A Progressive says, "If we can't help the disadvantaged, we have to shoot them."

[FreeBass]

"If we can't help the disadvantaged, we have to shoot them."

You read right. One of my coworkers actually said this on Friday.

We were having a discussion on healthcare. He was arguing that without socialized medicine, people born with disabilities wouldn't be help and if we don't help them, then we have to shoot them. Why? Because they would be of no use to society and would be a burden.

This guy is admittedly progressive (we should call them what they really are -- socialists). He supposedly is against communism and fascism.

And liberals think the Tea Party is full of hate....?

[MelissaWV]

The bullet, the time it takes to track them down, and the effort it takes to shoot them... you could have spent the same on helping them, instead.

There are quite a lot of people who are disabled in some way or another who are of great use, loved, and so on, and who are certainly better people than your co-worker.

All that said, you might have titled this little tidbit differently. You now have a post in General Politics that has the title "If we can't help the disadvantaged, we have to shoot them" which also means it's going to show up in that column on the front page. With few posts, I can't tell if that was your aim, or if you just genuinely did not pay attention to the correlation.

[angelatc]

That's the thing about socialism, isn't it? There's a reason that they always leave mass graves in their wake.

[t0rnado]

"If we can't help the disadvantaged, we have to shoot them."

You read right. One of my coworkers actually said this on Friday.

We were having a discussion on healthcare. He was arguing that without socialized medicine, people born with disabilities wouldn't be help and if we don't help them, then we have to shoot them. Why? Because they would be of no use to society and would be a burden.

This guy is admittedly progressive (we should call them what they really are -- socialists). He supposedly is against communism and fascism.

And liberals think the Tea Party is full of hate....?

They would burden 'society' more by requiring one group of people to be taxed to pay for their healthcare. Your coworker is a fucking retard.

[EndDaFed]

This looks to be a meme that is catching on. I know an acquaintance whom holds a similar position, but he is a conservative. He said the government should carry out euthanasia on the homeless. Then he said I'm bad because I didn't agree. He went on to say it was the humane thing to do if we are going to cut entitlements like food stamps, because it's less painful than starvation. What was even more scary is that in the process of explaining his position he used an analogy of putting stray animals to sleep.

[Philhelm]

This looks to be a meme that is catching on. I know an acquaintance whom holds a similar position, but he is a conservative. He said the government should carry out euthanasia on the homeless. Then he said I'm bad because I didn't agree. He went on to say it was the humane thing to do if we are going to cut entitlements like food stamps, because it's less painful than starvation. What was even more scary is that in the process of explaining his position he used an analogy of putting stray animals to sleep.

Tell him that nobody has starved in the U.S. since Jamestown...and that cannibalism incident in the frontier (even then, one of the people had eaten...heh). If anyone could cite an instance of mass starvation after colonization and before food stamps, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[lynnf]

This looks to be a meme that is catching on. I know an acquaintance whom holds a similar position, but he is a conservative. He said the government should carry out euthanasia on the homeless. Then he said I'm bad because I didn't agree. He went on to say it was the humane thing to do if we are going to cut entitlements like food stamps, because it's less painful than starvation. What was even more scary is that in the process of explaining his position he used an analogy of putting stray animals to sleep.


this reminds me of a prophecy in 2 Timothy:

1
1 But understand this: there will be terrifying times in the last days.
2
People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious,
3
callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good,
4
traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5
as they make a pretense of religion but deny its power.
------------------------


seems we have arrived!

lynn

[sailingaway]

Because only the government can help people? He's thinking stealing money from others to spend as he sees fit is HIM helping people?

[micahnelson]

We have more in common with classical liberals than we do neo conservatives. They oppose the neoliberals as much if not more than we do. Hearing voices on the right talk about euthanizing the financially insecure so they don't burden the economy, and a voice from the left advocating the same against those who would be a drag on the healthcare system, it shows where the general theme of both ideologies is heading. The masters (Government with the left, Corporations on the right) compose the master race, all human activity is graded against a scale of being more or less helpful in accomplishing the goal, utopia for the left and high profits for the left. Those who don't conform are useless and can be discarded- for an individual is nothing more than his ability to contribute to the collective.

Political Leadership in this country feels this way, the only disagreement is on what the final form of society should look like. But on matters that restrict individual liberties, they are able to work together easily. But hey, we all like bipartisanship right?

[Brian4Liberty]

This looks to be a meme that is catching on. I know an acquaintance whom holds a similar position, but he is a conservative. He said the government should carry out euthanasia on the homeless. Then he said I'm bad because I didn't agree. He went on to say it was the humane thing to do if we are going to cut entitlements like food stamps, because it's less painful than starvation. What was even more scary is that in the process of explaining his position he used an analogy of putting stray animals to sleep.

Yep, no one is starving in the cities. Charity and government aid is easy to come by.

"Homeless" is such a vague term, and it has probably been used by activists and the media for just that reason. There needs to be a huge distinction between relatively normal people who are down on their luck, and the sick people out on the streets (mentally ill or destroyed by drugs). The leftists love to mingle the two completely different situations together. There are completely different solutions to those completely different situations.

[jmdrake]

I'm not surprised. A "progressive" once told me that there needed to be more abortions so that there wouldn't be so many people in prison. Oh, and she was an out of wedlock mother herself. :rolleyes:


"If we can't help the disadvantaged, we have to shoot them."

You read right. One of my coworkers actually said this on Friday.

We were having a discussion on healthcare. He was arguing that without socialized medicine, people born with disabilities wouldn't be help and if we don't help them, then we have to shoot them. Why? Because they would be of no use to society and would be a burden.

This guy is admittedly progressive (we should call them what they really are -- socialists). He supposedly is against communism and fascism.

And liberals think the Tea Party is full of hate....?

[erowe1]

I guess that's pretty much the same logic as saying that you are obligated to be pro-abortion unless you personally adopt some unwanted children, which is a pretty commonly used line.

[Guitarzan]

Wow...life is more than just economics and politics.

[jmdrake]

This looks to be a meme that is catching on. I know an acquaintance whom holds a similar position, but he is a conservative. He said the government should carry out euthanasia on the homeless. Then he said I'm bad because I didn't agree. He went on to say it was the humane thing to do if we are going to cut entitlements like food stamps, because it's less painful than starvation. What was even more scary is that in the process of explaining his position he used an analogy of putting stray animals to sleep.

Good grief! God would serve this idiot right by allowing him to become homeless.

[tangent4ronpaul]

They would burden 'society' more by requiring one group of people to be taxed to pay for their healthcare. Your coworker is a fucking retard.

Q.E.D.

Your co-worker is "disadvantaged". SHOOT HIM!

[muzzled dogg]

The tea party is full of hate, and so is your coworker

[MelissaWV]

Thank you for fixing the thread title :)

[Freedom 4 all]

Or we could, you know, NOT shoot them. Why the hell do we have to do anything? Why is government inaction such a crazy idea to these people?

[DamianTV]

If the progressives think it is a good idea to euthanize the homeless, then I think it is a good idea to euthanize the progressive that says that.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Yep, no one is starving in the cities. Charity and government aid is easy to come by.

"Homeless" is such a vague term, and it has probably been used by activists and the media for just that reason. There needs to be a huge distinction between relatively normal people who are down on their luck, and the sick people out on the streets (mentally ill or destroyed by drugs). The leftists love to mingle the two completely different situations together. There are completely different solutions to those completely different situations.

You are forgetting those that are homeless by choice, because they want to be free and not deal with societies BS.

As to gvmt and charity - remember that soup kitchen in Tx that got shut down because of gvmt regs? Well, there was an interesting show on Sundance recently called "The Tunnel Dwellers of New York". It was quite eye opening on these issues. There used to be thousands, if not tens of thousands of homeless ppl living in the 18 levels of tunnels under NYC, but after 9/11 the ghoul sent cops down there to drive everyone out - because - well, you know... they might be terrorists. Were there beds in homeless shelters for them on the surface? - no.

These guys eat REALLY WELL!, and the reason is a huge surprise! GOVERNMENT REGULATION! Seems all the grocery stores, etc have discard regulations on steroids and IT's ILLEGAL to give any of that food to soup kitchens! They literally pile up a mass of fresh food the size of a small car on the sidewalk on a dialy basis and it's like a buffet for the homeless to come do their shopping from.

Meanwhile, the soup kitchens are struggling to survive because of GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS!

http://fumesmag.com/blog/?p=25

Find when it or any other movie or TV show will be on in your area:
http://www.locatetv.com/tv/tunnel-dwellers-of-new-york/5992963

-t

[Cdn_for_liberty]

Are these the same progressives who suggest population control but at the same time, demand the government to provide more daycare services so couples would be induced to create more babies?

[emazur]

I'm NOT suggesting this but if those who burden society should be shot, shouldn't that include the progressives? Their welfare state encourages dependency on government, but worse - Americans will become slaves to the state in a few decades as progressive programs like Social Security, Medicare, and the interest on debt from everything else they've borrowed for will eat up the entire federal budget.

To have enough money to cover the promised Social Security and Medicare benefits for the boomers, we could slash nearly everything else in the budget - college loans, national parks, the Centers for Disease Control, even homeland security and defense. Some experts, including the Government Accountability Office, have calculated that by 2040 or so, if we do nothing, nearly every tax dollar collected will be needed to pay for Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the national debt
-"Where Does the Money Go" p107

[xd9fan]

I'm all for the progressives showing their hand.......please lift the curtain.......let it begin

[Brian4Liberty]

You are forgetting those that are homeless by choice, because they want to be free and not deal with societies BS.

Like I said, mentally ill. Anyone who chooses to live like a rat has issues. As long as they aren't panhandling or defecating on the sidewalk, more power to 'em.



As to gvmt and charity - remember that soup kitchen in Tx that got shut down because of gvmt regs? Well, there was an interesting show on Sundance recently called "The Tunnel Dwellers of New York". It was quite eye opening on these issues. There used to be thousands, if not tens of thousands of homeless ppl living in the 18 levels of tunnels under NYC, but after 9/11 the ghoul sent cops down there to drive everyone out - because - well, you know... they might be terrorists. Were there beds in homeless shelters for them on the surface? - no.

These guys eat REALLY WELL!, and the reason is a huge surprise! GOVERNMENT REGULATION! Seems all the grocery stores, etc have discard regulations on steroids and IT's ILLEGAL to give any of that food to soup kitchens! They literally pile up a mass of fresh food the size of a small car on the sidewalk on a dialy basis and it's like a buffet for the homeless to come do their shopping from.

Meanwhile, the soup kitchens are struggling to survive because of GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS!


Yeah, it's a terrible shame to waste good food. People who actually want to get food have no problems getting it though.

[axiomata]

Bleeding heart liberals believe society owes something to the unfortunate, but their progressive compatriots believe that even the unfortunate owe something to society, hence the aforementioned viewpoint. Both are collectivists, but at least liberals aren't evil collectivists.

[AGRP]

"Progressives" have an odd obsession with death.

[Anti Federalist]

"It could never happen here! Shaddup ya conspiracy whacko!!!"

The framework within government and law, "the enabling acts", the surveillance grid, the precedent is already in place.

The attitude of Boobus is in place, he'll happily turn in his fellow man, happily see him exterminated by the state, to ensure his continued grasp of shiny things and comfort.

We're two fucking degrees of separation from this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Mpd1ozuoa64/TAqVFEdbvDI/AAAAAAAACMI/lhAd3kI_Vb4/s1600/Nazi+Death+Camp.jpg

Dismiss as reductio ad Hitlerum at your own peril.

[ClayTrainor]

"If we can't help the disadvantaged, we have to shoot them."

You read right. One of my coworkers actually said this on Friday.

We were having a discussion on healthcare. He was arguing that without socialized medicine, people born with disabilities wouldn't be help and if we don't help them, then we have to shoot them. Why? Because they would be of no use to society and would be a burden.

This guy is admittedly progressive (we should call them what they really are -- socialists). He supposedly is against communism and fascism.

And liberals think the Tea Party is full of hate....?



Looks like you successfully exposed the gun in the room, lmao...

Make sure you keep people like that away from you and your family.

[Bern]

"If we can't help the disadvantaged, we have to shoot them."

... Why? Because they would be of no use to society and would be a burden.

Here's his future utopia:

http://www.boingboing.net/logan.jpg

[Humanae Libertas]

Ever notices how these Liberal elitist are usually rich spoiled brats?

[noxagol]

Yes, clearly we either have to help the helpless, or snuff them out. We can't, you know, do nothing and let nature takes its course, for better or worse. Nature including no one helping person and them dying, or receiving help and living, or making it on their own or whatever. No, it is either the government helps them, because you know there just are no good people in this world, or the government shoots them because they are a 'drag' on society.

I don't get it, I just don't get it.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, clearly we either have to help the helpless, or snuff them out. We can't, you know, do nothing and let nature takes its course, for better or worse. Nature including no one helping person and them dying, or receiving help and living, or making it on their own or whatever. No, it is either the government helps them, because you know there just are no good people in this world, or the government shoots them because they are a 'drag' on society.

I don't get it, I just don't get it.

It's for their own good, don't you know?

[micahnelson]

People are unwilling to allow bad things to happen to the defenseless- but do not trust in their own ability to provide for them. I am a big advocate for charity- but I don't like the idea of permanent charity- treating the poor as people who have a life sentence. Poverty is like a disease, a curable disease. A struggling economy doesn't help matters- but a person can become employed and get by in this world with a little help from his neighbors. This is what society is all about. The thing that makes private charity better is the thing that makes most private endeavors better, efficiency. I trust do-gooders willing to work hard over social workers looking to get paid any day.

I guess some people feel that if the government can't help the needy, no one can or should be allowed to try. But of course- we are just kind of making sweeping assumptions based on the viewpoint of one guys coworker.

[Freedom 4 all]

Yes, clearly we either have to help the helpless, or snuff them out. We can't, you know, do nothing and let nature takes its course, for better or worse. Nature including no one helping person and them dying, or receiving help and living, or making it on their own or whatever. No, it is either the government helps them, because you know there just are no good people in this world, or the government shoots them because they are a 'drag' on society.

I don't get it, I just don't get it.

When I was a kid, my parents had to explain the concept of The Humane Society to me like twenty times before I got it through my head. I thought it was some kind of joke or something. These are people who take stray animals off the street in an attempt to help them find homes, but the fact of the matter is most of the time they can't find homes for them, SO THEY STRAIGHT UP KILL THEM INSTEAD. And these people claim to love animals, and most are vegetarian. That was so fucked up to me back then, that I could barely understand the concept. Now socialists want to do the same thing, but with people. Strange world we live in.

[moostraks]

When I was a kid, my parents had to explain the concept of The Humane Society to me like twenty times before I got it through my head. I thought it was some kind of joke or something. These are people who take stray animals off the street in an attempt to help them find homes, but the fact of the matter is most of the time they can't find homes for them, SO THEY STRAIGHT UP KILL THEM INSTEAD. And these people claim to love animals, and most are vegetarian. That was so fucked up to me back then, that I could barely understand the concept. Now socialists want to do the same thing, but with people. Strange world we live in.

I absolutely agree with the comparison to the Humane Society. It makes no sense and yet they feel some sort of moral high ground in their destruction of potential possibilities. It absolutely appalls me.

[Brian4Liberty]

When I was a kid, my parents had to explain the concept of The Humane Society to me like twenty times before I got it through my head. I thought it was some kind of joke or something. These are people who take stray animals off the street in an attempt to help them find homes, but the fact of the matter is most of the time they can't find homes for them, SO THEY STRAIGHT UP KILL THEM INSTEAD. And these people claim to love animals, and most are vegetarian. That was so fucked up to me back then, that I could barely understand the concept. Now socialists want to do the same thing, but with people. Strange world we live in.

Fix and release. :eek: ;)

[Pericles]

Odd that those who tend to favor no guns in private hands seem so keen on having people shot .......

[Freedom 4 all]

Fix and release. :eek: ;)

Oh yeah and there's that too. Really, a ton of horrible shit is done to animals under the guise of "controlling the pet population." The supposedly humane society makes Michael Vick seem positively tame by comparison. That's why I get nervous every time those elitist dickheads at the UN talk about "population control."

[Anti Federalist]

Odd that those who tend to favor no guns in private hands seem so keen on having people shot .......

http://a869.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/8/l_bc827e4ddd6c1bf63d79f1bae9f7dcd4.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

Coincidence theorists like to mock and scoff at us conpsiracy minded "kooks" and this is one the issues that scoffers take umbrage at.

"That's ridiculous, there's no plan for "them" to wipe out populations, shaddup ya conspiracy whacko!"

Yeah, OK.

This meme is being pushed and promoted and picked up on.

Make no mistake, world government is not the "end".

World government is a means to an end.

The true end is the global "final solution".

[Freedom 4 all]

Coincidence theorists like to mock and scoff at us conpsiracy minded "kooks" and this is one the issues that scoffers take umbrage at.

"That's ridiculous, there's no plan for "them" to wipe out populations, shaddup ya conspiracy whacko!"

Yeah, OK.

This meme is being pushed and promoted and picked up on.

Make no mistake, world government is not the "end".

World government is a means to an end.

The true end is the global "final solution".

The real joke is that it's not like they are even secretive about it. It's not like there are PMK sessions devoted to disproving the fact that there are a ton of eugenics fans in the globalist crowd. The UN and other environmentalist organizations have had "population control" on the stated agenda for some time now. What do the legions of grinning morons think it means? If it's NOT a codeword for genocide, then how the hell are they going to control the population?