The parents of 99% of the politicians in DC should have used birth control. They are the real problem,
not some small powerless group of people.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So the Ethiopian fertility rate in Israel dropping by as much as 50% in the last decade is just a result of a misunderstanding? Are you serious?
I also find it interesting that the Arab-Israeli fertility rate has been in steady decline since 2000 while the Jewish birth rate has increased? Aren’t muslims known for having boatloads of children?
[/quote]
So there’s a genocidal plot by the collective Jew to exterminate Palestinians and Ethiopeans(who are admitted to the country as refugees)? Is that what you’re saying? Why are you using RTV as a source? Didn’t you know it’s crude Stalinist style propaganda and their reporters fabricate stories in aid of the Russian state’s foreign policy agenda?
Their government is certainly engineering policies for “favorably” repopulating their society.
I do believe something backhanded is going on, yes.
As for RTV, they bring up previous new stories relating to Ethiopians in Israel.
You have to be a compete idiot to believe the Ethiopian fertility rate cuts in half in the period of a decade naturally.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So the Ethiopian fertility rate in Israel dropping by as much as 50% in the last decade is just a result of a misunderstanding? Are you serious?
I also find it interesting that the Arab-Israeli fertility rate has been in steady decline since 2000 while the Jewish birth rate has increased? Aren’t muslims known for having boatloads of children?
[/quote]
Did you even read the article from the original sources that refutes all this?
The arabs in Israel have the highest standard of living of non “royal” arabs in the entire middle east. Just like everyone else who gets rich and comfortable they have less kids.
Same with the Ethiopians — Westernization after a generation means less kids.
Not a fucking mystery, unless you are in the trained-Zionist-sharks-attacking-tourist camp.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So the Ethiopian fertility rate in Israel dropping by as much as 50% in the last decade is just a result of a misunderstanding? Are you serious?
I also find it interesting that the Arab-Israeli fertility rate has been in steady decline since 2000 while the Jewish birth rate has increased? Aren’t muslims known for having boatloads of children?
[/quote]
So there’s a genocidal plot by the collective Jew to exterminate Palestinians and Ethiopeans(who are admitted to the country as refugees)? Is that what you’re saying? Why are you using RTV as a source? Didn’t you know it’s crude Stalinist style propaganda and their reporters fabricate stories in aid of the Russian state’s foreign policy agenda?[/quote]
Hey, the Russians love Jews. They had special camps for them in Sibera and everything. They are even actively helping Hamas and Iran get weapons to come visit Israel peacefully.
And you suspect they live in videos? Bah.
Next you’ll tell me Putin isn’t the loveable Russian Bear he plays on TV.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You have to be a compete idiot to believe the Ethiopian fertility rate cuts in half in the period of a decade naturally.
[/quote]
Would said anytihng about “naturally.” Of course there is birth control.
You are saying it is “involuntary,” which is soundly refuted by the sources posted.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So the Ethiopian fertility rate in Israel dropping by as much as 50% in the last decade is just a result of a misunderstanding? Are you serious?
I also find it interesting that the Arab-Israeli fertility rate has been in steady decline since 2000 while the Jewish birth rate has increased? Aren’t muslims known for having boatloads of children?
[/quote]
Did you even read the article from the original sources that refutes all this?
The arabs in Israel have the highest standard of living of non “royal” arabs in the entire middle east. Just like everyone else who gets rich and comfortable they have less kids.
Same with the Ethiopians — Westernization after a generation means less kids.
Not a fucking mystery, unless you are in the trained-Zionist-sharks-attacking-tourist camp.[/quote]
Seeing how 2/3 of Ethiopians in Israel live in poverty your argument makes no fucking sense.
Secondly, the rate of decline is astounding. Even if what you wrote is true, the rate of decline is way too steep to be from affluence. Also please explain why the fertility rate for native Jews rose in this period? Why aren’t they experiencing the same trend?
Thirdly, you have first hand testimonials from people directly affected by these practices. Or wait are they also in the trained Zionist sharks attacking tourist camp?
Lastly, you have recorded video of a nurse forcing a depo Vera shot on an Ethiopian woman.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So the Ethiopian fertility rate in Israel dropping by as much as 50% in the last decade is just a result of a misunderstanding? Are you serious?
I also find it interesting that the Arab-Israeli fertility rate has been in steady decline since 2000 while the Jewish birth rate has increased? Aren’t muslims known for having boatloads of children?
[/quote]
Did you even read the article from the original sources that refutes all this?
The arabs in Israel have the highest standard of living of non “royal” arabs in the entire middle east. Just like everyone else who gets rich and comfortable they have less kids.
Same with the Ethiopians — Westernization after a generation means less kids.
Not a fucking mystery, unless you are in the trained-Zionist-sharks-attacking-tourist camp.[/quote]
Seeing how 2/3 of Ethiopians in Israel live in poverty your argument makes no fucking sense.
Secondly, the rate of decline is astounding. Even if what you wrote is true, the rate of decline is way too steep to be from affluence. Also please explain why the fertility rate for native Jews rose in this period? Why aren’t they experiencing the same trend?
Thirdly, you have first hand testimonials from people directly affected by these practices. Or wait are they also in the trained Zionist sharks attacking tourist camp?
Lastly, you have recorded video of a nurse forcing a depo Vera shot on an Ethiopian woman.
[/quote]
“Poverty” in Israel (a developed country) vs. poverty in Ethiopia (a shithole of unimaginable shitholidness)? Really?
The article linked on this thread shows how all the crap you cite was staged or isolated.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The poor create more poor. Birth controlling welfare recipients will prevent more undesirables from being born.[/quote]
A condition for accepting something is NOT forcing anything. Requiring birth control for welfare checks doesn’t force anything on anyone. Ironically, the only coercion actually in the system is forcing some people to pay for others.[/quote]
So, when money collected by taxation is used to buy food for the three small children of a crackhead single mother who will not provide for them, this is a coercive and therefore I assume immoral turn of events?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The poor create more poor. Birth controlling welfare recipients will prevent more undesirables from being born.[/quote]
A condition for accepting something is NOT forcing anything. Requiring birth control for welfare checks doesn’t force anything on anyone. Ironically, the only coercion actually in the system is forcing some people to pay for others.[/quote]
So, when money collected by taxation is used to buy food for the three small children of a crackhead single mother who will not provide for them, this is a coercive and therefore I assume immoral turn of events?[/quote]
Yes, it is coercion. Go argue with the dictionary if you want. If the crack whore broke into your house and stole money to buy food for her kids, did you get robbed? And I made no moral judgment.
The immoral aspect is that people like you require coercion to feed the kids.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The poor create more poor. Birth controlling welfare recipients will prevent more undesirables from being born.[/quote]
A condition for accepting something is NOT forcing anything. Requiring birth control for welfare checks doesn’t force anything on anyone. Ironically, the only coercion actually in the system is forcing some people to pay for others.[/quote]
So, when money collected by taxation is used to buy food for the three small children of a crackhead single mother who will not provide for them, this is a coercive and therefore I assume immoral turn of events?[/quote]
Yes, it is coercion. Go argue with the dictionary if you want. If the crack whore broke into your house and stole money to buy food for her kids, did you get robbed? And I made no moral judgment.
The immoral aspect is that people like you require coercion to feed the kids. [/quote]
Last I checked, I require nothing of anyone. It’s the government that you actively choose to live under and support that requires things of you.
I know what the dictionary says about coercion. But my question is this: because it is coercion (which, in case you’re playing thick, I don’t dispute), should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children will thereby suffer and/or die?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The poor create more poor. Birth controlling welfare recipients will prevent more undesirables from being born.[/quote]
A condition for accepting something is NOT forcing anything. Requiring birth control for welfare checks doesn’t force anything on anyone. Ironically, the only coercion actually in the system is forcing some people to pay for others.[/quote]
So, when money collected by taxation is used to buy food for the three small children of a crackhead single mother who will not provide for them, this is a coercive and therefore I assume immoral turn of events?[/quote]
Yes, it is coercion. Go argue with the dictionary if you want. If the crack whore broke into your house and stole money to buy food for her kids, did you get robbed? And I made no moral judgment.
The immoral aspect is that people like you require coercion to feed the kids. [/quote]
Last I checked, I require nothing of anyone. It’s the government that you actively choose to live under and support that requires things of you.
I know what the dictionary says about coercion. But my question is this: because it is coercion (which, in case you’re playing thick, I don’t dispute), should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children will thereby suffer and/or die?[/quote]
“the government that you actively choose to live under and support” That was good for a laugh. You do understand this statement contradicts the notion that it’s coercion, right?
I think it should have never been started. I think that people like you who first saw the plight of poor children and thought “I could do something, but that would take personal effort, I should vote to make someone else pay for my charity so I can keep not doing anything, but still feel good for helping ‘the children’” are evil and immoral.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The poor create more poor. Birth controlling welfare recipients will prevent more undesirables from being born.[/quote]
A condition for accepting something is NOT forcing anything. Requiring birth control for welfare checks doesn’t force anything on anyone. Ironically, the only coercion actually in the system is forcing some people to pay for others.[/quote]
So, when money collected by taxation is used to buy food for the three small children of a crackhead single mother who will not provide for them, this is a coercive and therefore I assume immoral turn of events?[/quote]
Yes, it is coercion. Go argue with the dictionary if you want. If the crack whore broke into your house and stole money to buy food for her kids, did you get robbed? And I made no moral judgment.
The immoral aspect is that people like you require coercion to feed the kids. [/quote]
Last I checked, I require nothing of anyone. It’s the government that you actively choose to live under and support that requires things of you.
I know what the dictionary says about coercion. But my question is this: because it is coercion (which, in case you’re playing thick, I don’t dispute), should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children will thereby suffer and/or die?[/quote]
“the government that you actively choose to live under and support” That was good for a laugh. You do understand this statement contradicts the notion that it’s coercion, right?
I think it should have never been started. I think that people like you who first saw the plight of poor children and thought “I could do something, but that would take personal effort, I should vote to make someone else pay for my charity so I can keep not doing anything, but still feel good for helping ‘the children’” are evil and immoral.
[/quote]
Considering the inefficiency and waste of government and the large portion that gets spent on bombs and guns, do you think that coercion is good?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The poor create more poor. Birth controlling welfare recipients will prevent more undesirables from being born.[/quote]
A condition for accepting something is NOT forcing anything. Requiring birth control for welfare checks doesn’t force anything on anyone. Ironically, the only coercion actually in the system is forcing some people to pay for others.[/quote]
So, when money collected by taxation is used to buy food for the three small children of a crackhead single mother who will not provide for them, this is a coercive and therefore I assume immoral turn of events?[/quote]
Yes, it is coercion. Go argue with the dictionary if you want. If the crack whore broke into your house and stole money to buy food for her kids, did you get robbed? And I made no moral judgment.
The immoral aspect is that people like you require coercion to feed the kids. [/quote]
Last I checked, I require nothing of anyone. It’s the government that you actively choose to live under and support that requires things of you.
I know what the dictionary says about coercion. But my question is this: because it is coercion (which, in case you’re playing thick, I don’t dispute), should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children will thereby suffer and/or die?[/quote]
“the government that you actively choose to live under and support” That was good for a laugh. You do understand this statement contradicts the notion that it’s coercion, right?
I think it should have never been started. I think that people like you who first saw the plight of poor children and thought “I could do something, but that would take personal effort, I should vote to make someone else pay for my charity so I can keep not doing anything, but still feel good for helping ‘the children’” are evil and immoral.
[/quote]
It is not pure coercion because you have the option of leaving. There are a number of governments whose antipathies toward the nutritional requirements of children are more in line with your own.
Regarding “I think it should have never been started”–yeah, and I think somebody should have smothered Hitler in the crib. But it didn’t happen.
So, I will put the question to you again: because what we’re discussing is coercion, should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die? Your general demeanor tends to imply that the answer is yes. Is that not correct?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Considering the inefficiency and waste of government and the large portion that gets spent on bombs and guns, do you think that coercion is good?[/quote]
Our general political arrangement is the best of the various possibilities.
Edit: and bombs and guns do a lot of good for us.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
The poor create more poor. Birth controlling welfare recipients will prevent more undesirables from being born.[/quote]
A condition for accepting something is NOT forcing anything. Requiring birth control for welfare checks doesn’t force anything on anyone. Ironically, the only coercion actually in the system is forcing some people to pay for others.[/quote]
So, when money collected by taxation is used to buy food for the three small children of a crackhead single mother who will not provide for them, this is a coercive and therefore I assume immoral turn of events?[/quote]
Yes, it is coercion. Go argue with the dictionary if you want. If the crack whore broke into your house and stole money to buy food for her kids, did you get robbed? And I made no moral judgment.
The immoral aspect is that people like you require coercion to feed the kids. [/quote]
Last I checked, I require nothing of anyone. It’s the government that you actively choose to live under and support that requires things of you.
I know what the dictionary says about coercion. But my question is this: because it is coercion (which, in case you’re playing thick, I don’t dispute), should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children will thereby suffer and/or die?[/quote]
“the government that you actively choose to live under and support” That was good for a laugh. You do understand this statement contradicts the notion that it’s coercion, right?
I think it should have never been started. I think that people like you who first saw the plight of poor children and thought “I could do something, but that would take personal effort, I should vote to make someone else pay for my charity so I can keep not doing anything, but still feel good for helping ‘the children’” are evil and immoral.
[/quote]
It is not pure coercion because you have the option of leaving. There are a number of governments whose antipathies toward the nutritional requirements of children are more in line with your own.
Regarding “I think it should have never been started”–yeah, and I think somebody should have smothered Hitler in the crib. But it didn’t happen.
So, I will put the question to you again: because what we’re discussing is coercion, should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die? Your general demeanor tends to imply that the answer is yes. Is that not correct?[/quote]
I never said anything about my belief in the requirements of children. But nice try on the “if you disagree you don’t care about the children” card.
Good to note you equate the birth of the welfare system to the birth of Hitler.
Considering I think more children suffer because of the government, yes it should be ended.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
because what we’re discussing is coercion, should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die?[/quote]
So what does the first part of the sentence have to do with the last part? Even in this current system children die of starvation every day. Is that the Governments fault, or is it the child’s parent’s fault? The parents have access to the funds, but isnt it horrible that they choose to buy crack instead of feeding their children?
No Republican wants to kill children. All Republicans want is more accountability. If the parent does not feed their children then they loose their welfare check. Money does not change people it only accentuates their demons or faults. It is all about character.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Good to note you equate the birth of the welfare system to the birth of Hitler.
[/quote]
I don’t, I equate your “I wouldn’t have begun it” sidestep with a notion as meaningless and vapid as, for example, “I wish Hitler had been killed before his rise to power.”
[quote]
Considering I think more children suffer because of the government, yes it should be ended.[/quote]
The question was whether you think it should end even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die–which it is, given that many of the children whose subsistence depends on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are sons and daughters of feckless addicts, the mentally disabled, and so-on, who simply will not provide for them.
You said yes.
Which in other words means that you think an arrangement whereby you are permitted to keep a somewhat higher percentage of your income and children whose parents do not provide for them are not guaranteed the basic necessities of life is morally preferable to the current arrangement, whereby we know that American children don’t starve and the mean personal income tax rate is still closer to Mexico’s and Korea’s (relatively low) than it is to Italy’s and Poland’s (relatively high).
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
because what we’re discussing is coercion, should it, in your opinion, be put to and end, even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die?[/quote]
So what does the first part of the sentence have to do with the last part? Even in this current system children die of starvation every day.[/quote]
No, they don’t.
And what happens to the kids when the parent loses their welfare check? Ignoring for a moment the existence of crackheads who simply won’t provide for their children, no serious economist will ever argue that a nation of hundreds of millions with a developed, industrialized, cyclical market economy is capable of full employment in perpetuity without Keynesian intervention.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Good to note you equate the birth of the welfare system to the birth of Hitler.
[/quote]
I don’t, I equate your “I wouldn’t have begun it” sidestep with a notion as meaningless and vapid as, for example, “I wish Hitler had been killed before his rise to power.”
[quote]
Considering I think more children suffer because of the government, yes it should be ended.[/quote]
The question was whether you think it should end even if it were likely that children would thereby suffer and/or die–which it is, given that many of the children whose subsistence depends on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are sons and daughters of feckless addicts, the mentally disabled, and so-on, who simply will not provide for them.
You said yes.
Which in other words means that you think an arrangement whereby you are permitted to keep a somewhat higher percentage of your income and children whose parents do not provide for them are not guaranteed the basic necessities of life is morally preferable to the current arrangement, whereby we know that American children don’t starve and the mean personal income tax rate is still closer to Mexico’s and Korea’s (relatively low) than it is to Italy’s and Poland’s (relatively high).[/quote]
Sorry, I couldn’t read this post through the bullshit. I said coercion is wrong. Forcing someone to pay for your morality is wrong. It’s the same thing religious states do.
This reductionist bullshit makes you look pretty dumb. Since you bought a coke the other day with money that you could have fed a hungry kid with, you think buying yourself a coke is more important than the plight of children. AND I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit in a forum and discuss something with a guy that is so morally evil he places his own access to a coke above the needs of starving children. GOOD DAY!