Pass legislation to mandate drug testing for welfare recipients

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

Well, I disagree. Do we discriminate against blind people because they cannot drive a car or fly a plane? Discrimination has to be based on a trait that is unimportant to what is the issue, for example like skin color and getting a job. But biology is not equal, and our laws concerning reproduction and such may be gender-biased in some ways, because reproduction systems are different.

As I already pointed out, sterilizing impoverished men but not women would be ineffective anyway, so the bias is not even practical.

Besides that, your apples and oranges comparison there doesn't fly either. Maybe a blind person can't drive, but that doesn't mean it is against the law for them to own a car. And there are plenty of people who get state funding for special vehicles and equipment to drive while handicapped. Are you going to outlaw that too?

reply to post by CobraCommander

As I already pointed out, sterilizing impoverished men but not women would be ineffective anyway, so the bias is not even practical.

Maybe, the system of enforcement would have take these things into account, but lets keep it theoretical for now.

Maybe a blind person can't drive, but that doesn't mean it is against the law for them to own a car.

Nor would it be against the law to have sex, just actual reproduction should be regulated.

And there are plenty of people who get state funding for special vehicles and equipment to drive while handicapped. Are you going to outlaw that too?

They do, but after they get driving license and prove that they are able to operate the vehicle safely with their handicap and equipment. If they tried to drive without licence or appropiate equipment, there would be legal consequences.

Blind people can own cars, but they will be prohibited from driving them. It makes sense. Just like it makes sense to sterilize people on welfare. If they cannot make ends meet on their own terms, they should be forcefully sterilized.... Otherwise, they should not be reaping the hard earned tax dollars of their fellow Americans who take responsiblity for themselves and refuse to breed recklessly.
The system, as it works now...rewards the mindless breeders and penalizes our tax payers. The system is not designed to improve the current state of our welfare receipients, they are encouraged to remain that way. So, if it ever came to voting...you can bet I and many others would be in favor of forced sterilization for all welfare recipients. It's the right thing to do.

S&F from me, I agree 100%, if youre on illegal or nonprescribed drugs, youre off, thats it, ZERO tolerance...if youre so worried about now your child cant eat because you dont get that check, you should have thought about it before taking that hit off the crack pipe

I would bet my Business that anyone who agrees with the OP is of lesser intelligence, maybe 125 IQ but no higher.

It would be nice for there to be a place where individuals could take an unbiased IQ test to either deny or confirm this theory.

Oh yeah, I would gladly go first as I know exactly where I stand and how I consistently test.

Yes, you could say that I am in favor of technocratic rule over our current system of corporate pseudo intellectual facism.

No utopia but at least beings with small minds would not have the control...

Currently, we have people completely indoctrinated by the system being placed on pedestals for the ability to NOT THINK and to simply FOLLOW ORDERS...

Pseudo Intellectuals and the Pseudo Intellectuals who control them...

People must not like my posts because they cut so close to the quick...?

My position is strong indeed as I know that marines are not the sharpest tools in the shed yet few have the gall to stand up and say it, like I just did

Yet these people use it as some sort of PASS as if to say that since they were in the military, the marines no less, that they are somehow special or better then the average person.

Like a badge and you wear it so well, Honey!

Oh don't say it as I am not the person who laid all that information OUT THERE, as if it matters...

She wants to seem elite yet she knows that she is also disadvantaged by being black and female so its a "look at me!" situation, puffing out chest all proud of her "accomplishments"...

In my analysis it matters, it matters alot yet most definately not in the way you wish to think that it matters.
It is a minus not a plus...

Anyone else who took the time to understand this comment.... "feelin' me?"

I still recall the first time I met an African american female republican and even though some 20 years have passed and I have since lost my politik... I still laugh at the thought

Lastly, its ALL GOOD...
As when you POWERMINDS crawl out of your hiding places like cockroaches you reveal yourselves to us, you show us what you are thinking inside that rotten mind and otherwise help us to better know our enemy.



TURN IT UP!!!

"Huh!
Yeah, we're comin' back then with another bombtrack
Think ya know what it's all about
Huh!
Hey yo, so check this out
Yeah!
Know your enemy!

Come on!

Born with insight and a raised fist
A witness to the slit wrist, as we're
movin' into '92
Still in a room without a view
Ya got to know
Ya got to know
That when I say go, go, go
Amp up and amplify
Defy
I'm a brother with a furious mind
Action must be taken
We don't need the key
We'll break in

Something must be done
About vengeance, a badge and a gun
so rip the mic, rip the stage, rip the system
I was born to rage against 'em

Fist in ya face, in the place
And I'll drop the style clearly

Know your enemy
Know your enemy!
Yeah!

Hey yo, and get with this...uggh!
Word is born
Fight the war, # the norm
Now I got no patience
So sick of complacence
With the D the E the F the I the A the N the C the E
Mind of a revolutionary
So clear the lane
The finger to the land of the chains
What?
The land of the free?
Whoever told you that is your enemy

Now something must be done
About vengeance, a badge and a gun
So rip the mike, rip the stage, rip the system
I was born to rage against 'em

Now action must be taken
We don't need the key
We'll break in

I've got no patience now
So sick of complacence now
I've got no patience now
So sick of complacence now
Sick of sick of sick of sick of you
Time has come to pay...
Know your enemy!

Come on!
Yes I know my enemies
They're the teachers who taught me to fight me
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are American dreams (8 times)
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams
All of which are American dreams"

Yeah... Know your enemy!

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Sterilization is NEGATIVE Eugenics.

Not necessarily. Eugenics is the science aimed to improve the genetic composition of a population. Sterilization can be practiced as a form of population control, without any genetic aims. Then it is not eugenics.

edit on 23/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

There is two sides to Eugenics............

Negative eugenics is aimed at lowering fertility among the genetically disadvantaged. This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.Both positive and negative eugenics can be coercive.

Hence NEGATIVE. Like I said,why stop at those on welfare? Get rid of the old people,they are a burden also. Disabled people are a burden,and a majority of them cant function WITHOUT help. When does it stop ?


examples:


Czechoslovakia, Czech Republic

Czechoslovakia carried out a policy of sterilization of some Roma women, starting in 1973. In various cases the sterilization was agreed upon, often in exchange for social welfare benefits or was given by the lack of education. The dissidents of the Charter 77 denounced it in 1977-78 as a "genocide", but the practice continued through the Velvet Revolution of 1989. A 2005 report by the Czech government's independent ombudsman, Otakar Motejl, identified dozens of cases of coercive sterilization between 1979 and 2001, and called for criminal investigations and possible prosecution against several health care workers and administrators.


China
Coercive sterilization to enforce the one child policy has occurred in China. This is not permitted by the law, and some local officials have been jailed for their actions.[16] In 2010, Amnesty International accused authorities in Puning of compelling people to be sterilized by imprisoning their elderly relatives.

Sweden
The eugenistic legislation was enacted in 1934 and was formally abolished in 1976. According to the 2000 governmental report, 21,000 were estimated to have been forcibly sterilized, 6,000 were coerced into a 'voluntary' sterilization while the nature of a further 4,000 cases could not be determined. The Swedish state subsequently paid out damages to many of the victims.

From 1950, the number of eugenic sterilisations under the 1935 legal provisions gradually decreased and between 1960 and 1970 voluntary sterilisations based on the wishes and in the interest of the persons concerned prevailed. As in Canada and the US, racial politics also became involved, as there was a strong belief in the connection between race and genetic integrity among leading scientists and those carrying out the sterilizations. The Swedish Racial Hygiene Society had been founded in Stockholm in 1909, and the 1934 works by Alva and Gunnar Myrdal was very significant in promoting the eugenic tendencies in practical politics.The authors theorized that the best solution for the Swedish welfare state ("folkhem") was to prevent at the outset the hereditary transfer of undesirable characteristics that caused the individual affected to become sooner or later a burden on society. The authors therefore proposed a "corrective social reform” under which sterilisation was to prevent "unviable individuals” from spreading their undesirable traits. In the later decades it was primarily the mentally ill who were forcibly sterilized.

Compulsory sterilization


I see more to lose in this. Those who would be in charge would screw it up,like EVERY other bureaucratic nightmare,ie;WELFARE.

reply to post by sonnny1


Again, negative eugenics still aims to improve genetic composition of a population. Compulsory sterilization without genetic aims is not eugenics, by definition.

Like I said,why stop at those on welfare? Get rid of the old people,they are a burden also. Disabled people are a burden,and a majority of them cant function WITHOUT help. When does it stop ?

Nobody is getting rid of anybody just by regulating reproduction.

I see more to lose in this. Those who would be in charge would screw it up,like EVERY other bureaucratic nightmare,ie;WELFARE.

That may be true, it is a valid concern. But current reproduction anarchy is screwed up, too.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Again, negative eugenics still aims to improve genetic composition of a population. Compulsory sterilization without genetic aims is not eugenics, by definition.

Like I said,why stop at those on welfare? Get rid of the old people,they are a burden also. Disabled people are a burden,and a majority of them cant function WITHOUT help. When does it stop ?

Nobody is getting rid of anybody just by regulating reproduction.

I see more to lose in this. Those who would be in charge would screw it up,like EVERY other bureaucratic nightmare,ie;WELFARE.

That may be true, it is a valid concern. But current reproduction anarchy is screwed up, too.

Hmmmm,you did see the link,and ALL the problems it causes,right? And you say nobody is getting rid of anyone. Can you vouch for humanity,that this wouldn't happen? That the law couldn't be twisted for a nefarious AGENDA?We both know you cant Maslo. We need REFORM,not sterilization.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

As I already pointed out, sterilizing impoverished men but not women would be ineffective anyway, so the bias is not even practical.

Maybe, the system of enforcement would have take these things into account, but lets keep it theoretical for now.

Maybe a blind person can't drive, but that doesn't mean it is against the law for them to own a car.

Nor would it be against the law to have sex, just actual reproduction should be regulated.

And there are plenty of people who get state funding for special vehicles and equipment to drive while handicapped. Are you going to outlaw that too?

They do, but after they get driving license and prove that they are able to operate the vehicle safely with their handicap and equipment. If they tried to drive without licence or appropiate equipment, there would be legal consequences.

What system of enforcement do you propose, theoretically?

Safety is not the issue here. There is no danger posed to anyone by poor people having children. Now you can talk about the likelihood of bad parenting, the influence of street ignorance, etc., but that is what CPD, education, and the police are there for. There is no direct or immediate danger to anyone if a child is born into poverty. It is a handicap, for certain, but so is driving with one arm, and people do it every day.

Originally posted by laiguana
Blind people can own cars, but they will be prohibited from driving them. It makes sense. Just like it makes sense to sterilize people on welfare. If they cannot make ends meet on their own terms, they should be forcefully sterilized.... Otherwise, they should not be reaping the hard earned tax dollars of their fellow Americans who take responsiblity for themselves and refuse to breed recklessly.
The system, as it works now...rewards the mindless breeders and penalizes our tax payers. The system is not designed to improve the current state of our welfare receipients, they are encouraged to remain that way. So, if it ever came to voting...you can bet I and many others would be in favor of forced sterilization for all welfare recipients. It's the right thing to do.

I'm on foodstamps, I have no children. You're telling me that I should still have to be sterilized even though I have exercised sound judgement in NOT having children that I cannot afford? That I should be punished and never allowed to have children because I got foodstamps for a few months?

Originally posted by HomerinNC
S&F from me, I agree 100%, if youre on illegal or nonprescribed drugs, youre off, thats it, ZERO tolerance...if youre so worried about now your child cant eat because you dont get that check, you should have thought about it before taking that hit off the crack pipe

Maybe they aren't worried if their child will eat. So you're solution is to starve children to death because their parent is an idiot? Nice.

Aside from that, the only thing these drug tests are going to catch are pot-heads. No other drugs will show up in the system after a day or so. Plenty of time to clean up before heading down to pick up the check.

reply to post by sonnny1


Sterilization is Eugenics, no way around it. Once you begin sterilizing ANY group of people arbitrarily, you have begun tampering with the natural genetic evolution of the human species. Any forced sterilization is tantamount to genocide. Hitler's first targets for elimination were not the Jews. It was the people who were unable to work, people who were mentally and physically handicapped, the poor.

if they tested for drugs, there would be no one on welfare..thats why they dont

reply to post by Maslo


Your entire line of reasoning puts the cart in front of the horse. The problem is not that people on welfare are reproducing. The problem is that there are people on welfare in the first place. And that would not be so without usury. Welfare is not the cause of our economic woes, it is the consequence.

Originally posted by illuminatiDpress
if they tested for drugs, there would be no one on welfare..thats why they dont

Look at this folks, More ignorance about poverty.

FYI: only 3% of people on welfare use hard drugs.

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Sterilization is Eugenics, no way around it. Once you begin sterilizing ANY group of people arbitrarily, you have begun tampering with the natural genetic evolution of the human species. Any forced sterilization is tantamount to genocide. Hitler's first targets for elimination were not the Jews. It was the people who were unable to work, people who were mentally and physically handicapped, the poor.

edit on 24-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)

Absolutely. If you followed some of the links I provided,they HAVE tried sterilization,with disastrous results. I think REFORM is the better option,but like I stated before,there are alot of other programs that need REFORM,before welfare. Imagine having to pay for botched sterilizations,or false/positive test results for drugs,based on some social program that has too many grey areas. Imagine what the cost would be to the taxpayer? Too slippery.

Star for you.

reply to post by ButterCookie


Oh my goodness, the ignorance on this issue.

I suggest you look at the costs of implementing and enforcing such a program.

You will find that it's just not worth it.

reply to post by CobraCommander


I don't know why ATS allows such ignorant people to sign up here?

I hope they enjoy that # pie that they're being fed by their manipulators.

reply to post by laiguana


Go back and re-read that drivel you just posted.

Doesn't it sound fascist to you?

Don't you realize that millions died at the hands of the Nazis because people like you advocated for such things?

reply to post by The Sword


Well, I am all for open discussion, but it truly saddens me that there are such ignorant people coming to a forum where alternative thinking and heightened awareness is supposed to be the premise.