Posted on 08/09/2009 8:10:48 PM PDT by Gordon Greene
Just in case anyone missed it (and I think most did), there is little difference between the brother of Rahm Emanuel (Ezekial) and none other than Charles Robert Darwin.
I trust at this point most of you have seen the ravings of one of the lunatic healthcare advisors to Obama, the high potentate of all that is to be united. Ezekial Emanuel’s words could just as well have been spoken in the Third Reich and are as follows:
"When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated... The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value."
Justification for killing children under the guise of abortion started with something as humanistic as “only in cases of rape and incest” and landed squarely in the passenger seat of “a woman’s right to choose”. As a society we have been flirting with euthanasia for some odd years now. Well, as incrementalism would have it, it is now beating down our doors and trying to take control of our healthcare system.
Another of Obama’s close compatriots, Cass Sunstein had this to say about his relationship with Obama:
“Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama. For more than a decade, Obama was my colleague at the University of Chicago Law School. He is also a friend. But since his election to the Senate, he does not exactly call every day.”
This is a quote from Mr. Sunstein regarding the topic of healthcare:
"I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people."
As a general rule, those in politics and academia do not speak in a vacuum. It is only through years of programming that these people, including Obama develop a callousness that is unmatched in normal society. The teachings of public education and education in our major universities have centered on the idea that Darwin’s theories are correct even against human and scientific evidence to the contrary. If you want to know where these radical thinkers derived their ideas, you need look no further than the writings of one Charles Robert Darwin.
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one up to the last moment. ..”
“Vaccination has preserved thousands who from a weak constitution would formerly have suc-cumbed to smallpox. Thus, the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man....”
“ Excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
“[Yet,] the aid which we feel impelled to give to the help¬less is mainly an incidental result of the [otherwise good] instinct of sympathy...”
“We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind...”
Evolution… the survival of the fittest… we wonder why our children emerge from the higher institutions of learning and forsake our God, our morals and our teachings. They do so because the theory that is so pervasive in those institutions belittles our existence and lowers our relevance to that of a simple animal. Is humaneness in a society a trait to be honored? Yes. Are animals meant to be abused, neglected or treated dishonorably? No!
It’s perspective, man!!!
If there is no God and we are truly left to our own moral devices, then we are no more than animals. Our our worth is no greater than the sum of all our parts and any Evolutionist who claims the strength of their morality is being dishonest with themselves and dishonoring the very name of their evolutionary savior, Charles Darwin! Don’t tell me we are no greater than the animals that were placed on this earth to serve mankind and then brag to me that the strength of your convictions is greater than Christianity.
If you love The Origin of the Species, embrace it! Call Australian Aborigines, Blacks and Indians what your father called them… SAVAGES! Rave about the inferior female mind:
“. . . a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that . . . the average of mental power in man must be above that of women (Darwin, 1896:564).”
Be true to your roots as Evolutionists, supporting those like Emanuel and Sunstein who sound more like Darwin and Hitler than Jefferson or Reagan. You keep your faith and vote for healthcare reform: I’ll keep mine and fight Darwinism, Communism, Humanism, Socialism, Marxism and everything they stand for!
Or perhaps you could look into what it is Charles Darwin actually believed. Take note that your beliefs on the origin of the species are more in line with the Communist and Nazi than with the Christian. Don’t just listen to your mealy-mouthed professors who watered down the conclusions of a man possessed of the opinion that you came into this world from ancestors swinging from the trees. READ WHAT DARWIN ACTUALLY SAID. Then use the brain God put in your thick skulls to draw your own conclusions.
P.S. If you actually read Darwin’s writings and believe what the man said then, why do you consider yourself conservative? No, I really want an answer.
Question: Who said this?
"Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife . . .where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed, one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings . . . let the strongest live and the weakest die."
Answer: Adolph Hitler (Now tell me how that differs from Darwin’s survival of the fittest mentality?)
That’s funny... it annoys me when someone is funny with so few words when it takes me so many to be occasionally slightly amusing (by accident..
if the reader is stoned).
Because you’ve demonstrated interest in issues involving Darwin’s ideas. Why did you respond so keenly? Why didn’t you just tell me to bug off, or ignore the ping? If I’ve annoyed you with an unwanted intrusion, I apologize. I’ll try to avoid a repeat.
Okay. Why did you ping me to this article?
“Okay. Why did you ping me to this article?”
Brrr...
That was cold... I always did consider you one of the smart ones, though.
I understand we have a difference of opinion, but I got that you don’t like Darwin a long time ago.
I know... I wasn’t the one that summoned the spirit of pooh.
My comment was only meant to amuse, not offend. Evolutionists are allowed to joke with Creationists now and again are they not? I’m not sure of your rules.
“Getting into the SBR is not the problem. How in the heck do I get out of here?”Just click here and follow the instructions ;-)
Humor is not only allowed, it’s going to be necessary if we’re going to maintain the cohesion necessary to stand against the common enemy.
Thank you for the dose of common sense I needed this morning... Way too much at stake to lose sight of the goal.
GG
The Founders had their disagreements over religions philosophy and doctrines too. They put those disagreements aside when it came time to get down to the business of government. I try to do the same.
Way to harangue a person.
If you're so bent out of shape about being pinged to this thread and having your time wasted, why are you still here harassing someone about it?
If you don't like it, leave already.
What’s it to you?
On the contrary, however, you’ve not answered my questions on this subject: If you found my ping so objectionable, why did you answer, or in answering simply tell me to bug off? Why did you reply, extensively and repeatedly, before discovering how objectionable you initially found my ping to be?
I thought my initial repy would have conveyed my opinion. You apparently took that as a challenge, and decided you needed to have the last word.
An accusation of Nazism couched in terms giving you plausible deniability and allowing you to escape responsibility should you be challenged. Speaking of which:
”You apparently took that as a challenge, and decided you needed to have the last word.”
As I recall ( see #63) I thanked you for your support. But, you couldn’t let that stand, so (tally-ho!) we were off and running. You’ve made it obvious your tardy complaint of an unsolicited ping is nothing more to you than another debating tactic.
Apology withdrawn.
Oh, gee!
You ping me to an article comparing Darwin to Hitler and tell me I'm making "accusatations of Nazism". Who could have seen that coming?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.