Medlock on Bartlett & Giuliani

[highroadtaker]

On his blog, Chris Medlock writes about Dewey Bartlett Jr donating money to Rudy Giuliani's presidential campain.  He concludes with "It does indicate one thing that seems clear. While stating that he is pro-life, Bartlett sure does support a lot of pro-abortion candidates."

So what?!?  What does this have to do with running the city of Tulsa?  What does this have to do with our upcoming city election?  You don't have to go back very far in the Tulsa World's archives to discover that Chris Medlock was once pro-choice.  So what?

And, by the way, is anyone really "pro-abortion"?

[PonderInc]

Does Medlock have a job?  What does he do besides pretend to be a politician?

And what does his commentary have to do with Tulsa's mayoral campaign?  Trash, fire, police, streets...and Giuliani's personal stances?  Huh?

[highroadtaker]

He loves to say things about his opponents that have absolutely nothing to do with the office for which they're running.  Didn't he also make a big deal about Fred Jordan getting a divorce?

[highroadtaker]

http://www.medblogged.com/2006/11/fred-jordan-divorced-by-wife.html

[tim huntzinger]

On his blog, Chris Medlock writes about Dewey Bartlett Jr donating money to Rudy Giuliani's presidential campain.  He concludes with "It does indicate one thing that seems clear. While stating that he is pro-life, Bartlett sure does support a lot of pro-abortion candidates."

So what?!?  What does this have to do with running the city of Tulsa?  What does this have to do with our upcoming city election?  You don't have to go back very far in the Tulsa World's archives to discover that Chris Medlock was once pro-choice.  So what?

And, by the way, is anyone really "pro-abortion"?

It would be GREAT if we could restrict the kinds of abortion that are performed in the City, but that sounds more like a County thing.

Who is really for abortion?  Maybe that genius who Obama hired as Science Czar or adviser.  He is the Poster Boy for liberal eugenics of any and all kinds, including but not limited to forced abortions, mass sterilization, all kinds of wicked and diabolical schemes to stop the humans from repopulating this destitute rock.

Ha! Medlock vs. Guilianni! Ha ha ha! Cute, but what other pro-eugenic crowd does he hang with?

[Conan71]

It would be GREAT if we could restrict the kinds of abortion that are performed in the City, but that sounds more like a County thing.

Who is really for abortion?  Maybe that genius who Obama hired as Science Czar or adviser.  He is the Poster Boy for liberal eugenics of any and all kinds, including but not limited to forced abortions, mass sterilization, all kinds of wicked and diabolical schemes to stop the humans from repopulating this destitute rock.

Ha! Medlock vs. Guilianni! Ha ha ha! Cute, but what other pro-eugenic crowd does he hang with?

State's issue, at least for now.

Mudschlock was irrelevant as a politician, irrelevant as a radio commentator, and will find himself irrelevant again as a candidate for mayor.

He's a snipey little troll.  The act is wearing thin, Chris.

[waterboy]

KnowNothing.......Liberal Eugenics? Get real. Now you're resorting to creative name calling that doesn't even make sense. Your emotions are over running common sense.

Eugenics was popular as a pseudo science in the South during the 1920's-30's. It was an atrocity that the Nazi's picked up from us and expounded on during their rise to power. That's right...started right here in 'merica in the solid Christian, moral, conservative South. Its purpose was to improve the gene pool by eliminating mental defectives (murder) or denying reproduction to those deemed inferior. The government may have been complicit and in fact used these same inferior people for testing hallucinagenic drugs up till the 1970's.

So now, liberals are akin to quack researchers and Fascists? All because they want the government to not intrude into their personal lives by using these same Christian moral values as a pretext?

Edit: I feel inclined to note that I was using my memory of reading about Eugenics many years ago to respond in this thread. I seem to remember that it was based in North Carolina. After refreshing my memory with some Googling, I find that it was a more widespread, mainstream scientific belief than I had thought. It emanated from some pretty elitist medical thinking at the time and though its original sentiments were noble (making better choices in a mate) it was quickly corrupted. In fact, 33 states enacted Eugenics oriented laws and it drastically affected immigration laws. Apparently, scientists ignored their own predispositions to cultural, racist and class biases and decided that poverty was indeed the cause of problems in the world and that poverty was genetically, racially and geographically based.

Geneticists of later years succeeded in making it look like it had been a short lived, psuedo science to cleanse their reputations. They were horrified at how it led to the Nazi abuses. Hitler called the original text on the subject, written in 1911, his Bible.

How you get from there to Liberals is just as silly as the science itself.

[tim huntzinger]

KnowNothing.......Liberal Eugenics? Get real. Now you're resorting to creative name calling that doesn't even make sense. Your emotions are over running common sense.

Eugenics was popular as a pseudo science in the South during the 1920's-30's. It was an atrocity that the Nazi's picked up from us and expounded on during their rise to power. That's right...started right here in 'merica in the solid Christian, moral, conservative South. Its purpose was to improve the gene pool by eliminating mental defectives (murder) or denying reproduction to those deemed inferior. The government may have been complicit and in fact used these same inferior people for testing hallucinagenic drugs up till the 1970's.

So now, liberals are akin to quack researchers and Fascists? All because they want the government to not intrude into their personal lives by using these same Christian moral values as a pretext?

Obama has hired a man as science czar/adviser who advocated forced sterilization, forced abortion, sterility compounds to be dispersed by air and water, and for the State to decide absolutely who may have children.  Funny thing is, the textbook in question - a PhD level text - was co-authored by Bush's science adviser!  Go 'search engine' that.

The false 'liberals' are in a mad power grab to control air, water, and all human behavior and you are on a snipe hunt about abortion rights?  You want to explain why a Democrat has a Maoist, mad-scientist type in control of 90% of scientific funding?  Lie with dogs you get fleas, birds of a feather, takes one to trust one whatever you want to say but if Bartlett is a big pro-eugenics kind of dude that will turn off the conservative GOP base from voting.

The other woman on the Supreme Court JUST LAST WEEK said: 'Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.'  Eugenics.  This has to do with social control and not human rights.

[waterboy]

You are one weird dude. You have signed on with the forces trying to skewer this science advisor, John Holdren btw, that are closely aligned with radical religious and political views. I wish you would have read some differing, more enlightened, viewpoints and put them in context.

The co-authors of the 1977 book you refer to are the Ehrlich's who also wrote, "the Population Bomb" which was a very popular, very scary text in the early 1970's. That was the time we began to try and clean up the environmental mess left by the industrial revolution and multiple wars. Rivers were catching fire, lakes were becoming sterile and the air was deteriorating. It was a time of examination of what the root causes were and how they might be addressed. It was postulated that if indeed population growth was so extreme that natural resources necessary to continue life were in jeopardy, then some drastic measures could be used save ourselves. From this thinking came critics opposition to him and your wild assed remarks.

Turns out that population predictions and resulting catastrophes were in error. We made changes, we continue to make changes to improve our planet and this guy is not so bad. At least some Catholics think so:

From http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=3523

Obama's science czar disavows coercive population-control plans
July 15, 2009
Responding to reports that White House science advisor John Holdren had supported coercive population-control programs, the Obama administration has pointed out that John Holdren disavowed such measures during his confirmation hearings. The focus of the criticism was the 1977 book Ecoscience, co-authored by Holdren with Paul and Anne Ehrlich; the book suggested that under some circumstances government might put sterilizing chemicals in the public water supply. Holdren does not advocate such measures, a spokesman said, and does not think that government should set policies to determine population growth.

Holdren's disavowal of coercive measures leaves unanswered the question of how far he does share the views of his co-author Paul Ehrlich, whose sensationalistic book The Population Bomb predicted catastrophic results from population growth. Ehrlich's predictions of mass starvation and have proved completely wrong, calling into question the basis for his scientific approach.

The last paragraph is largely opinion. The book was not entirely wrong. There have been mass starvations and there will be more to come. And any government that does not plan for such things may be morally superior in your mind but may cause its population to disappear from the planet.

[tim huntzinger]

You are one weird dude. You have signed on with the forces trying to skewer this science advisor, John Holdren btw, that are closely aligned with radical religious and political views. I wish you would have read some differing, more enlightened, viewpoints and put them in context.

The co-authors of the 1977 book you refer to are the Ehrlichman's who also wrote, "the Population Bomb" which was a very popular, very scary text in the early 1970's. That was the time we began to try and clean up the environmental mess left by the industrial revolution and multiple wars. Rivers were catching fire, lakes were becoming sterile and the air was deteriorating. It was a time of examination of what the root causes were and how they might be addressed. It was postulated that if indeed population growth was so extreme that natural resources necessary to continue life were in jeopardy, then some drastic measures could be used save ourselves. From this thinking came critics opposition to him and your wild assed remarks.

Turns out that population predictions and resulting catastrophes were in error. We made changes, we continue to make changes to improve our planet and this guy is not so bad. At least some Catholics think so:

From http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=3523

Obama's science czar disavows coercive population-control plans
July 15, 2009
Responding to reports that White House science advisor John Holdren had supported coercive population-control programs, the Obama administration has pointed out that John Holdren disavowed such measures during his confirmation hearings. The focus of the criticism was the 1977 book Ecoscience, co-authored by Holdren with Paul and Anne Ehrlich; the book suggested that under some circumstances government might put sterilizing chemicals in the public water supply. Holdren does not advocate such measures, a spokesman said, and does not think that government should set policies to determine population growth.

Holdren's disavowal of coercive measures leaves unanswered the question of how far he does share the views of his co-author Paul Ehrlich, whose sensationalistic book The Population Bomb predicted catastrophic results from population growth. Ehrlich's predictions of mass starvation and have proved completely wrong, calling into question the basis for his scientific approach.

The last paragraph is largely opinion. The book was not entirely wrong. There have been mass starvations and there will be more to come. And any government that does not plan for such things may be morally superior in your mind but may cause its population to disappear from the planet.

Keep trolling around the internet.  Weird is getting one's picture taken with a draconian book attacking reproductive choice that one wrote for the ivory tower types to use to plan our lives.  I do not care what a spokesman for the regime says, someone who espoused such radical, anti-human views EVER should never have been allowed into such a powerful position.  Much less someone who wrote the book! This is not a game.  This is not arguing the number of angels on the head of a pin.  This goes beyond the phoney paradigm of Democrat/Republican.

Page 837: "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."  Boy.  Am I ever weird!

[waterboy]

You are phoney. I mistook you for someone who could read, understand and cogently reply to ones posts. Your responses are fragmented and ignore fact. He co-wrote the book. The Erlichs fomented discussion and made change happen for the good of the world. Because of their book, yields for agriculture were increased, rivers were cleaned up, cities took population growth into their planning (not ours) and science re-directed its attention towards possible solutions to previously ignored warnings. Apparently to you anyone who dares discuss controversial issues and explores how they might be addressed in an emergency is forever branded with supporting those ideas. That will kill innovation faster than a public trust board in Tulsa.

Eugenics has nothing to do with abortion rights. Eugenics was a science that allowed others to make decisions on life and reproductive rights for classes and races of people. Abortion is still a personal decision and a private right. Government does not force it on a class or race or individual.

Clear your programming for a moment. When the SCOTUS ruled that motorcyclists do not have to wear helmets as it is a personal decision and a right guaranteed by the constitution, are they promoting Eugenics?

[swake]

I mistook you for someone who could read, understand and cogently reply to ones posts.

You did? Really?

It's always been completely obvious that Tim/KN does none of those things well.

[tim huntzinger]

You did? Really?

It's always been completely obvious that Tim/KN does none of those things well.

Really? Wow.  You guys are incredible! Swake feels allllll left out! Swake, tell the good people why you feel that way.  Otherwise, that is anonymous hearsay planted here with the sole purpose of trying to defame me.  What is your name, again?  Have I met you or any of your friends? Just wondering. 

More from Obama's Czar (just one of dozens of radicals appointed to Czardom in an audacious grab for unfettered Federal power concentrated in the hands of the Chief Executive): '"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock."

[waterboy]

You're a fool. This thread is so off base now that its only connection to the original post is some tin foil conspiracist using 35 year old quotes to call a local politician....a Eugenics supporter!

Done here.

[tim huntzinger]

You're a fool. This thread is so off base now that its only connection to the original post is some tin foil conspiracist using 35 year old quotes to call a local politician....a Eugenics supporter!

Done here.

And you say I am creative name calling? Fool, tin hat conspiracist, phoney.  Very disappointing showing here H20. The original poster asked who was for abortion, and I pointed someone out who thinks the Constitution allows for FORCED ABORTIONS.  Then you get into semantics about a term I used and in lickety split you are name-calling and what not.  Wow.  Amazing.  I just pointed out that if Bartlett is a abortion proponent - for whatever reason - that could become an issue.  Do not know why or think it should.  Maybe YOU should try reading instead of just reacting.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court Justice, LAST WEEK: 'Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.'

I do not know what authority a Mayor has to harass and dissuade abortionists from plying their deadly art in the City, so I agree the point is moot.