Quote Originally Posted by Bilbo View Post
There's no need to apologise for not believing any of it Jaz it's your opinion mate.

It's strange that you are more interested more in what media agency or television network reports the news than the actual news content itself however.

Every single article and piece of evidence I quoted is 100 percent factual and correct, irrepsective of what network reports it.

John Holdren IS Obama's head advisor of Science and technology and he really did publish a book advocating forced sterilisation programs, forced abortions, selecting who is allowed to breed etc as responses to population control. You can buy the book on Amazon if you wish.

Of course he will say he is misquoted now and aides will seek to play it down, what else would you expect?


Regarding Obama and euthanasia again it's absolutely part of Obama's reform plan. They just don't the E word, instead they use the term 'withdrawal of care'. Ezekiel for example has written against euthanasia that is true, but he is 100 percent and vocally in favour of withdrawal of care, which is exactly the same thing.

Look at Obama's reform plan. He actually plans for the elderly and infirm to attend a meeting regarding their dying every five years, and more frequently in case of terminal patients.

What exactly do you think they will be discussing at these meetings? He wants (and has openly admitted) to try and pursuade your mum (his own words on live interview) to not have that operation which probably won't save her anyway but instead just have the painkiller instead.

What would you call this Jaz? He wants to save billions of US dollars by cutting expenditure on the terminal, the elderly, those requiring the most money to keep alive and nurse etc. He has said this openly.

His plan is to pursuade these people (through his five yearly death review meetings) to accept palliative care rather than cure treatments, and in the case of the elderly and very infirm, the withdrawal of care (read euthanaisa) and their deaths to save money.

This is all entirely factual and not in any way conspiracy talk.

As for Obama going all 'manic' no he won't. You completely miss the point here. He's not suddenly going to be revealed or exposed as a eugenist. Rather gradually public opinion, through the media and government indoctrination will be converted to this viewpoint.

In twenties years if Obama and his aides get their way, when your grandparents or parents are elderly and sick it will be standard practice for them to and others to have their care withdrawn, allowing them to die with dignity. It's euthanasia under a different name. But most of you will accept it because you will accept the way they sell it to you, just like you think it's wrong to judge someone who has an abortion even though you yourself think it would be wrong for you to abort your own child.

It's the erosion of tradtional ethics and moral values by indoctrination and the vast majority of people will blindly accept it.
Here's a point you're wrong on. Emanuel has actually argued against the withdrawal of care as being at odds with the hippocratic oath. Like I said his books are largely academic theory, but he himself has argued against it. There will be no 'withdrawal of care'. I've seen nothing that leads me to believe this will happen. What they will do is exactly what happens in this country, where they explain to a patient the realities of what they are facing. There will never be a point where public opinion comes round to it.

He has not said this openly, if he had I'm sure you would of been able to produce definitive footage of it & any President saying something like that openly would get called on it. What he said in the interview is that patients should have all choices presented to them, not just promised something that almost certainly won't work & should they die on the table have their loved ones left with mountains of debt. If you hunt down the pure footage of that, not the one on the Fox News clip on a blog, you will see that.

There is no 'death panel' of five year 'death review'. His proposal, which is supported by the American Association of Retired Persons, is that senior citizens will get free access to a professional medical counsellor who will talk to them about issues regarding preparing a living will & other issues facing the elderly.

Like, you say look it up, this is what's factual.

Holdren hasn't said he was misquoted, what he said was that the chapter in question was not one that he had written, but even so that none of the authors to his knowledge was in favour of enforced abortions. It's theoretical research, you can't discuss something academically without exploring all the possible reasons & solutions.

Bilbo, it is all conspiracy talk. After watching & reading all the sources you put up last night, I went to Senate House library in London, to actually read these books, partly because I had nothing to do today & my interest was piqued, regardless of the quality of your sources. There's nothing there that suggests to me that these people advocate any of this. I would honestly suggest doing the same rather than relying on bloggers to give you 'summaries' of what they have heard the work to be about. Betsy McCaughey said that she read these books & was shocked & felt it needed to be an issue. Well, if she's not in it with an agenda & is the expert in this field she claims to be, why wasn't she after them years ago, but only now when they're in the Obama administration.

The reason I picked on your sources is because of the quality of their reporting & their history. This is important as it reflects heavily on how they present news. It's the same as expecting MSNBC to be objective on Bush. Well, that's the case with Fox & the Washington Examiner. As for LPac Tv, well that is basically propaganda for the people who began this idea to begin with. So sorry that doesn't count. It is not 100% factual & correct, it is conspiracy propaganda. I think I've fairly dealt with the content addressed in both my posts, but the reason I focus on the sources, is that I'm a trained journalist & the first thing they tell you is that 'you're only as good as your sources'. These ones are just no good at all.

As for your final point about them making me believe that it's ok for abortions, well no that's not going to happen. My opinion on abortions used to be stronger, but like my opinions on homosexuality, I've matured & just feel that I don't have the right to tell someone else how they should live their life as if I'm their moral superior. I used to think it was morally wrong, but I've learnt morals are often about conditioning & environment. I probably hold some values on particular issues that you would find reprehensible, whilst you wank off to stuff that I find completely disgusting & sick. Does that give me the right to act as if I am your moral better??