Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sarah Palin's Charisma
The American Thinker ^ | December 03, 2010 | James Lewis

Posted on 12/03/2010 1:38:02 AM PST by Scanian

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-67 last
To: Scanian

BTTT


51 posted on 12/03/2010 7:39:47 AM PST by hattend (The meaning of the 2010 election was rebuke, reject, and repeal. - Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
When I contemplate a situation in which one man owns another man, owns the fruits of that man's labor, and owns that man's descendants in perpetuity, I'm inclined to sympathize with the slave more than with the master.

Guess I'm just a soft headed liberal in that respect....

52 posted on 12/03/2010 7:41:21 AM PST by Notary Sojac (I've been ionized, but I'm okay now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"I'd like to see some documentation on this one. My understanding is that most of the eugenics laws were bipartisan, promoted by "progressives" of both parties, before "progressivism" became entirely or even mostly associated with the Democratic Party."

The same way various things are today labeled, "bipartisan" when three RINOs in the House vote with the democrat majority? States with eugenics laws all had state legislatures with large democrat majorities. If you want to say that there were "progressive Republicans" who went along you're probably right but that doesn't make it a true "bipartisan" effort by any means.

There were, indeed, some prominent Republicans who supported such initiatives, some even wanting them enacted on a national level. Most of those advocating such laws were very wealthy and very much opposed to allowing continued immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe in spite of the fact that they preferred to employ them rather than non-immgrants in their mines and factories. That some the same wealthy individuals supported a good many things the Republican party would never adopt as a part of their platform pretty well shows what sort of "Republicans" those folks were just like you now find nominal Republicans who are, in fact, nothing of the sort.

Regards

53 posted on 12/03/2010 8:13:44 AM PST by Rashputin (Barry is totally insane and being kept medicated and on golf courses to hide the fact)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin
States with eugenics laws all had state legislatures with large democrat majorities.

Sorry, that's a statement, not evidence.

30 states passed laws requiring compulsory sterilization of "unfit" people, which seems a reasonable surrogate for "eugenics."

I looked up several states. SC, obviously controlled by Democrats, had no such law.

1/3 of all the sterilization were performed in CA, which passed its law in 1909. I've been unable to come up with information on which party controlled the legislature that year.

It ain't a big deal, but I don't believe your "eugenics is evil and only Democrats wanted it" meme is accurate.

Eugenics was not a highly controversial idea in the early years of last century. It was more kind of a generalized ideal that most took for granted.

Eugenics did not become particularly controversial till the Nazis took it to its logical extreme.

Much of the theory behind eugenics is actually difficult to refute. If there is any genetic component to intelligence, which the scientific evidence indicates there is, at somewhere between 50% and 75%, then if lower-intelligence people reproduce at a higher rate, the average intelligence of the group will decline over time. And in our society lower intelligence individuals reproduce at a MUCH higher rate than the more intelligent.

54 posted on 12/03/2010 9:36:55 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Clyde5445
Sarah Palin is a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon in politics. She is a charismatic constitutionalist. It's the combination that's so vital. Reagan had it. It scares the Democrats to death.

And the establishment as well.

55 posted on 12/03/2010 9:45:20 AM PST by onyx (If you truly support Sarah Palin and want on her busy ping list, let me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
'I looked up several states. SC, obviously controlled by Democrats, had no such law."

http://www.mnddc.org/news/inclusion-daily/2003/01/010803sceugenics.htm

Apparently the Governor of SC, myself, and you, all use differing sources.

56 posted on 12/03/2010 9:48:29 AM PST by Rashputin (Barry is totally insane and being kept medicated and on golf courses to hide the fact)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: hattend
Here is something interesting, and it corresponds with what I have been thinking about Sarah. Someone made the comment on the AT article. They said to look up the word "palingenesis", so someone did:

"Well perhaps there is a finger of fate pointing, or if you prefer God representing. To have a person on the political stage at this moment in the history of the USA who just happens to be named Palin. An accidental choice but there she is. And thanks to D's knowledge an eerie coincidence. But not to dismiss D's call for independent action to look it up, I can't resist. This from the Concise English Dictionary: a new birth; reincarnation, a second creation, regeneration, unmodified inheritance of ancestral character, the new formation of a rock by re-fusion. McCain wrought more than he realised. Now clarion call to entrenched self serving "Republicans" to top that word and the clear implications."

Spread this one around folks. I have thought for some time that she is God-ordained because of the way she continues to pull off the impossible.

57 posted on 12/03/2010 9:50:30 AM PST by WVNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

You appear to be right.

Bad source.


58 posted on 12/03/2010 9:52:21 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

BTW, the article you link to says the science behind eugenics “has been disproven.”

The basic contention of eugenics is that if less-intelligent people have more children than more intelligent people the average intelligence of the group will go down.

Not only has this hypothesis not been “disproven,” it has never been effectively challenged. Eugenics over-reached itself in many ways and trampled individual rights, but it became a pariah cause for political not scientific reasons.

Western society is presently involved in a society-wide experiment to determine the validity of eugenics. We massively subsidize births to low-intelligence people and discourage them among high intelligence potential parents. Eventually we may get some idea whether the eugenicists were right as to where this leads.


59 posted on 12/03/2010 9:58:35 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

The sources on “eugenics” are extremely muddled at this point, the muddling having started during the seventies and gotten worse since. The best thing to do is pick out a couple of individuals who were advocates for it, get biographies and autobiographies of them and follow the notes and references therein. I’ve found some states where there were eugenics laws but they were neatly tucked away in things like regulations for rehabilitation or asylums, and a number of other things not nearly so obvious.

I would have to get down to some older notes to be much help finding sources myself since it’s been several years since I was reading a lot on the subject. Suffice to say, you can find an awful lot of what I call “apologist” materials on the web most of it apparently trying to put a better face on ideas of the past in hopes of reviving some or all of the same practices. Since there are, in fact, some things that are passed on genetically many people think it’s a reasonable approach to have such programs in some cases. The real problem is that I don’t recall finding a single program that limited itself to applying drastic measures for only medical purposes. Just look at the way dyslexia was handled by the Kennedy family, people with plenty of means to pay for care, and you see where the “elite” might apply extreme measures for anything from multi-generation auto mechanic inclinations to ADD.

Regards


60 posted on 12/03/2010 10:31:58 AM PST by Rashputin (Barry is totally insane and being kept medicated and on golf courses to hide the fact)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"We massively subsidize births to low-intelligence people and discourage them among high intelligence potential parents. Eventually we may get some idea whether the eugenicists were right as to where this leads."

I don't think it's much of an experiment since it's right in line with the idea of making pliable and easily led workers and serf classes. Sanger is a good source on that as is, as I recall, Dewey but I could be wrong on Dewey. Anyway, the idea of limiting the birthrate among the more intelligent but less pliable of "the masses" is one of the ingredients in some of the earliest eugenics writings.

61 posted on 12/03/2010 10:37:04 AM PST by Rashputin (Barry is totally insane and being kept medicated and on golf courses to hide the fact)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: onyx

“Sarah Palin is a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon in politics. She is a charismatic constitutionalist. It’s the combination that’s so vital. Reagan had it. It scares the Democrats to death.”

“And the establishment as well.”

You can throw the LSM in to the mix as well.


62 posted on 12/03/2010 2:51:21 PM PST by Clyde5445 (Gov. Sarah Palin: :"You have to sacrifice to win. That's my philosophy in 6 words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Scanian
The last one looked much better.

I did not know you were experiencing health issues.
Hang in there FRiend! Life is a precious gift from
our Creator, God.

All prayers are appreciated!

I will be praying for you. Please pray for me also.
Since God does give us all (everything), I will be asking for
another scan which looks even better than the last.
Prayer Up.

63 posted on 12/03/2010 5:33:57 PM PST by no-to-illegals (Please God, Bless and Protect Our Men and Women in Uniform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

*Done Deal”


64 posted on 12/03/2010 7:14:45 PM PST by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: November 2010
Heard you loud and clear!

Don't have the answer.........but we'll go to our grave thinking the same way......God Bless you too!

65 posted on 12/03/2010 7:27:14 PM PST by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals; M-cubed

I haven’t talked much about it here.

But now that the prayers of FRiends (and those of others, of course) have been heard by the Lord, I can mention that things are going quite well with the cerebellum.

Yesterday’s scan was very good-—the chemo appears to have done it’s job, with God’s help.

Thank you for praying!


66 posted on 12/04/2010 1:07:01 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

Thank you for the report. I shall continue in prayer for you. Please keep me updated.


67 posted on 12/04/2010 4:55:37 AM PST by no-to-illegals (Please God, Bless and Protect Our Men and Women in Uniform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-67 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson