(03-28-2017 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 11:47 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 11:36 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Going on the assumption that most of these folks were probably on public assistance before having these children....Why the hell do we not demand contraception implantation to receive public assistance? The last thing these people need is another mouth to feed that the taxpayers are going to pay for.

While it might make financial sense, and fulfill Margaret Sanger's dream, I'd have to vote no...

You need to do some more reading on Sanger.

I'm sure I've read a lot more than you think I have, and I'd bet that I've read more of her work than you have. Two of the academic works she put forth which PP and it's supports try to downplay is "Women and the New Race" and "The Pivot of Civilization".

But maybe by "reading on sanger" you mean I should beef up on the PP sanitized version of this racists eugenicists.

Woman and the New Race, 1920

Quote:THE MOST serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children. These statements may startle those who have never made a thorough investigation of the problem. They are, nevertheless, well considered, and the truth of them is abundantly borne out by an examination of facts and conditions which are part of everyday experience or observation.

....

Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack of medical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for.

The Pivot of Civilization, 1922

Quote:In passing, we should here recognize the difficulties presented by the idea of 'fit' and 'unfit.' Who is to decide this question? The grosser, the more obvious, the undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind. But among the writings of the representative Eugenists one cannot ignore the distinct middle-class bias that prevails.

(03-28-2017 11:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 11:47 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 11:36 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Going on the assumption that most of these folks were probably on public assistance before having these children....Why the hell do we not demand contraception implantation to receive public assistance? The last thing these people need is another mouth to feed that the taxpayers are going to pay for.

While it might make financial sense, and fulfill Margaret Sanger's dream, I'd have to vote no...

Id even add cash incentives and job training to facilitate such a program. At some point we have to break the cycle of institutionalized welfare. The new implants are good for up to 5 years...for women and men. They can be removed when a person removes themselves from the public dole.

I have to chew on this for a bit.... I have a deep suspicion of programs which seek to walk down the patch of state supported selective breeding. But, I also don't have an issue offering birth control and job training to people.

Apologies...I thought you were referring to the lie that she wanted to abort all the black babies.

(03-28-2017 12:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Apologies...I thought you were referring to the lie that she wanted to abort all the black babies.

Apology accepted, the woman was an outright monster to all people.

This is just for laughs. If the Reps were smart which they aren't, thus the Stupid Party, they would allow abortions. After all, aren't most abortions done by Libturds? One less Demoncratic voter aka Snowflakes registering to vote. Here we are, Libturds denouncing Reps wishes against abortions and fighting that right. You do get my drift, right?

My family consisted of eight children and all were brought into this world by a midwife and we didn't need to use social programs. I guess the women of this era are too soft and not capable of going the midwife route.

(03-28-2017 11:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of the 24 states at 50% or higher, by my count Trump won 17 of them.

Would be interesting to see the raw data i.e. population numbers per states rather than percentages per state to see how many people we are talking about. % per state dulls the affect of the total number.

There were roughly 490,000 births in California in 2015 (12.4 births per 1000 people with a total pop of 39.4 million) so at 50% that is 245000 born on Medicaid.

(03-28-2017 11:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of the 24 states at 50% or higher, by my count Trump won 17 of them.

I can't speak for any other state but in South Carolina's case the majority of these babies come from the "Corridor of Shame". A belt of poor rural counties along I95.



What else do these counties have in common? How they vote. Here's the 2016 election map.



Oh, and another thing.......when discussing illegal immigration I often bring up rural South Carolina counties being devastated by illegals taking away jobs and hurting economies.....these are the counties where it's happening the most.

(03-28-2017 12:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 11:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of the 24 states at 50% or higher, by my count Trump won 17 of them.

I can't speak for any other state but in South Carolina's case the majority of these babies come from the "Corridor of Shame". A belt of poor rural counties along I95.



What else do these counties have in common? How they vote. Here's the 2016 election map.



Oh, and another thing.......when discussing illegal immigration I often bring up rural South Carolina counties being devastated by illegals taking away jobs and hurting economies.....these are the counties where it's happening the most.

That's interesting, how many of those "illegals" vote?

[/quote]

That's interesting, how many of those "illegals" vote?
[/quote]


Why don't you tell him, they are voting in your party.

That's interesting, how many of those "illegals" vote?
[/quote]


Why don't you tell him, they are voting in your party.
[/quote]

Maybe we should ask Trump. He claims to have proof that 3 million of them voted.

(03-28-2017 12:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 11:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of the 24 states at 50% or higher, by my count Trump won 17 of them.

I can't speak for any other state but in South Carolina's case the majority of these babies come from the "Corridor of Shame". A belt of poor rural counties along I95.



What else do these counties have in common? How they vote. Here's the 2016 election map.



Oh, and another thing.......when discussing illegal immigration I often bring up rural South Carolina counties being devastated by illegals taking away jobs and hurting economies.....these are the counties where it's happening the most.

Your two maps give additional depth to the data based on political affiliation more than a break down by state could.
Red states have blue counties and blue states have red counties so to provide a clearer picture of how Medicaid users voted a county by county breakdown is more meaningful.

(03-28-2017 12:40 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 12:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 11:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of the 24 states at 50% or higher, by my count Trump won 17 of them.

I can't speak for any other state but in South Carolina's case the majority of these babies come from the "Corridor of Shame". A belt of poor rural counties along I95.



What else do these counties have in common? How they vote. Here's the 2016 election map.



Oh, and another thing.......when discussing illegal immigration I often bring up rural South Carolina counties being devastated by illegals taking away jobs and hurting economies.....these are the counties where it's happening the most.

Your two maps give additional depth to the data based on political affiliation more than a break down by state could.
Red states have blue counties and blue states have red counties so to provide a clearer picture of how Medicaid users voted a county by county breakdown is more meaningful.

I wonder what a map showing the most populated counties in South Carolina would look like?

(03-28-2017 12:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I can't speak for any other state but in South Carolina's case the majority of these babies come from the "Corridor of Shame". A belt of poor rural counties along I95.

Source?

(03-28-2017 12:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  That's interesting, how many of those "illegals" vote?

Unsure, but if the election commission is like everything else ran by the dims in those counties we'll never know for sure.

(03-28-2017 12:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 12:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  That's interesting, how many of those "illegals" vote?

Unsure, but if the election commission is like everything else ran by the dims in those counties we'll never know for sure.

"run"

(03-28-2017 12:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 12:40 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 12:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 11:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of the 24 states at 50% or higher, by my count Trump won 17 of them.

I can't speak for any other state but in South Carolina's case the majority of these babies come from the "Corridor of Shame". A belt of poor rural counties along I95.



What else do these counties have in common? How they vote. Here's the 2016 election map.



Oh, and another thing.......when discussing illegal immigration I often bring up rural South Carolina counties being devastated by illegals taking away jobs and hurting economies.....these are the counties where it's happening the most.

Your two maps give additional depth to the data based on political affiliation more than a break down by state could.
Red states have blue counties and blue states have red counties so to provide a clearer picture of how Medicaid users voted a county by county breakdown is more meaningful.

I wonder what a map showing the most populated counties in South Carolina would look like?

Best one I could find quickly on my https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...on_map.png

(03-28-2017 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 12:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I can't speak for any other state but in South Carolina's case the majority of these babies come from the "Corridor of Shame". A belt of poor rural counties along I95.

Source?

The SC Legislative Black Caucus and SC Dept of Health and Human Services

https://www.scdhhs.gov/sites/default/fil...12_KEK.pdf

(03-28-2017 12:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 11:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Of the 24 states at 50% or higher, by my count Trump won 17 of them.

I can't speak for any other state but in South Carolina's case the majority of these babies come from the "Corridor of Shame". A belt of poor rural counties along I95.



What else do these counties have in common? How they vote. Here's the 2016 election map.



Oh, and another thing.......when discussing illegal immigration I often bring up rural South Carolina counties being devastated by illegals taking away jobs and hurting economies.....these are the counties where it's happening the most.

You're going down the path I was referring to. Most of the people in the "red states" who are leeching off the gov't are typically not Republican voters. It just so happens that diaporportional numbers live in the south compared to the rest of the US.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-28-2017 01:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 12:29 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I can't speak for any other state but in South Carolina's case the majority of these babies come from the "Corridor of Shame". A belt of poor rural counties along I95.

Source?

The SC Legislative Black Caucus and SC Dept of Health and Human Services

https://www.scdhhs.gov/sites/default/fil...12_KEK.pdf

I found a list of the names of the most populated counties in S.C. Perhaps someone would know if those were the same counties.

(03-28-2017 12:58 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 12:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 12:31 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  That's interesting, how many of those "illegals" vote?

Unsure, but if the election commission is like everything else ran by the dims in those counties we'll never know for sure.

"run"

"Mismanaged"

Lol