Anchor babies cost Los Angeles welfare $600 million last year

The Infamous Rico wrote:

<quoted text>
Religion is for the weak.

Religion yes, the supernal longing of the soul, no!

The west used to have a lot to offer the world spiritually.

Today we offer materialism and the joy of shopping.

noble white savage wrote:

<quoted text>
Religion yes, the supernal longing of the soul, no!
The west used to have a lot to offer the world spiritually.
Today we offer materialism and the joy of shopping.

There is a standard-design tombstone, perfect for the atheist!:

http://www.pigazette.com/Pigraphics/DONT%20BE...

Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!

Anchor babies cost my racial group it`s existence.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

White people can never finally disprove they are "racist",their very existence is seen as a form of "racism" by the so-called "anti-racists".

They say all things white must become "diverse" or it is "racism".

They say there should be no white countries,no white communities,no white schools,no white sports,no white social gatherings etc,etc.

The anti-whites give us whites two choices:Accept white geNOcide or you are a "racist".

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

SpencerNorris wrote:

Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY!
Anchor babies cost my racial group it`s existence.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

As I understand it, an anti-racist is against white people because they are white. Just because they are white. Its a brilliant observation about the covert and overt prejudice against white people.

SpencerNorris wrote:

White people can never finally disprove they are "racist",their very existence is seen as a form of "racism" by the so-called "anti-racists".
They say all things white must become "diverse" or it is "racism".
They say there should be no white countries,no white communities,no white schools,no white sports,no white social gatherings etc,etc.
The anti-whites give us whites two choices:Accept white geNOcide or you are a "racist".
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

The basic right of any group, ethnic or racial, is self-determination. Why are whites only denied the social institutions that allow their continued existence as a recognizable entity? I was be a program of genocide aimed at white people.
Those who fail to see this are genocidists. They usually deny it consistent with the stealthful way in which they operate.
They are anti-white.

Population reduction by means of two religions fighting it out is probably the best solution to an over populated planet. Hopefully the two religions will fight it out to the last ding dong standing so the rest of us can use the planet with more elbow room.

noble white savage wrote:

<quoted text>
Anti-white is called anti-racist, but it leads to the disappearance of one race and only one race, the white race. The real aim of anti-racism is to wipe out the white race or make it a minority anywhere it exists.
It is genocide.

Hispanics are typically caucasian and so are middle easterners, dotard.

Richard_ wrote:

Population reduction by means of two religions fighting it out is probably the best solution to an over populated planet. Hopefully the two religions will fight it out to the last ding dong standing so the rest of us can use the planet with more elbow room.

Try not to cry too much when your family gets caught in the cross fire of something you endorse!

Richard_ wrote:

Population reduction by means of two religions fighting it out is probably the best solution to an over populated planet. Hopefully the two religions will fight it out to the last ding dong standing so the rest of us can use the planet with more elbow room.

on the contrary, war is not an effective means of population reduction and never has been at any time in history on a global scale. regional conflicts can temporarily affect populations in isolated areas, but it has no meaningful effect on world population.

take for example world war 2 when over 30 million chinese died and over 20 million russians. the world population kept on growing.

another ineffective means is birth control and/or abortions.
in spite of all the birth control methods combined, the world population continues to grow and will soon double again.

so, in conclusion, there is only ONE WAY to effectively control the population, and that is by restricting the amount of food that is produced.

people are made of food.(you may need to stop and ponder that for a while until it sinks in) they are not made of bricks and mortar, or of wood, or of steel and glass, etc.

people are made strictly from 100% food. restrict the food supply and you can manage the population.

the first thing that you will do now is accuse me of wanting to starve people to death. that is totally unreasonable.

i said to restrict the food supply. that means food rationing. everyone eats, but everyone eats less.

think about it for a few days, and then you may comment.

lol

(HINT: forget about warfare, it will not reduce the population)

The Infamous Rico wrote:

<quoted text>
Try not to cry too much when your family gets caught in the cross fire of something you endorse!

I won't cry if they go to where they pray they want to go, lol.

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>I won't cry if they go to where they pray they want to go, lol.

Everyone cries when they lose a loved one.

The Infamous Rico wrote:

<quoted text>
Everyone cries when they lose a loved one.

you really don't lose a loved one if they go to the heaven they wanted to go to. It's as if they have moved out of state without a forwarding address.

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>you really don't lose a loved one if they go to the heaven they wanted to go to. It's as if they have moved out of state without a forwarding address.

I understand but it's still a sad thing to go through. It happens to all of us but I hope we all at least get a full life.

Laterz!!

Richard_ wrote:

<quoted text>Hispanics are typically caucasian and so are middle easterners, dotard.

Typically? Sure I beat. Most are mixed.

aIan wrote:

<quoted text>
on the contrary, war is not an effective means of population reduction and never has been at any time in history on a global scale. regional conflicts can temporarily affect populations in isolated areas, but it has no meaningful effect on world population.
take for example world war 2 when over 30 million chinese died and over 20 million russians. the world population kept on growing.
another ineffective means is birth control and/or abortions.
in spite of all the birth control methods combined, the world population continues to grow and will soon double again.
so, in conclusion, there is only ONE WAY to effectively control the population, and that is by restricting the amount of food that is produced.
people are made of food.(you may need to stop and ponder that for a while until it sinks in) they are not made of bricks and mortar, or of wood, or of steel and glass, etc.
people are made strictly from 100% food. restrict the food supply and you can manage the population.
the first thing that you will do now is accuse me of wanting to starve people to death. that is totally unreasonable.
i said to restrict the food supply. that means food rationing. everyone eats, but everyone eats less.
think about it for a few days, and then you may comment.
lol
(HINT: forget about warfare, it will not reduce the population)

Stone age people were very effective at limiting population by war. A lot of tribes had wars 3-4 times a year. They had no restriction on who to use an axe on: man, woman, child, old person. So it can work.

SOURCE: WAR BEFORE CIVILIZATION - Keeley

Richard_ wrote:

Population reduction by means of two religions fighting it out is probably the best solution to an over populated planet. Hopefully the two religions will fight it out to the last ding dong standing so the rest of us can use the planet with more elbow room.

Also sow the land with depleted uranium weapons (like the romans alted lands with salt) and then those who are born mainly have serious genetic problems.

Add in a little genetically modified food and a lot of vaccines designed to sterilize the males and females.

noble white savage wrote:

<quoted text>
Stone age people were very effective at limiting population by war. A lot of tribes had wars 3-4 times a year. They had no restriction on who to use an axe on: man, woman, child, old person. So it can work.
SOURCE: WAR BEFORE CIVILIZATION - Keeley

He makes three conclusions which the New York Times considers unexpected:

1) that the most important part of any society, even the most war-like ones, are the peaceful aspects such as art

2) that neither frequency nor intensity of war is correlated with population density

3) that societies frequently trading with one another fight more wars with one another

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civil... (Keeley)

lol

(HINT: like Keeley says, war is not an effective means of population control, especially when you consider that in war, it is traditionally the sperm donors who die, and not the baby producers)

positronium wrote:

<quoted text>It's really hard to say for sure but I am sure that those who do know about the constitution, even in rudimentary detail are in the minority.....A full knowledge of it should be required by seventh grade in favor of sex education which most kids BTW know quite well by then.....

The Constitution is interpreted by politicians and judges. Of course, in the days when the Constitution was written, the vast majority of people were Religious, and believed in God. Today, that is not the case. There are far too many people who have fallen away from organized Religions, thus leaving the doors open for a more liberal interpretation of a large portion of the document, and......there are also far too many people who have become just plain apathetic, and could care less what the document means, and could even less about it, unless........it affects them directly.

in 2008, out of an adult population of 228 million, 173 million described themselves as Christian, and another 8.8 million described themselves as having some other religious belief.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/p...

only 34.1 million described themselves as having no religious belief, and 11.8 refused to answer.