What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Bob Gray said:
If people are talking eugenics, and I was posting on response to joe bringing it up, then it's relevant to look at the history of eugenics in this country and elsewhere. If people tried that tactic on something else distasteful from the past, like Nazism or slavery or whatever, it'd look silly, as it does here.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware people were talking about eugenics. Eugenics is selective breeding to improve the stock. Pretty much everybody agrees that Hugo Drax is not a good role model.

I'm just not tracking, here. Are you equating birth control with eugenics because one of the leading exponents of birth control in the 19th century also advocated eugenics? Because that's like saying Hitler was a vegetarian therefore vegetarians are Nazis.
 
Kepler said:
I wasn't aware people were talking about eugenics. Eugenics is selective breeding to improve the stock. Pretty much everybody agrees that Hugo Drax is not a good role model.

I'm just not tracking, here. Are you equating birth control with eugenics because one of the leading exponents of birth control in the 19th century also advocated eugenics? Because that's like saying Hitler was a vegetarian therefore vegetarians are Nazis.
Click to expand...

For dear old Margaret? She sure did.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Kepler said:
I wasn't aware people were talking about eugenics. Eugenics is selective breeding to improve the stock. Pretty much everybody agrees that Hugo Drax is not a good role model.

I'm just not tracking, here. Are you equating birth control with eugenics because one of the leading exponents of birth control in the 19th century also advocated eugenics? Because that's like saying Hitler was a vegetarian therefore vegetarians are Nazis.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about birth control. You keep trying to talk to me about something I never commented on. Never said anything about this Drax fellow either. Sanger is 20th century as are the Nazis. You're losing the plot a bit it seems.

Eugenics is a broader subject than just selective breeding, as there are a variety of possible means believers in eugenics can use to in their eyes improve the human race.
 
Bob Gray said:
Never said anything about this Drax fellow either.
Click to expand...

JFC, Bob. It may not have been the most popular movie ever, but you don't recognize a Bond villain? It's even one from about 40 years ago at this point, so you can't even blame it on not paying attention to modern culture.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

unofan said:
JFC, Bob. It may not have been the most popular movie ever, but you don't recognize a Bond villain? It's even one from about 40 years ago at this point, so you can't even blame it on not paying attention to modern culture.
Click to expand...

To be fair to Bob, it was a really, really bad movie.

Turns out Drax is a much more interesting character in the book. I wish they'd filmed that instead.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Kepler said:
I'm really just trying to figure out what your point is.
Click to expand...
Most other folks, and I'd have given up, but I'll say it one more time for you. My post was in response to joe's post mentioning eugenics, and I just provided a little history on eugenics. Just an informational post, but as usual, people try to pull it a variety of ways that have nothing to do with what I said. If you go back to my response to joe, you'll see what I'm saying. And I provided a bit of additional info for someone who wasn't familiar with Sanger, her wacky views, and her Nazi ties.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Bob Gray said:
Most other folks, and I'd have given up, but I'll say it one more time for you. My post was in response to joe's post mentioning eugenics, and I just provided a little history on eugenics. Just an informational post, but as usual, people try to pull it a variety of ways that have nothing to do with what I said. If you go back to my response to joe, you'll see what I'm saying. And I provided a bit of additional info for someone who wasn't familiar with Sanger, her wacky views, and her Nazi ties.
Click to expand...

OK, I get it now. Thank you.

Here is the Wikipedia page on Sanger, for balance.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Kepler said:
OK, I get it now. Thank you.

Here is the Wikipedia page on Sanger, for balance.
Click to expand...
Horrors, you're citing Wikipedia! :eek: :eek:

Just had to do that, as some folks around here have major issues with citing Wikipedia. I don't really have an issue with citing wiki, if there's info elsewhere that confirms what is said on wiki.

She certainly had a variety of views on things, many of which weren't as offensive as the ones I've cited. But, hey, that's kind of like saying someone is in the KKK and believes in white superiority, but they also coach little league baseball and donate to the United Way. The good stuff is good, but it doesn't excuse the bad, which reasonably leaves a taint.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Bob Gray said:
Horrors, you're citing Wikipedia! :eek: :eek:

Just had to do that, as some folks around here have major issues with citing Wikipedia. I don't really have an issue with citing wiki, if there's info elsewhere that confirms what is said on wiki.

She certainly had a variety of views on things, many of which weren't as offensive as the ones I've cited. But, hey, that's kind of like saying someone is in the KKK and believes in white superiority, but they also coach little league baseball and donate to the United Way. The good stuff is good, but it doesn't excuse the bad, which reasonably leaves a taint.
Click to expand...

I agree with this to a point. People are never entirely separate from their times. Lincoln wanted to deport all the blacks back to Africa and believed they could never be truly equal to whites. Born in 1959, that would make him a virulent racist. Born in 1809, that would make him born in 1809. Sanger's views on immigration and eugenics were quite typical of her times. Her views on birth control and the sexual liberation of women were ahead of her time -- though not radically. Note for example that she opposed abortion (given the state of medicine at the time I'm not surprised) and was terrified of masturbation for the same sort of "Victorian Christianity hygiene" reasons that were typical of the turn of the century.

I do enjoy any debate in which the far right makes common cause with Angela Davis. :)
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Kepler said:
I agree with this to a point. People are never entirely separate from their times. Lincoln wanted to deport all the blacks back to Africa and believed they could never be truly equal to whites. Born in 1959, that would make him a virulent racist. Born in 1809, that would make him born in 1809.
Click to expand...

Or we could just pick and choose from history what we want to push our own agenda. Either way.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

15 years ago, y'all were arguing about the definition of "is."

I suppose it's progress of a sort that we are now debating the definition of "widespread", eh?


The Bronx DA is investigating claims of voter fraud in a hotly contested Democratic primary for the Assembly....

[In an earlier investigation,] Assemblyman Nelson Castro was nailed for election fraud after nine voters were discovered registered at his one-bedroom apartment.

He later cut a deal with the feds and wore a wire to ensnare other officials engaged in corruption.
Click to expand...

or

State election officials are looking into thousands of cases where registered voters may have voted in two states or after their reported death. A report presented Wednesday by Elections Director Kim Strach to the Joint Legislative Elections Oversight Committee said 81 voters have a voter history later than the date of their death. The audit further identified 13,416 deceased voters on voter rolls in Oct. 13. The audit showed 155,692 registered North Carolina voters whose first and last names, dates of birth and last four digits of their Social Security number match those of voters registered in other states, but who most recently registered or voted elsewhere. A total of 35,750 voters with matching first and last names and date of birth were registered in North Carolina and another state, and voted in both states in the 2012 general election. Another 765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, date of birth and last four digits of their Social Security number were registered and voted in the 2012 general election in North Carolina and another state...A total of 28 states participated in the crosscheck, leaving data missing from 22 other states.
Click to expand...

or any one of the sixteen court cases listed here.


I am reminded of that classic scene from Annie Hall. Woody Allen's character and Diane Keaton's character are each talking to their own therapist on a split screen. Each therapist asks, "how often do you have sex?"
-- Diane Keaton's character: "Oh, all the time, around three times a week."
-- Woody Allen's character: "Oh, hardly ever, around three times a week."

So one person's "widespread" is another person's "trivial amount" and yet they are the same number of cases in each instance!

So, is it "more than ten states every election cycle?" "more than one city in each state in at least twenty states in each election cycle?"

It seems there is no doubt whatsoever that it occurs. Does it matter? I guess it depends on what is at stake, eh? It was pretty well documented in Franken's election in MN that in some districts more votes were counted than there were registered voters, and the total margin was less than 400 votes.
 
Last edited:
FreshFish said:
15 years ago, y'all were arguing about the definition of "is."

I suppose it's progress of a sort that we are now debating the definition of "widespread", eh?




or



or any one of the sixteen court cases listed here.


I am reminded of that classic scene from Annie Hall. Woody Allen's character and Diane Keaton's character are each talking to their own therapist on a split screen. Each therapist asks, "how often do you have sex?"
-- Diane Keaton's character: "Oh, all the time, around three times a week."
-- Woody Allen's character: "Oh, hardly ever, around three times a week."

So one person's "widespread" is another person's "trivial amount" and yet they are the same number of cases in each instance!

So, is it "more than ten states every election cycle?" "more than one city in each state in at least twenty states in each election cycle?"

It seems there is no doubt whatsoever that it occurs. Does it matter? I guess it depends on what is at stake, eh? It was pretty well documented in Franken's election in MN that in some districts more votes were counted than there were registered voters, and the total margin was less than 400 votes.
Click to expand...

In none of those cases you referenced would voter ID laws have changed anything. Failing to clear deceased people off the voter rolls also isn't fraud, just laziness.

And since it's such common knowledge that there was fraud in Minn. six years ago, you should have no problem finding a non right wing cite to support that, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top