It was women, blacks and project managers. Now you're racist towards old people too. LOL - is there anybody on this planet you'd rather see alive than dead?Cornfed wrote:It would lead to a surplus of parasitical old people. The demise pill or some other strategy would have to be devised to help them on their way.
Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss and talk about any general topic.
I think the answer is print billions of Hillary Clinton posters. Any country with population problems passes a rule that you must hang a Hillary Clinton poster above the bed of said husband and wife.
Don't know about you guys but I could be in bed with Brooklyn Decker and if I looked up and saw Hillary's face my erection would fade fast. Yup, Hillary Clinton, the anti Viagra. Guaranteed to turn any steamy bedroom into a Frigidare.
Only 3% of the land in America has people living on it, there's not enough people.
The argument that high population causes poverty is a lie. Hong Kong and Singapore have high population densities but have tremendous wealth because there's no taxes. Third world countries have high inflation which is just another tax.
The tax argument is the wrong one to make here, because it comes from a Western-style, individualistic mentality in which the concepts of wealth and taxation are adversarial.
The economic models of both HK and Singapore are much more communitarian in nature. They are corporate socialist models - meaning that big business and government work together, openly and inextricably, to maximize economic productivity within the context of a paternalistic framework in which all citizens are taken care of, however minimally.
In other words, when you make a purchase from a corporation based out of HK or Singapore, some portion of the funds you spend likely constitutes a direct contribution to the social welfare of the inhabitants of said region.
Take housing, for example. More than eighty percent of Singapore's population lives in public housing , while nearly half of HK's residents do the same .
 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_ ... 7Ae03.html
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_hou ... _Hong_Kong
I was wrong. However, the tax rate in HK is very low.
HK Tax Guide
http://gohongkong.about.com/od/business ... ongTax.htm
Good point. HK and Singapore are more business-friendly than the U.S., but they're also more people-friendly. Many would argue that this combination makes their economic models superior to those of the West, and I'm not inclined to disagree.
As I understand, the whole overpopulation myth is bullshit. Supposedly, it's something that was started by people that just don't like people in general & see them as a drain on things they want to have for themselves.
There isn't enough resources if destroying those resources is a model of behavior. There isn't enough if the style is to have double & throw half out, or to erode the means to survive as a method of providing for it. This "woodchipper mentality" is debilitating & not sustainable. It's like a point system based on how much is destroyed.
It seems that everything to provide for the precious economy is something corrosive to people, the environment, or life in general. It doesn't make sense that there's this constructed conditional that poses an extra hurdle and/or a counterfactor to survival. In order to pay for things, the point to those things is cancelled out?
Exactly. Also Winston sorry the NWO doesn't want to wipe everyone out and reptilians don't exist. Get back to reality.
The governments if anything are causing overpopulation in the 3rd world.
Take the African continent. The UN forces member countries to pay foreign aid to Africa. Africa in 1950 had a population of 230 million people and as of today it's 1.1 billion. They are the fastest growing population and by 2100 are expected to reach over 4 billion and be 40% of the world population.
The governments are not wiping people out but in fact the very opposite. The amount of foreign aid paid to these places directly correlates to them over breeding like rabbits.
All civilized countries like European, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and China all have birth rates below the replacement rate and are all slowly shrinking and all have aging populations now.
As far as the guy on here claiming that overpopulation is good because it spreads the workload. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to do menial jobs in factories alongside hundreds of others and get paid lower then be my guest. Overpopulation actually always = lower living conditions and people are financially poorer.
While China and India have powerful economies, per head they are very poor people living in low conditions.
Japan has a very powerful economy and less people than any of the other powerful economies including the USA.
That's why in Japan their living conditions and average wealth per person is high.
Last edited by Zionosis on June 28th, 2014, 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
So from your own statement it would appear that the NWO are wiping out humans and replacing them with blacks.
Well it can't really be denied. That is sort of what seems to be happening.
The governments seem to like the idea of a mixed and unintelligent general population.
cornfed you hit the nail on the head !
we are not over populated however we have the wrong type of population. if any governing body want to reduce the population its for one reason, their comfort.
the stupidity of this is confusing, on one hand they reward people for having children by supporting them financially , and then on the other hand they want less of us.. its dumb. Personally you should get a licence to have a child, you need one to drive a car , you should earn a licence to have a child. That will reduce the amount of people springing up with no means to fend for themselves.
Yes , you heard right , a licence to have children. Means test to see if you can afford it, Aptitude test to see if you know how to raise one, Basics like don't let it drink too much soda or junk food.. you know easy questions like that. Then the big one , do you have a partner ? if you are a couple and have a child then divorce the one who files for the divorce has to pay for the childs up bringing alone.
yeah thatll put a huge spanner in the money making machine hey femm bots ! ?
And yet, she's earmarked to be the next US president. Well done you
Or Filipinos, or Colombians, or from any country where they still enjoy making babies thinking how much their university fees are going to cost them. Having children is a biological imperative: you can twist and bend human nature with artificially imposed constructs like social policies, feminism et al. The vast majority of the planet is not hooked the same way we (first world, Western) people are and will continue to trend up their births per capita figure nonchalantly.