even Einstein - who was secular most of his life – in his latter years wrote that the more he learned about the universe, the more he realized that there must be a Creator behind it. Sure, there are extremes in both cases – but this is just plain wrong. I think the issue here is that any scientific endeavor, especially when it comes to human life, needs to be guided by some kind of a moral compass. There needs to be integrity, responsibility and compassion which are the pillars of any civilization. If you take that out of equation, you end up in the Soviet Union, or nazi Germany<ST1</ST1. When you put somebody like John Holdren in the position of power, you’re venturing into a very dangerous territory. One can only look into history to see where it leads.

 

[CapnG]

Well, where does the buck stop in these sorts of questions for you? The Supreme Court? Yourself? If you were in an important decision making position--which you may be, we don't know--where and how do you draw the line?

I don't, history does. Or do you think we arrived at our current level of technical sophistication without engaging in unethical beahviour or commiting stomach-churning atrocities? Omlettes and eggs, etc. The buck NEVER stops.

Just curious, since you seem comfortable with all of this, if you had to decide, which category of human would you order the extermination of first?

I never actually mentioned that but since you asked I'd say hopelessly incurable, terminally ill, brain-dead vegetables on life support. They're wasting hospital resources and unecessarily extending the grief of their loved ones.

You mean like killing the "unfit," or the "unwanted"? Yeah, I would think most right-thinking people would find that troublesome.

Again, I never said anything about that, you said science in general, did you not?

In modern western civilization, it's not "science" unless it is totally divorced from any notions of morality or the understanding that we are answerable to a higher authority than our current earthly handlers.

Why yes, it seems you did.

Okay, could you provide two or three examples of the "whatever-they-are" that are now "indespensible staples of society" but which the Church "vehemently" cried out against? The internal combustion engine? Electric lightbulbs? Antibiotics? iPods?

With the exception of iPods, probably all of of those. ICE's allowed man to travel faster than god had "intended". Electric lights would only lead to immoral activity after dark. Antibiotics would cure diseases sent by god to punish the wicked for their sins. There's always some religious nut somewhere thumping a bible on a lecturn and decrying X to his congregation as "the work of the devil". I've seen so-called right to life activists on television as recently as last month trying to make the case that condom use is essentially the same thing as late term abortion.

But I know the Church as the enemy of "science" makes a much better story for us to teach our kids.

"The Church" (by which I assume you mean the Holy Roman Catholic Church) is at best schitzophrenic on scientific matters, equal parts rational and lunatic. But I never said "the church" I spoke of religion generally.

 

[jpw.in.wi]

With the exception of iPods, probably all of of those. ICE's allowed man to travel faster than god had "inteded". Electric lights would only lead to immoral activity after dark. Antibiotics would cure diseases sent by god to punish the wicked for their sins. There's always some religious nut somewhere thumping a bible on a lecturn and decrying X to his congregation as "the work of the devil". I've seen so-called right to life activists on television as recently as last month trying to make the case that condom use is essentially the same thing as late term abortion.

Okay, but you'll only find a couple of fringe weirdos and crazies muttering under their tinfoil hats that might say those sorts of irrational things. These are not examples of actual objections that the Church has raised about lightbulbs, etc. I'm just calling for some fairness or clarity in the discussion, I guess.

"The Church" (by which I assume you mean the Holy Roman Catholic Church) is at best schitzophrenic on scientific matters, equal parts rational and lunatic. But I never said "the church" I spoke of religion generally.

Yes, you're right that I'm talking about the RCC. And of course you're right, not all "religious" people are the same. As with anything, religion can be twisted, used and abused for personal agendas, and not just the rank and file but many ordained church leaders who should have known better have obviously wondered horribly astray at times.

Thanks for the post. It felt like someone was talking TO me, not AT me. I get very passionate about these sorts of topics.

 

[CapnG]

Thanks for the post. It felt like someone was talking TO me, not AT me. I get very passionate about these sorts of topics.

Nothing wrong with that. Argument without passion is like cake without icing: dry, flavourless and generally unappealing.