NO!!!!!! Come on OIT, you know that................ If the Dems tuck you in a category, that is what you are. And there are rules for each category. Come on man............get with it!!!!
Dems throw down the race card... who saw this coming?
- Thread starter The Tradition
- Start date
NO!!!!!! Come on OIT, you know that................ If the Dems tuck you in a category, that is what you are. And there are rules for each category. Come on man............get with it!!!!
Yes because countries with low birth rates are doing great and are remarkably comfortable with their low birth rates.
China dropped it's 1 child policy. You have European nations begging people with TV advertisements and with massive tax credits to just please please consider having a child. (And this is in nations with extensive paid parental leave policies mind you.)
Junkies never enjoy getting sober. That doesn't mean more and more drugs is a sustainable solution.
A good share of the Hillary hate is because of Bill. He made no bones about taking every opportunity to bash the GOP. And he was obviously very successful doing it.
This isn't anything to do with policies or stances. This is more personal for the GOP. Voters see thru this.
American voters are sick and tired of hearing about e-mails and the like. If they realize this before November, they will have a chance. If not... they will lose the WH yet again. They don't have a lot of bullets in the chamber.
Meanwhile, our GOP friends on this forum continue to make issue with HRC's looks, her age, and any other personal bash they can.
Isn't working now and it won't work in November.
Unfortunately for some, Trump vs Hillary is a no win situation for conservatives.
This isn't anything to do with policies or stances. This is more personal for the GOP. Voters see thru this.
American voters are sick and tired of hearing about e-mails and the like. If they realize this before November, they will have a chance. If not... they will lose the WH yet again. They don't have a lot of bullets in the chamber.
Meanwhile, our GOP friends on this forum continue to make issue with HRC's looks, her age, and any other personal bash they can.
Isn't working now and it won't work in November.
Unfortunately for some, Trump vs Hillary is a no win situation for conservatives.
Everyone keeps bringing up Bill Clinton as evidence that the hardliner R's disliked him because he was a D, proving it has nothing to do with race.
Ummm....HELLLOOO! He was the first "black" President.....remember?!?!
Duh!!
Ummm....HELLLOOO! He was the first "black" President.....remember?!?!
Duh!!
The KKK started in Indiana, right?
Didn't start here but was once powerful here til their grand dragon leader guy or whatever he was called kidnapped and raped a white woman who later died due to the incident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._C._Stephenson
That literally makes no sense.
These are government officials who are noticing that if their people don't start having some babies there won't be anyone to support the aging population in the future.
When you are 75 the only way you get your social security money and your medicare and everything else that's essential to making sure you are being taken care of . . . the only way that happens is because people like me had children who are working and paying taxes. Since you likely won't be having any children to cover for you, mine will have to help cover for you. You can thank me later.
Besides our world population isn't a problem, it's a lack of stability in certain areas that is the problem. It's not that we arn't growing enough food or can't grow enough food, it's that the people who do grow food locally can't rely on being able to keep or sell their food because someone with a gun might come take it and the government has neither the will nor the ability to put a stop to it.
Last edited:
I'm thanking you right now, I'm paying for "your" kids. Think about the ponzi-like scheme you just described. Its dependant on always having more kids. A forever growing population that consumes forever more resources. There's an inherent problem in that strategy. We either need to solve that problem or find a way to live with a more sustainable model.
Thank your admitting that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Could you please have a chat with your brothers on the left?
Bush proposed a modest reform plan and was immediately excoriated for even suggesting it.
Excoriated by folks in his own party. The right has no interest in ending SS. The right has no interest in decreasing growth. Their entire philosophy is based on the idea that growth is good and should be pursued.
I would argue that any investment you are making in my children is petty and small compared to the cost of supporting you when you are older.
Also if you want to keep supporting people who need to be supported then the population at the very least has to be sustained with a good distribution of younger and older people. That sort of thing doesn't happen without reproduction.
I'm not suggesting no reproduction. I'm saying the rate we have today is problematic so long as we are confined to this planet. Finite resources and an ever increasing population leads to a problem. This should be obvious.
I may be incorrect, but back in 1776 our founders intended to put individuals in a position to succeed from our own work. If we were so inclined to help those of less means or ability, we could support churches, charities, etc. Due to social change and the sweet sound of helping all, politicians turned a segment of the government into a charity.
Now we argue over health care being a "right". SS was thrown into the general fund long ago. Welfare continues to grow. During financial discussions Dems will state that only a very small % of our annual budget is spent on welfare.
The problem in my mind is the psychological impact to both the recipient and the tax payer / employed person. The disenchantment of both is a growing decay.
Now we argue over health care being a "right". SS was thrown into the general fund long ago. Welfare continues to grow. During financial discussions Dems will state that only a very small % of our annual budget is spent on welfare.
The problem in my mind is the psychological impact to both the recipient and the tax payer / employed person. The disenchantment of both is a growing decay.
Tertullian thought that a world population of 190 million people was couldn't be sustained for much longer.
While non renewable resource depletion is certainly an issue, it's nothing that technology and research can't fix. I certainly believe that it's possible in the next 100 years or so to end our dependence upon non renewable resources.
Renewable resources are doing just fine.
Human overpopulation is just like the apocalypse. Everyone has been saying it's just around the corner for thousands of years now.
No, also income equality....Republicans are privileged, white, have all the jobs and are rich, while Democrats are not priviledged, are required to sit in the back, are underpaid and are poor.
Why would you think it would be possible to end our dependence on non-renewables and still have the technology that allows us to do more for more people? Most technology is based on rare earth elements. There are only so much and fighting over them and even commodity like water is what I'm suggesting we avoid by simply not putting so much pressure on the system.
Does not a reduced birthrate & greater longevity become one of the primary hurdles? And when you add economic, educational, and technological disparity by country or continent, what then?
Last edited:
I don't have answers for you. I'm not even sure I understand your question. "reduced birthrate & greater longevity become on of the primary hurdles" to what?
A lot of untruths in your post. Voters don't dislike Hillary because of Bill. I know it's not my reason. Bill did well, as POTUS, when he decided after the mid-terms to work with, instead of against the Republicans in Congress. Things got done. Unlike the Current POTUS.
I just dislike Hillary for many reasons. Her demeanor. Her constant waffling. Yes, many/most do it, but she seems to get a pass on it by her party. She answer a question on whether she's lied before by lying when she said she doesn't think she's lied to the American people.
To me, it's obvious she is running for POTUS, not to fix this country, but to add it to her list of accomplishments. She's in it for her, not you or me.
For sustained support of the aging population. This has been a major concern as the baby boomers aged in the US. And per Hoosier's statements of world population concerns, I contend that the point of no return may be upon us now.
Your last sentence could apply to all of the current candidates.
HRC is far from the perfect candidate, but my personal opinion is that she's still better than any of the GOP.
By mid-November, Americans will have decided. The only suspense for me is who will be her vp.
It was more about taxation issues and not about individuals being put in a position to succeed from their own work. Most of our founding fathers had slaves and inheritences. . . some of them blew those inheritances. If a founding father started talking about people succeeding off their own work I would find it both sad and hysterical. Honestly anyone that hypocritical needs to be slapped. If ANYONE ever succeeded off of other people's work and merits it was the founding fathers. Washington for example succeeded because he managed to marry a rich widow. Basically she inherited money from her former husband who died and then he swooped in and started using that money. He started as a nobody but he didn't succeed because he worked harder or smarter then everyone else. Unless by worked you mean charmed a rich widow into marrying him and letting him spend her former husband's money.j
If the founding fathers wanted anything they wanted Britian but with a little less taxes and a government by the rich guys, for the rich guys and of the rich guys. Remember when the country started land ownership was a requirement for voting.
Back in 1776 "healthcare" was worthless and you where better off not calling a doctor in most cases. And if you did call the doctor he didn't cost much because he had very little training and most of the training he did have was worthless. There was no such thing as health insurance. In most cases if you had a major medical issue, you just died.
Now healthcare is extremely valuable to extending ones life and also an expensive undertaking due to the amount of training doctors must receive. Now major medical issues can be treated . . . but conservatives only want you to be treated if you are wealthy. If healthcare is not a right then only the wealthy deserve to live in their minds.
Back in 1776 there was plenty of land freely available to be violently taken from natives and grow crops allowing them the opportunity to sustain their family (you know at the cost of the natives). That land could also give them wood to build a home and fuel fires for heat.
What the founding fathers wanted isn't what we think they want. And also we should stop giving a crap about what they wanted. They all had different visions anyways. But all of them included them staying rich and the poor staying poor and the slaves staying slaves. Income mobility and the vision known as "the American dream" where much later ideas.
Honestly Ben Franklin is about the only founding father that actually succeed due to his own merits and work. And he's about the only founding father that was actually truely exceptional and would likely be known today without the American Rebellion. The rest of the founding fathers where mediocre talents without a rebellion to lead.
Last edited:
The founding fathers probably didn't anticipate people living as long as they do now. People are outliving their bodies, which didn't really exist in the late 18th century. See the attached chart. There is simply a greater need to SS now than there was then.
Why would/should it be a foregone conclusion that the GOP would not confirm any Obama choice? That would still seem to be contrary to the intent of the constitution.
I don't understand this as well. Perhaps it is the filibuster of nominees that I don't understand. At what point did it become ok for the Senate to refuse to consider nominees? I understand that it has been done, or at least the threat has been made, by both parties. As I said in another post, I don't know what it will take to get over this partisanship. Probably that person is not currently in the Republican or Democratic party.
con·sent
kənˈsent/
noun.
kənˈsent/
noun.
- permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
- give permission for something to happen.
Last edited:
Similar threads
