PDA

View Full Version : Karzai Sides With Pakistan Against USA



Franco
10-23-2011, 06:52 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/afghanistan-back-pakistan-wars-u-karzai-023316217.html

Another slap in the face for the USA from a country we are Nation Building.

How can we continue to lose American lives and billions in treasure over this shithole country?

For all of you that support Interventionist candidates; The world has changed in the last 50 years and it is NOT in our best interest to be the world police!

How many BILLION do we give to Pakistan annually so they will like us? How many BILLION and how many young American lives have we given to A'stan? For what?

Buzz
10-23-2011, 08:40 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all

dixidawg
10-23-2011, 08:44 AM
So I suspect we will be getting all the minerals from A'stan?

Just like we get all the free oil from Iraq?

charly_t
10-23-2011, 08:45 AM
I agree......we should have stopped a lot of this many years ago. I'm for sending food where they are starving, some clothing and some medical aid.
Maybe let churches handle it not our government. That may be too naive on my part but I see our government handling things badly too often.

Buzz
10-23-2011, 08:59 AM
So I suspect we will be getting all the minerals from A'stan?

Just like we get all the free oil from Iraq?

I'm not defending it, just putting it on the table.

Gerry Clinchy
10-23-2011, 09:38 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/afghanistan-back-pakistan-wars-u-karzai-023316217.html

Another slap in the face for the USA from a country we are Nation Building.

How can we continue to lose American lives and billions in treasure over this shithole country?

For all of you that support Interventionist candidates; The world has changed in the last 50 years and it is NOT in our best interest to be the world police!

How many BILLION do we give to Pakistan annually so they will like us? How many BILLION and how many young American lives have we given to A'stan? For what?

The Afghans sure aren't dumb. After fighting in Nam, the US left & the corrupt So Vietnamese govt fell to the North. After fighting in Iraq, the US is pulling out and chaos will ensue (I'm pretty sure), and Maliki will be in deep doo-doo. The Pakistanis aren't leaving the area.

Seems obvious that the Afghans would be nice to the Pakistanis. And if the Pakistanis also know about the large mineral deposits Buzz mentions, then Pakistan has reason to be nice to A'stan. If Iran becomes adventurous in Iraq, then P'stan and A'stan would feel stronger as allies with each other.

HPL
10-23-2011, 11:02 PM
I agree......we should have stopped a lot of this many years ago. I'm for sending food where they are starving, some clothing and some medical aid.
Maybe let churches handle it not our government. That may be too naive on my part but I see our government handling things badly too often.
Why send food or medicine. That doesn't make them our friends and it makes them healthier and stronger. A little natural attrition is probably in our best interests (not to mention there are too many people in the world anyway, why help our enemies increase)

charly_t
10-23-2011, 11:26 PM
Why send food or medicine. That doesn't make them our friends and it makes them healthier and stronger. A little natural attrition is probably in our best interests (not to mention there are too many people in the world anyway, why help our enemies increase)

Well.....because it is the right thing to do. Not trying to make friends just trying to do the right thing. I do not believe in leaving any animal or human to suffer. Then again I don't want the government to step in and make you help with something you don't believe in helping with. Very simple.........I do what I believe in and you are free to do the same.

HPL
10-24-2011, 12:05 AM
Well.....because it is the right thing to do. Not trying to make friends just trying to do the right thing. I do not believe in leaving any animal or human to suffer. Then again I don't want the government to step in and make you help with something you don't believe in helping with. Very simple.........I do what I believe in and you are free to do the same.
Is it the right thing to do? Many of the areas where people are starving are areas where the land simply can't support the population (yes I know that government corruption, strife, etc are also factors). Feeding them simply allows them to further increase the population (and we are now at a bit over 7,000,000,000) putting further strain on the world and more specifically the resources in those particular areas. More people in the drought and famine stricken areas of the world simply compounds the problem and ensures even greater misery in the not too distant future. The world's natural places are being destroyed at a ridiculous rate to provide for the needs of the out of control human population (primarily caused by the green revolution and modern antibiotics). It sounds cold, but sometimes what appears to be the "right thing" may in fact be the worst thing. I don't type well enough to do the topic real justice, but I don't think that propping up the population in areas that are above reasonable carrying capacity is a good solution.

charly_t
10-24-2011, 12:41 AM
Is it the right thing to do? Many of the areas where people are starving are areas where the land simply can't support the population (yes I know that government corruption, strife, etc are also factors). Feeding them simply allows them to further increase the population (and we are now at a bit over 7,000,000,000) putting further strain on the world and more specifically the resources in those particular areas. More people in the drought and famine stricken areas of the world simply compounds the problem and ensures even greater misery in the not too distant future. The world's natural places are being destroyed at a ridiculous rate to provide for the needs of the out of control human population (primarily caused by the green revolution and modern antibiotics). It sounds cold, but sometimes what appears to be the "right thing" may in fact be the worst thing. I don't type well enough to do the topic real justice, but I don't think that propping up the population in areas that are above reasonable carrying capacity is a good solution.

I do understand your concern. And I do firmly believe that birth control should be taught and made available. I would like to think ( even if it is far fetched ) that when we have problems in this country that someone would come to our aid. So do you expect us to ignore those buried in the rubble after an earthquake and if so how do we decide who gets any help and who doesn't. Or do you just let people starve to death slowly ? Where do we as humans draw that line ? Not trying to argue but I see no good way to fix these things. I see the USA as having a problem where we can't feed our own population in a few years. We are bringing more and more of the food that we consume into this country from other countries. Pick up any 5 products in the grocery store and check to see how many are from this country. That is a random check on things. If we keep putting farmers out of business in this country and if something happens where we can't buy that food from other countries for some reason ( like our money not being worth a tinker's dam ) what then. Just a few things to think on as I well remember rationing during WW2. We depend on more out of the country ( USA ) products by far now than we did back then.

HPL
10-24-2011, 02:14 AM
I do understand your concern. And I do firmly believe that birth control should be taught and made available. I would like to think ( even if it is far fetched ) that when we have problems in this country that someone would come to our aid. So do you expect us to ignore those buried in the rubble after an earthquake and if so how do we decide who gets any help and who doesn't. Or do you just let people starve to death slowly ? Where do we as humans draw that line ? Not trying to argue but I see no good way to fix these things. I see the USA as having a problem where we can't feed our own population in a few years. We are bringing more and more of the food that we consume into this country from other countries. Pick up any 5 products in the grocery store and check to see how many are from this country. That is a random check on things. If we keep putting farmers out of business in this country and if something happens where we can't buy that food from other countries for some reason ( like our money not being worth a tinker's dam ) what then. Just a few things to think on as I well remember rationing during WW2. We depend on more out of the country ( USA ) products by far now than we did back then.
I'm not too concerned about us being able to feed us. Any food we import is more a question of economics or a quest for variety than a question of our ability to grow food. North America has a tremendous amount of arable land (as long as we have access to the raw materials for producing fertilizer). Much of it is currently "held out" of production for mostly economic reasons and much more is in non-food crops (again for economic reasons). It is true that if you want avocados in the winter, etc. that food has to be imported, but we can grow enough fruit, vegetables, and grain to not only feed ourselves but to send food aid all over the world.
I also just went to my pantry and checked on the staples and my Texmati rice was grown in the USA, my Adobe Mills beans are a product of the USA, Campbells soup, ditto, same for my whole wheat pasta. My bread and butter pickled jalapenos are manufactured by a little company in Abilene, Tx (www.peppertraders.com :you should look them up, really delicious). The strawberries came from California (I do have some beans that come from Mexico, but they're more of a specialty product than a staple). Sure we see tons of food in the store that comes from other countries (my Dole mixed fruit is a product of Thailand!!) but it is mostly stuff that gives us variety, not necessities. At the moment huge areas of our arable land are dedicated to corn production, much of which we EXPORT, and much of which goes into ethanol production. Before we suffered famine, some that land could be put back into food production.
To address you other question. Yes, I think we let people starve. We can't eradicate hunger or need and our attempts to do so often just make the situation worse in the long run. Feed them and they have the energy to breed and then there are more mouths to feed and so on. Think about what happens to your pastures if you supplement your herd to allow more animals than your range will support. The increased number of animals puts additional stress on the range, degrading it further meaning that you will have to provide additional supplementation and so on until you can no longer afford to supplement the herd and now the range is really shot and the crash is really bad and the range may not recover for generations. So, perhaps a few starve now or many starve later. I know it is a bit simplistic, but the basic principles hold.

M&K's Retrievers
10-24-2011, 10:22 AM
I suggest we get out, stay out and stop sending any money, troops or equipment to any country that is not our ally and only then in case of emergency or natural disaster. Those other countries should be visited with a stealth bomber, drone, etc. when required as a matter of national security.

Bleeding heart regards,

Sue Kiefer
10-24-2011, 11:18 AM
WOW.
Interesting thoughts.
Let them starve ?:confused:
WOW!
Ok then........................
Sue

M&K's Retrievers
10-24-2011, 12:12 PM
WOW.
Interesting thoughts.
Let them starve ?:confused:
WOW!
Ok then........................
Sue

What part of "emergency or natural disaster" did you not understand?

Gerry Clinchy
10-24-2011, 01:11 PM
Is it the right thing to do? Many of the areas where people are starving are areas where the land simply can't support the population (yes I know that government corruption, strife, etc are also factors). Feeding them simply allows them to further increase the population (and we are now at a bit over 7,000,000,000) putting further strain on the world and more specifically the resources in those particular areas. More people in the drought and famine stricken areas of the world simply compounds the problem and ensures even greater misery in the not too distant future. The world's natural places are being destroyed at a ridiculous rate to provide for the needs of the out of control human population (primarily caused by the green revolution and modern antibiotics). It sounds cold, but sometimes what appears to be the "right thing" may in fact be the worst thing. I don't type well enough to do the topic real justice, but I don't think that propping up the population in areas that are above reasonable carrying capacity is a good solution.

I believe this very issue has been raised with Ethiopia and Haiti. To feed and care for these countries without providing them with information and skills to improve their situation is almost in the realm of irresponsible. Starving, hopeless people are easy pawns for tyranny and dictators. Gadafi came to power in Libya like that.

Sue Kiefer
10-24-2011, 01:26 PM
Not a dam thing. But to actual type in a public forum "To let them starve." or better yet to judge a 3rd. world country on the basics of birth control at a time when it IS a natural disaster is just stupid AND heartless.

HPL
10-24-2011, 01:29 PM
WOW.
Interesting thoughts.
Let them starve ?:confused:
WOW!
Ok then........................
Sue
It's harsh but it's not like we're rare or in danger of going extinct. We are, in fact a veritable plague on our own house, despoiling the very resources that we require for our existence. I would suggest that rather than letting them starve we should lace their food with contraceptives, but I am sure that would get me compared with the Nazis etc. I would think that folks who like to hunt and are in tune with the natural world would understand the general principles of carrying capacity and what happens as you approach and exceed it. Personally I would like to see the world population drift back down to about where it was when I was born (3 bil).
I also agree with Mike. We shouldn't be wasting our limited treasure on those who don't support us completely.

Sue Kiefer
10-24-2011, 01:35 PM
HPL,
You compared yourself to a Nazi NOT I.
How can a 3rd. world country with their limited resources and such help us?????
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???

HPL
10-24-2011, 02:10 PM
Not a dam thing. But to actual type in a public forum "To let them starve." or better yet to judge a 3rd. world country on the basics of birth control at a time when it IS a natural disaster is just stupid AND heartless.
I don't understand the "Not a dam (will they delete it if you spell it correctly) thing comment. To what are you referring? As far as expressing my thought on a public forum, one of the big problems is that people are afraid to speak the truth in public. If we are going to give food to these areas "in crisis" there should be major strings attached, the main one being that they have to hit certain population control benchmarks. Perhaps lead by mandatory sterilization of a certain proportion of their breeding age population. Drastic, absolutely, but after all they are in "crisis" and that requires drastic measures. Feed them and give them the technology to increase the carrying capacity of their land without halting population growth just exacerbates the problem in the long run. Because of my concerns regarding the population problem I chose not to reproduce, so this problem isn't really my concern as I don't have children or grandchildren who will have to live in the world to come, but those of you with children and grandchildren should be really scared.

Byron Musick
10-24-2011, 02:16 PM
After reading part of this thread, I think it needs some Sam recentering, for perspective purposes only..

http://youtu.be/vN7ehccspao

:) :)

HPL
10-24-2011, 02:24 PM
After reading part of this thread, I think it needs some Sam recentering, for perspective purposes only..

http://youtu.be/vN7ehccspao

:) :)
I loved Sam Kinnison. We really lost a great one when he died. In another time he would have been a prophet.

road kill
10-24-2011, 02:36 PM
Not a dam thing. But to actual type in a public forum "To let them starve." or better yet to judge a 3rd. world country on the basics of birth control at a time when it IS a natural disaster is just stupid AND heartless.

So.....having children you do not have the means to properly care for or even feed is smart and compassionate??:shock:


All-righty then..........


RK

Sue Kiefer
10-24-2011, 03:03 PM
Yes HPL I do have kids AND and I feel for people that ARE less fortunate than myself and my kids.Especially the children. :(
But to kick a dog when it's down ?? really???
Or this is better...............
Hey, I'll help you BUT you have to change the way that you have been living for hundreds of yrs. or you and your family can go hungry.:confused:
Who the hell are you .

Cody Covey
10-24-2011, 03:06 PM
Yes HPL I do have kids AND and I feel for people that ARE less fortunate than myself and my kids.Especially the children. :(
But to kick a dog when it's down ?? really???
Or this is better...............
Hey, I'll help you BUT you have to change the way that you have been living for hundreds of yrs. or you and your family can go hungry.:confused:
Who the hell are you .
So I take it you have absolutely no problem with Welfare then either?

Franco
10-24-2011, 03:28 PM
It's harsh but it's not like we're rare or in danger of going extinct. We are, in fact a veritable plague on our own house, despoiling the very resources that we require for our existence. I would suggest that rather than letting them starve we should lace their food with contraceptives, but I am sure that would get me compared with the Nazis etc. I would think that folks who like to hunt and are in tune with the natural world would understand the general principles of carrying capacity and what happens as you approach and exceed it. Personally I would like to see the world population drift back down to about where it was when I was born (3 bil).
I also agree with Mike. We shouldn't be wasting our limited treasure on those who don't support us completely.

3 Billion would be a wonderful situation compared to the 7 billion today! Same with the USA, we were much better off with the average American having a higher standard of living when we were 200 million instead of the 325 million today.

World over population is something that needed to be addressed a long time ago but don't forget that the subject is taboo because of religion.

HPL
10-24-2011, 03:30 PM
Who the hell am I? Well, in this instance I am the one providing what it takes to save your life, so yes, if you want my help, you are going to have to abide by some of MY rules. Clearly the way you have been living for generations isn't working out so well, so we are going to FORCE you to change or STARVE, your choice. Ever heard the expression "keep doing what you have been doing, keep getting what you have been getting"? If I am paying the piper, I get to call the tune. I didn't say that I don't feel for those people, but I am smart enough to know that supporting them way over carrying capacity is not the solution. For an example close to home, look at what the huge increase in the snow goose population has done to their breeding grounds (which they share with numerous species near and dear to the waterfowlers' hearts). We are rapidly headed for a world with no wild great apes left, no rhinos, no big cats in the wild, and so on and so on. It is all being caused by the surge in our numbers (not the snow goose thing, that was just an example of what happens when population gets out of control). Why support that surge? Is that really the humane thing to do?

As for kicking dogs, now that't another matter completely. I catch you kicking a dog, you better be ready for a fight (6'3' 250ish lbs).

Franco
10-24-2011, 03:38 PM
Who the hell am I? Well, in this instance I am the one providing what it takes to save your life, so yes, if you want my help, you are going to have to abide by some of MY rules. Clearly the way you have been living for generations isn't working out so well, so we are going to FORCE you to change or STARVE, your choice. Ever heard the expression "keep doing what you have been doing, keep getting what you have been getting"? If I am paying the piper, I get to call the tune. I didn't say that I don't feel for those people, but I am smart enough to know that supporting them way over carrying capacity is not the solution. For an example close to home, look at what the huge increase in the snow goose population has done to their breeding grounds (which they share with numerous species near and dear to the waterfowlers' hearts). We are rapidly headed for a world with no wild great apes left, no rhinos, no big cats in the wild, and so on and so on. It is all being caused by the surge in our numbers (not the snow goose thing, that was just an example of what happens when population gets out of control). Why support that surge? Is that really the humane thing to do?

As for kicking dogs, now that't another matter completely. I catch you kicking a dog, you better be ready for a fight (6'3' 250ish lbs).

For over the last 30 years China has had a policy of one child per couple. If a couple has a second child, that couple was under pressure of fines and or forced abortion. Because of the infantcide of female babies, there are 118 men to everyone 100 woman in China today. So, the limit has just ben raised to two offspring per couple just as long as neither one has a child from a previous relationship.

The policy did wonders in getting China's out of control population under controal and managable.

We should look at Norplant here in the USA for couples/mothers having children that are unable to feed and educate them. A moritorium of immigration into the USA also needs to be looked at seriously. The more people we add to our popluation the lower the quailty of life for all.

Hew
10-24-2011, 03:53 PM
World over population is something that needed to be addressed a long time ago but don't forget that the subject is taboo because of religion.
Example #47 of you taking some random round peg (in this case, world overpopulation) and trying to ram it into your tried and true square hole of religion as the root of all problems. Too bad the most irreligious country in the world is also the most populated country in the world; thus making your theory kinda, well...silly.

Franco
10-24-2011, 04:00 PM
Example #47 of you taking some random round peg (in this case, world overpopulation) and trying to ram it into your tried and true square hole of religion as the root of all problems. Too bad the most irreligious country in the world is also the most populated country in the world; thus making your theory kinda, well...silly.

Actually, after 30 plus years it has worked out great for them!

charly_t
10-24-2011, 04:01 PM
WOW.
Interesting thoughts.
Let them starve ?:confused:
WOW!
Ok then........................
Sue

Interesting turn this thread has taken. Evidently some don't care about other humans..........oh, yeah I forgot some of the people worship animals now. I feel like you do, some help is needed sometimes. I just want to be able to have a choice in where my money goes. For my part I still think we should help starving children in refugee camps and the like. Do I support whole countries who are making their own problems "no". I suspect that you endorse that view also.

Hew
10-24-2011, 04:05 PM
The policy did wonders in getting China's out of control population under controal and managable.
The policy has also assured that multitudes of millions of Chinese men will never have an opportunity to date, marry, have a family because of the looming shortage of women. I've read more than one article that claims this shortage of women in China could have world-wide implications. Those millions of extra Chinese men are not going to be happy about thier situation. The Chinese govt. isn't going to want tens of millions of disgruntled Chinese men. Now ponder what a belligerent Chinese govt. might choose to do with an extra 20 million Chinese men...thus solving a few of their problems simultaneously.

charly_t
10-24-2011, 04:14 PM
I'm not too concerned about us being able to feed us. Any food we import is more a question of economics or a quest for variety than a question of our ability to grow food. North America has a tremendous amount of arable land (as long as we have access to the raw materials for producing fertilizer). Much of it is currently "held out" of production for mostly economic reasons and much more is in non-food crops (again for economic reasons). It is true that if you want avocados in the winter, etc. that food has to be imported, but we can grow enough fruit, vegetables, and grain to not only feed ourselves but to send food aid all over the world.
I also just went to my pantry and checked on the staples and my Texmati rice was grown in the USA, my Adobe Mills beans are a product of the USA, Campbells soup, ditto, same for my whole wheat pasta. My bread and butter pickled jalapenos are manufactured by a little company in Abilene, Tx (www.peppertraders.com :you should look them up, really delicious). The strawberries came from California (I do have some beans that come from Mexico, but they're more of a specialty product than a staple). Sure we see tons of food in the store that comes from other countries (my Dole mixed fruit is a product of Thailand!!) but it is mostly stuff that gives us variety, not necessities. At the moment huge areas of our arable land are dedicated to corn production, much of which we EXPORT, and much of which goes into ethanol production. Before we suffered famine, some that land could be put back into food production.
To address you other question. Yes, I think we let people starve. We can't eradicate hunger or need and our attempts to do so often just make the situation worse in the long run. Feed them and they have the energy to breed and then there are more mouths to feed and so on. Think about what happens to your pastures if you supplement your herd to allow more animals than your range will support. The increased number of animals puts additional stress on the range, degrading it further meaning that you will have to provide additional supplementation and so on until you can no longer afford to supplement the herd and now the range is really shot and the crash is really bad and the range may not recover for generations. So, perhaps a few starve now or many starve later. I know it is a bit simplistic, but the basic principles hold.

I hope you continue to buy the products from our country. The problem is sometimes that things say "packaged in the USA" are not produced here. The wording is very important. I recently looked for a certain food item and found that most read that way as in "Packaged in the USA". I read furture and did some research and low and behold the actual item was grown/produced in another country and shipped into the USA in bulk and repacked for our market. The clerk who stocked shelves in the grocery store asked if I need help. I pointed out the wording and it completely went over his head. What the US government allows in the way of wording is a crime ! Read about Ken's Maple syrup problems ( in another thread I believe ).

HPL
10-24-2011, 04:15 PM
The policy has also assured that multitudes of millions of Chinese men will never have an opportunity to date, marry, have a family because of the looming shortage of women. I've read more than one article that claims this shortage of women in China could have world-wide implications. Those millions of extra Chinese men are not going to be happy about thier situation. The Chinese govt. isn't going to want tens of millions of disgruntled Chinese men. Now ponder what a belligerent Chinese govt. might choose to do with an extra 20 million Chinese men...thus solving a few of their problems simultaneously.
So the policy needed some tweaking. Should have rewarded some families for having girls.

charly_t
10-24-2011, 04:19 PM
So the policy needed some tweaking. Should have rewarded some families for having girls.

LOL, your post is tongue in cheek I would guess.

HPL
10-24-2011, 04:27 PM
[QUOTE=charly_t;869989]I hope you continue to buy the products from our country. The problem is sometimes that things say "packaged in the USA" are not produced here.

I spent some time reading about food imports/exports last night and from what I can tell it is actually possible that there are products that we import that are made from grain that we grew and then exported to countries where the processing costs are lower than they are here. Now THAT'S a problem, but it doesn't really have anything to do with our ability to grow the food it takes to feed us. North America is not really in danger of actual over-population (as in exceeding carrying capacity), but clearly at least for those of us who enjoy the wild or even moderately wild places, the greater our population, the poorer the quality of life.

HPL
10-24-2011, 04:28 PM
LOL, your post is tongue in cheek I would guess.
Actually, no.

charly_t
10-24-2011, 04:35 PM
Actually, no.

Sorry, I thought you were making a joke since girls/women were not considered important in that country. I would guess that the old thinking may be changing a little now but maybe not.

Franco
10-24-2011, 04:36 PM
China has recently tweaked thier birth policy allowing for two offspring per couple as long as there are no pre-exsisting children from either producer;-)

China's population was out of control 40 years ago. The policy of one child is the reason they have it under control. Yes, there are a few million Chinese men that can't find a mate. Policy may not be perfect for all but it worked for their country! Today, they are the emerging superpower and anyone starving in China is their fault.

HPL
10-24-2011, 04:51 PM
Sorry, I thought you were making a joke since girls/women were not considered important in that country. I would guess that the old thinking may be changing a little now but maybe not.
No need to apologize, I can see where you might have thought that. I was aware that girl babies were not valued to the point of being drowned so it just seemed to me that had the government arranged for some families to be rewarded for keeping first born girls (or settling for a girl if you wish) that could have ameliorated the current problem.

It's dove season and the pup is getting antsy. About time to hit the field so will have to pick this back up after sunset.

charly_t
10-24-2011, 05:05 PM
[QUOTE=charly_t;869989]I hope you continue to buy the products from our country. The problem is sometimes that things say "packaged in the USA" are not produced here.

I spent some time reading about food imports/exports last night and from what I can tell it is actually possible that there are products that we import that are made from grain that we grew and then exported to countries where the processing costs are lower than they are here. Now THAT'S a problem, but it doesn't really have anything to do with our ability to grow the food it takes to feed us. North America is not really in danger of actual over-population (as in exceeding carrying capacity), but clearly at least for those of us who enjoy the wild or even moderately wild places, the greater our population, the poorer the quality of life.

Correct. The thing is that our food chain is very complicated anymore. That fact is going to be one of the problems. Now the fact that we have this vast amount of land may help us ........ but read on. Take our lack of rain this year in the midwest part of our country. It
could have really cut down on food production. If we have enough stored of grains etc. we may be okay but who knows when we may have that same problem for say 5 or 6 years running. Lots of OK ranchers and farmers had to sell off cattle this year. If you have this as a general problem in the USA it will impact a lot of our foods. Not enough hay because of the lack of rain. Not enough pasture to support the cattle because of lack of rain. Hard Summer, worse Winter ? We could have more rain problems in this country at some point. Now add to that the government regulations that will hamper some farmers and ranchers. A lot of people who grow your food and mine will be out of Business. There are already many things being shipped in (as stated before ) and most people in our country have never seen shortages. So far we do not see shortages but we may at some time. Money to buy things does not always mean that you can get them. We may at some time be as poor as some other countries. Hope we can still grow enough so that we don't starve. Just remember how many months ( or years ) it may take for a crop.

BonMallari
10-24-2011, 07:37 PM
to even suggest that anyone gets to decide who can and can not have children borders on insanity..its bad enough that our society allows unborns to be aborted with little to no remorse..and its not a religious issue..its a human rights issue

Thank goodness that China didn't slaughter a certain young little girl about 11 yrs ago or my niece in Ohio wouldnt have been able to adopt a beautiful young daughter

huntinman
10-24-2011, 07:39 PM
For over the last 30 years China has had a policy of one child per couple. If a couple has a second child, that couple was under pressure of fines and or forced abortion. Because of the infantcide of female babies, there are 118 men to everyone 100 woman in China today. So, the limit has just ben raised to two offspring per couple just as long as neither one has a child from a previous relationship.

The policy did wonders in getting China's out of control population under controal and managable.

We should look at Norplant here in the USA for couples/mothers having children that are unable to feed and educate them. A moritorium of immigration into the USA also needs to be looked at seriously. The more people we add to our popluation the lower the quailty of life for all.


Apparently libertarians and communists have a lot in common?:rolleyes:

Franco
10-24-2011, 07:58 PM
to even suggest that anyone gets to decide who can and can not have children borders on insanity..its bad enough that our society allows unborns to be aborted with little to no remorse..and its not a religious issue..its a human rights issue

Thank goodness that China didn't slaughter a certain young little girl about 11 yrs ago or my niece in Ohio wouldnt have been able to adopt a beautiful young daughter

World overpopulation is real. We can either work to reduce the number of births in 3rd world countries or we can bury our heads in the sand and let the misery continue.

What China did worked for China! They identified the problem and came up with a realistic workable solution to their overpopulation. Perfect? No. Did it help the People of China? Yes!

Moral or Human Rights issue? Definitely, when it makes mankind more focused on quality of life.

HPL
10-24-2011, 09:47 PM
to even suggest that anyone gets to decide who can and can not have children borders on insanity..its bad enough that our society allows unborns to be aborted with little to no remorse..and its not a religious issue..its a human rights issue

Thank goodness that China didn't slaughter a certain young little girl about 11 yrs ago or my niece in Ohio wouldnt have been able to adopt a beautiful young daughter
Ahhh, finally the response I have been expecting. "The right to reproduce is the most basic of ALL human rights, etc., etc., etc." To that statement, my response would have to be "Says who?" To say the it is insane to suggest that it may be time for some coercive measures to get the human population catastrophe under control is simply ludicrous. It took from the time man stood up and became man until around 1860 or so for there to be one billion people on the earth at one time. It only took until I was born in the mid 1950's for that number to triple!! (so it took about 100 years to add two billion). We hit a bit over seven billion sometime last month I believe (so only about 50 years to add another FOUR BILLION!!!!). We are pouring pollutants into the air and water, we are over harvesting the oceans to provide protein for the human population, we are converting highly productive rain forest into marginally productive crop land, and on and on and on. It is because there are too many of us (way too many). Anybody with a biology, ecology, animal science, or math education can see where this is headed. Only a fool would be unable to predict the likely consequences. In this world having more than two children is the height of immorality and to suggest that it is OK for anyone to have more than two children is just ridiculous. We need a comprehensive, world wide population management plan and we need it yesterday.

HPL
10-24-2011, 09:54 PM
World overpopulation is real. We can either work to reduce the number of births in 3rd world countries or we can bury our heads in the sand and let the misery continue.

What China did worked for China! They identified the problem and came up with a realistic workable solution to their overpopulation. Perfect? No. Did it help the People of China? Yes!

Moral or Human Rights issue? Definitely, when it makes mankind more focused on quality of life.
How do you highlight part of the quote in red?
HPL

Franco
10-24-2011, 09:59 PM
How do you highlight part of the quote in red?
HPL

Highlight the part you want in color by clicking and dragging over the subject. Then, go to the big A at the top and click on a color.

HPL
10-24-2011, 10:35 PM
Highlight the part you want in color by clicking and dragging over the subject. Then, go to the big A at the top and click on a color.
Thanks, NOW I SEE it. Don't know how I missed those controls all this time. I was also wondering how some folks were changing the fonts. As my mom would say "If it had been a snake ........" Feel pretty inept at the moment.

BonMallari
10-24-2011, 11:25 PM
Ahhh, finally the response I have been expecting. "The right to reproduce is the most basic of ALL human rights, etc., etc., etc." To that statement, my response would have to be "Says who?" To say the it is insane to suggest that it may be time for some coercive measures to get the human population catastrophe under control is simply ludicrous. It took from the time man stood up and became man until around 1860 or so for there to be one billion people on the earth at one time. It only took until I was born in the mid 1950's for that number to triple!! (so it took about 100 years to add two billion). We hit a bit over seven billion sometime last month I believe (so only about 50 years to add another FOUR BILLION!!!!). We are pouring pollutants into the air and water, we are over harvesting the oceans to provide protein for the human population, we are converting highly productive rain forest into marginally productive crop land, and on and on and on. It is because there are too many of us (way too many). Anybody with a biology, ecology, animal science, or math education can see where this is headed. Only a fool would be unable to predict the likely consequences. In this world having more than two children is the height of immorality and to suggest that it is OK for anyone to have more than two children is just ridiculous. We need a comprehensive, world wide population management plan and we need it yesterday.

Oh really : I came from a family of TEN, none of my brothers or sisters have had more than two (a couple of them have adopted), I have ONE child

Do I realize world population is spiraling out of control, YES

Considering how many, including those near and dear to me have struggled, just to have ONE child, and yet you want me to think that they are only allowed to have a finite number...

That's easy for you to say because you're already here..

Dont know if you are a parent or not, but until I became one very late in life, I always thought I was pro choice, UNTIL I had to make the decision along with my son's mom on having a child...it changed my life and thinking forever

HPL
10-25-2011, 12:32 AM
Oh really : I came from a family of TEN, none of my brothers or sisters have had more than two (a couple of them have adopted), I have ONE child

Do I realize world population is spiraling out of control, YES

Dont know if you are a parent or not, but until I became one very late in life, I always thought I was pro choice, UNTIL I had to make the decision along with my son's mom on having a child...it changed my life and thinking forever[/QUOTE]

If you had read the posts you would know that my wife and I CHOSE not to have children (TOO MANY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!!)

So what you are telling us is that your parents went from two people to something in the neighborhood of 20 people in just two generations. Not a glowing example.

This is not a question of personal rights or what people "want". It's a case of a finite world being consumed by an ever growing human population. The later we wait, the more draconian the eventual remedy. In the US I don't think it would be necessary to legislate family size, but I'm not giving you an additional tax deduction for any children over the first two and I'm going to take away a deduction for each child beyond the 3rd one. Don't get me started on what should be done with folks on welfare who seem to be breeding like rats.

BonMallari
10-25-2011, 12:58 AM
HPL : with all due respect , you and your wife deciding not to have any kids was YOUR choice

my family choosing to have children was OUR choice

You're not right and I'm not wrong and vice versa..be glad we live in a country where that choice can be made by us and not some disinterested third party..

this isnt Survivor island, where we vote to see who gets expelled off the island..

theoretically we could wipe out an entire generation by legislating who and how many get to reproduce

I only know coming from a large family, I will NEVER know what its like coming from a small family,

We have never been on food stamps, welfare, only collected unemployment 4 weeks in my entire life and that was almost 16 yrs ago, hopefully wont have to ever do that again

HPL
10-25-2011, 01:31 AM
HPL : with all due respect , you and your wife deciding not to have any kids was YOUR choice

my family choosing to have children was OUR choice

You're not right and I'm not wrong and vice versa..be glad we live in a country where that choice can be made by us and not some disinterested third party..

this isnt Survivor island, where we vote to see who gets expelled off the island..

theoretically we could wipe out an entire generation by legislating who and how many get to reproduce

I only know coming from a large family, I will NEVER know what its like coming from a small family,

We have never been on food stamps, welfare, only collected unemployment 4 weeks in my entire life and that was almost 16 yrs ago, hopefully wont have to ever do that again
Actually I AM right and you are absolutely wrong. Since you seem to think that this is an issue of personal choice, I would point that some choices are more responsible than others. You think this is a question of whether your family had the financial wherewithal to support a large family and that is so not the issue. Just because someone can afford 5, 10, or 20 children doesn't mean they have the right to that share of the world. Did ya'll go to private school? If not then people like my parents who were more responsible subsidized your parents' irresponsible behavior (just as one example). It absolutely is not a question of what the individual can afford but rather what the world as a whole can't. It never ceases to amaze me that some people who love the outdoors and should be aware of how nature works in general seem to think that somehow humans are exempt from these basic laws.

BonMallari
10-25-2011, 02:33 AM
My parents were not irresponsible and your parents did not have to subsidize us, my dad earned that right by his service to the US Army..the very same one that you belong(ed) to..and considering I am the only child of my family born post WWII, I dont think your family subsidized any of us...my dad was also a recipient of the Silver and Bronze Star and is interrred at Fort Sam Houston, my mother, God willing will turn 99 at the end of November

What gives you the right to judge my parents, you know nothing about them..My parents might have had their faults,but irresponsible is not one of them

Hew
10-25-2011, 02:38 AM
HPL, reading your thoughts in this thread is like going back in time 200 years and listening to a Thomas Malthus lecture (before his theories on world overpopulation were thoroughly debunked). I particularly enjoy the delicious irony of your embedded quote about tyranny as you argue for the correctness of the State to determine how many children one can have. Nice touch!

The fact that China can manage to feed its people now is not a function of some Draconian and despicable one child policy, but due to the fact that they joined the rest of the world in embracing a market-based economy. Just the kind of thing that Malthus didn't account for with his dire, Chicken Little warnings about overpopulation two centuries ago.

huntinman
10-25-2011, 08:40 AM
Any chance HPL is DNF777 in drag?

huntinman
10-25-2011, 08:51 AM
Actually I AM right and you are absolutely wrong. Since you seem to think that this is an issue of personal choice, I would point that some choices are more responsible than others. You think this is a question of whether your family had the financial wherewithal to support a large family and that is so not the issue. Just because someone can afford 5, 10, or 20 children doesn't mean they have the right to that share of the world. Did ya'll go to private school? If not then people like my parents who were more responsible subsidized your parents' irresponsible behavior (just as one example). It absolutely is not a question of what the individual can afford but rather what the world as a whole can't. It never ceases to amaze me that some people who love the outdoors and should be aware of how nature works in general seem to think that somehow humans are exempt from these basic laws.

So, every species in nature only has one offspring?

Gerry Clinchy
10-25-2011, 09:48 AM
I think you're being too hard on HPL.

It is undeniable that the world population has increased. We know for a fact that Haiti and Ethiopia are over-populated for what their geography can support.

The cogent point, I think, is that the population is growing in a disproportionate way. People in the US & Europe are actually conscious of decreasing their family size due to the economic pressures of a large family.

There are cultures where children produced is equivalent in stature to having a large or fancy house. I'm no sociologist, but it seems to be in cultures where infant mortality was historically high. It was necessary to produce many children, so that a few could survive, and contribute to the family "income". That was the case for farm families here over 100 years aqo, when children helped run the farm. Our culture evolved away from that as farming methods changed.

The second influence is education, communication and economic advancement. Do women in Ethiopia really WANT to hold dying babies? I really don't think so! However, they are in a void of education and economic opportunity. I think that the women of these countries would welcome information about contraception! As long as women are not allowed to participate in education and economic opportunity, there will be a problem.

These premises seems to hold true in all places where there is over-population (more humans than the geography & economy can support), whether talking about 3rd World countries or welfare mothers in developed countries. Muslim populations are increasing at a very high rate ... in these societies women are kept uneducated & deprived of individual economic opportunity by virtue of their culture.

charly_t
10-25-2011, 10:55 AM
Any chance HPL is DNF777 in drag?

Interesting thought ! Personally I am happy that HPL has chosen not to have children !!!!!! :-) Just hope that HPL is not a teacher anyplace. He ( or she )is free to make their own choices as far as I'm concerned just don't want him making my choices etc. though.

Sue Kiefer
10-25-2011, 11:58 AM
I think we all can agree on :The world is over populated.
BUT to go into a another country( 3rd. world country who has lived hundreds of yrs. with their own beliefs and customs) with ultamatums is stupid and NOT politically correct.
I do think that the funds need to be limited funds that are raised through a fund raiser(For Example: Rock Concert,Country Concert...) rather than just paid out.
If you think that some other countries hate the USA(for pushing our beliefs onto other countries) can you even imagine what would happened "IF" the USA starting telling other countries "We'll help you BUT you have to do this that and the other thing first.......???
I think that we can suggest to them by teaching.
My choice or Bons choice to have children is our choice.
Your choice Mr. HPL is your choice.
Get off that bus!! You will only piss off lots of people here:-x
Please let's stay with the topic of the tread.
Sue

HPL
10-25-2011, 12:02 PM
My parents were not irresponsible and your parents did not have to subsidize us, my dad earned that right by his service to the US Army..the very same one that you belong(ed) to..and considering I am the only child of my family born post WWII, I dont think your family subsidized any of us...my dad was also a recipient of the Silver and Bronze Star and is interrred at Fort Sam Houston, my mother, God willing will turn 99 at the end of November

What gives you the right to judge my parents, you know nothing about them..My parents might have had their faults,but irresponsible is not one of them
Interesting. Your parents were a bit older than mine so my dad was Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple heart in Korea. I'm sure your parents were very responsible in many ways, just not in their reproductive choices (and of course birth control was not quite as easy back then). I'm only commenting on reproductive choices. I have several friends who come from huge families. All were raised well and are productive members of society (there are just too damn many of them). It always amazes me that seemingly intelligent people seem to think that humans are somehow exempt from the basic laws of nature. I also know plenty of people who will say "Look around, there is still plenty room for us, we can always put that rainforest, prairie, brushland, etc. into crops (who cares about the creatures that call it home now), there are still [I]some[I] fish in the ocean. How does [B]that ([B]you name the animal, plant, ecosystem) serve man?" We are too many, so as I said that got this whole thing started, let some of them starve, don't feed them unless they meet certain reproductive benchmarks, don't engage in policies that just make the problem worse in the long run.

I also need to correct an apparent misconception on your part (don't know where it came from). I am not and never have been in the military, although I have numerous friends and family members who either currently serve or have served and unlike many folks my generation, I respect and admire those who do serve.

BonMallari
10-25-2011, 12:29 PM
Interesting. Your parents were a bit older than mine so my dad was Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple heart in Korea. I'm sure your parents were very responsible in many ways, just not in their reproductive choices (and of course birth control was not quite as easy back then). I'm only commenting on reproductive choices. I have several friends who come from huge families. All were raised well and are productive members of society (there are just too damn many of them). It always amazes me that seemingly intelligent people seem to think that humans are somehow exempt from the basic laws of nature. I also know plenty of people who will say "Look around, there is still plenty room for us, we can always put that rainforest, prairie, brushland, etc. into crops (who cares about the creatures that call it home now), there are still [I]some[I] fish in the ocean. How does [B]that ([B]you name the animal, plant, ecosystem) serve man?" We are too many, so as I said that got this whole thing started, let some of them starve, don't feed them unless they meet certain reproductive benchmarks, don't engage in policies that just make the problem worse in the long run.

I also need to correct an apparent misconception on your part (don't know where it came from). I am not and never have been in the military, although I have numerous friends and family members who either currently serve or have served and unlike many folks my generation, I respect and admire those who do serve.

PLEASE LEAVE MY FAMILY (PARENTS) OUT OF THE CONVERSATION, they are of no importance to you or anyone on here..Thank you

HPL
10-25-2011, 12:34 PM
I think we all can agree on :The world is over populated.
BUT to go into a another country( 3rd. world country who has lived hundreds of yrs. with their own beliefs and customs) with ultamatums is stupid and NOT politically correct.
I do think that the funds need to be limited funds that are raised through a fund raiser(For Example: Rock Concert,Country Concert...) rather than just paid out.
If you think that some other countries hate the USA(for pushing our beliefs onto other countries) can you even imagine what would happened "IF" the USA starting telling other countries "We'll help you BUT you have to do this that and the other thing first.......???
I think that we can suggest to them by teaching.
My choice or Bons choice to have children is our choice.
Your choice Mr. HPL is your choice.
Get off that bus!! You will only piss off lots of people here:-x
Please let's stay with the topic of the tread.
Sue
Oh, I'm sorry, but to this, I really must reply. You are actually using the fact that it is not Politically Correct to say that I shouldn't say it!!??? Now that's funny!!! Potus is no place for political correctness, otherwise, what't the point. If you have read what I have written carefully, you would see that all I said was that if a country wants us to keep them from starving, they are going to have to meet certain goals. I'm not suggesting that we send in the military and drag people off the street and sterilize them, just give them a choice. Meet the benchmarks, we feed you, don't, we don't. I don't really give much thought to whether other countries like us or not as long as they fear us. We have been feeding the world for generations. We have provided medical care, infrastructure support, educational support and on and on for all the disadvantaged around the world and as you so incisively pointed out, it hasn't really won that many friends, so it is time that we disengage, only provide any assistance where it is in our strategic interest, and LET THE REST STARVE. And I say again, if one can't voice the truth on POTUS, what is the purpose of the site?

AS to any American's reproductive choice, you are right that it is currently your choice (as we live in a supposedly free society) but just because it is your choice doesn't mean that it is none of my business, nor does it mean that you have the moral right to breed like a rat. Your reproductive choices have a direct effect on me and the rest of the residents of this limited biome, which makes it very much my business. I certainly have the right to disapprove and to voice that disapproval. Doesn't mean that I hate you or even dislike you. Doesn't mean that I would shun you. I would certainly try to convince your children that having a litter is not a good idea once they were old enough to understand the concept[/B][/B] [/B][/B]

HPL
10-25-2011, 12:43 PM
So, every species in nature only has one offspring?
Sorry Bill, but that is just a silly comment. Do you really want the human population to be controlled the way animal populations are by nature? Mother nature is very harsh. Disease, predation, STARVATION. Wild populations reproduce to carrying capacity and then stabilize. During good years the population will expand. During hard times there are die-offs, sometimes extreme ones. I am suggesting that we need to NOT approach carrying capacity unless we want to suffer the same results.

HPL
10-25-2011, 12:44 PM
PLEASE LEAVE MY FAMILY (PARENTS) OUT OF THE CONVERSATION, they are of no importance to you or anyone on here..Thank you
I have no intention of saying anything about your family, but you were the one who used them as an example in the first place.

Franco
10-25-2011, 01:37 PM
Sorrycomment Bill, but that is just a silly . Do you really want the human population to be controlled the way animal populations are by nature? Mother nature is very harsh. Disease, predation, STARVATION. Wild populations reproduce to carrying capacity and then stabilize. During good years the population will expand. During hard times there are die-offs, sometimes extreme ones. I am suggesting that we need to NOT approach carrying capacity unless we want to suffer the same results.

If it is the same Bill(huntingman) that I'm thinking of, all his post are silly. This guy wants to start a war with Iran and can't think past Rush Limbaugh!

HPL, stick around on POTUS as I enjoy reading your post. I too subscribe to the belief that two people can live better on 40 acres than four, six or eight people can. Many that live in this country take resources for granted because they have been so abundant to us for so long. I've always said that man is the only animal that shits in his own nest. I doubt living patterns will change until it is too late. If there is anything we can give to the world, it is not religion but instead an better undertanding of the planet in which we live.

huntinman
10-25-2011, 02:14 PM
If it is the same Bill(huntingman) that I'm thinking of, all his post are silly. This guy wants to start a war with Iran and can't think past Rush Limbaugh!


HPL, stick around on POTUS as I enjoy reading your post. I too subscribe to the belief that two people can live better on 40 acres than four, six or eight people can. Many that live in this country take resources for granted because they have been so abundant to us for so long. I've always said that man is the only animal that shits in his own nest. I doubt living patterns will change until it is too late. If there is anything we can give to the world, it is not religion but instead an better undertanding of the planet in which we live.

Hard to take this serious considering you are a Rue Paul groupie who thinks it would be just fine if Iran had their own nukes. I never said I wanted to go to war with anyone... But, I would never support any irrational candidate for POTUS who thinks IRAN is as good a world citizen as Canada. Get real.

huntinman
10-25-2011, 02:16 PM
Sorry Bill, but that is just a silly comment. Do you really want the human population to be controlled the way animal populations are by nature? Mother nature is very harsh. Disease, predation, STARVATION. Wild populations reproduce to carrying capacity and then stabilize. During good years the population will expand. During hard times there are die-offs, sometimes extreme ones. I am suggesting that we need to NOT approach carrying capacity unless we want to suffer the same results.

The good news is liberals are reproducing at a very low rate;)

Franco
10-26-2011, 01:23 PM
Hard to take this serious considering you are a Rue Paul groupie who thinks it would be just fine if Iran had their own nukes. I never said I wanted to go to war with anyone... But, I would never support any irrational candidate for POTUS who thinks IRAN is as good a world citizen as Canada. Get real.

How in the hell do you stop Iran if they ever develope anything nuclear? The only way to to set back thier developement would be to stike at their facilities! Which country or organization would you propose do that? USA, NATO, the UN?

I will admit that you are good and twisting facts around to fit your own agenda.

Futhermore, Ron Paul has single-han­dedly, over the course of a few decades, put the Republican party's conservati­vism on notice. As a result, the "conservat­ive" talking heads have become desperate in questionin­g Paul's conservati­sm (see: Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Levin) as a means for maintainin­g their base of support, while Paul's support continues to grow and influence and shape the debate.

The fact is that Paul is more politicall­y conservati­ve than the current crop of establishm­ent Repub candidates­, and therein lies the true threat to the GOP, as their social and foreign policy statist views are necessary to retain their corporate donors. The neoconserv­ative power hold over the party continues to wane after the incredibly destructiv­e 8 year rein during the Bush administra­tion. With other Repubs now questionin­g the merits of our imperialis­tic empire building and maintenanc­e, perhaps the day will come when the libertaria­n leaning philosophy of non-interv­entionism and decentrali­zed government will finally return as "mainstrea­m Republican­ism".

History will look back on Ron Paul as one of the most important and influentia­l statesmen this country has witnessed in the past 100 years. And as the country steamrolls toward a day of financial reckoning, we can only hope enough primary voters will recognize that the true debate this country desperatel­y needs is Paul vs Obama. Otherwise, any of the other Repub candidates vs Obama will be a sideshow of arguing relatively meaningles­s "manufactu­red issues" that will avoid the core issues that require deep examinatio­n and questionin­g.

huntinman
10-26-2011, 01:25 PM
How in the hell do you stop Iran if they ever develope anything nuclear? The only way to to set back thier developement would be to stike at their facilities! Which country or organization would you propose do that? USA, NATO, the UN?

I will admit that you are good and twisting facts around to fit your own agenda.

Futhermore, Ron Paul has single-han*dedly, over the course of a few decades, put the Republican party's conservati*vism on notice. As a result, the "conservat*ive" talking heads have become desperate in questionin*g Paul's conservati*sm (see: Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Levin) as a means for maintainin*g their base of support, while Paul's support continues to grow and influence and shape the debate.

The fact is that Paul is more politicall*y conservati*ve than the current crop of establishm*ent Repub candidates*, and therein lies the true threat to the GOP, as their social and foreign policy statist views are necessary to retain their corporate donors. The neoconserv*ative power hold over the party continues to wane after the incredibly destructiv*e 8 year rein during the Bush administra*tion. With other Repubs now questionin*g the merits of our imperialis*tic empire building and maintenanc*e, perhaps the day will come when the libertaria*n leaning philosophy of non-interv*entionism and decentrali*zed government will finally return as "mainstrea*m Republican*ism".

History will look back on Ron Paul as one of the most important and influentia*l statesmen this country has witnessed in the past 100 years. And as the country steamrolls toward a day of financial reckoning, we can only hope enough primary voters will recognize that the true debate this country desperatel*y needs is Paul vs Obama. Otherwise, any of the other Repub candidates vs Obama will be a sideshow of arguing relatively meaningles*s "manufactu*red issues" that will avoid the core issues that require deep examinatio*n and questionin*g.

You can put me back on your ignore list now;)

Franco
10-26-2011, 01:37 PM
You can put me back on your ignore list now;)

Good idea, anyone wanting to start a war with Iran needs to be ignored!

BonMallari
10-26-2011, 01:54 PM
How in the hell do you stop Iran if they ever develope anything nuclear? The only way to to set back thier developement would be to stike at their facilities! Which country or organization would you propose do that? USA, NATO, the UN?

I will admit that you are good and twisting facts around to fit your own agenda.

Futhermore, Ron Paul has single-han*dedly, over the course of a few decades, put the Republican party's conservati*vism on notice. As a result, the "conservat*ive" talking heads have become desperate in questionin*g Paul's conservati*sm (see: Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Levin) as a means for maintainin*g their base of support, while Paul's support continues to grow and influence and shape the debate.

The fact is that Paul is more politicall*y conservati*ve than the current crop of establishm*ent Repub candidates*, and therein lies the true threat to the GOP, as their social and foreign policy statist views are necessary to retain their corporate donors. The neoconserv*ative power hold over the party continues to wane after the incredibly destructiv*e 8 year rein during the Bush administra*tion. With other Repubs now questionin*g the merits of our imperialis*tic empire building and maintenanc*e, perhaps the day will come when the libertaria*n leaning philosophy of non-interv*entionism and decentrali*zed government will finally return as "mainstrea*m Republican*ism".

History will look back on Ron Paul as one of the most important and influentia*l statesmen this country has witnessed in the past 100 years. And as the country steamrolls toward a day of financial reckoning, we can only hope enough primary voters will recognize that the true debate this country desperatel*y needs is Paul vs Obama. Otherwise, any of the other Repub candidates vs Obama will be a sideshow of arguing relatively meaningles*s "manufactu*red issues" that will avoid the core issues that require deep examinatio*n and questionin*g.

Seriously ? got to hand it to you RP supporters, you go all in for this guy..

Franco
10-26-2011, 02:06 PM
Seriously ? got to hand it to you RP supporters, you go all in for this guy..

As serious as a Heart Attack!

As stated, the debate has to be between Obama vs Paul or we are in for more of the same.

HPL
10-26-2011, 02:44 PM
I like Ron Paul. I voted for him last time, but I think his time is past. Not his ideas, just him. He is just too old. I was a bit concerned about his age last time. I don't think he is electable and if he runs he better have a very good running mate. I know that some folks not only live into their 100 and not only live that long but stay vital and alert, but those folks are so rare that I just don't think it's a good bet. At this point I would say that I will probably back the Republican candidate simply as a response to Obama. I think I would prefer a 55 year old Ron Paul, but since we aren't going to have that Cain may be my nest preference. Don't particularly like Perry but would still vote Rep. if he were to get the nomination. Like Newt quite a bit too, but don't think he is electable either. Part of the problem is that if we elect the best candidates things will get worse before they get better (same will be true if we elect the worst candidates too).

Franco
10-26-2011, 03:24 PM
I like Ron Paul. I voted for him last time, but I think his time is past. Not his ideas, just him. He is just too old. I was a bit concerned about his age last time. I don't think he is electable and if he runs he better have a very good running mate. I know that some folks not only live into their 100 and not only live that long but stay vital and alert, but those folks are so rare that I just don't think it's a good bet. At this point I would say that I will probably back the Republican candidate simply as a response to Obama. I think I would prefer a 55 year old Ron Paul, but since we aren't going to have that Cain may be my nest preference. Don't particularly like Perry but would still vote Rep. if he were to get the nomination. Like Newt quite a bit too, but don't think he is electable either. Part of the problem is that if we elect the best candidates things will get worse before they get better (same will be true if we elect the worst candidates too).

I would rather have old and wise than younger and misdirected. I understand the problem that he is not charismatic or sexy. We need substance more than ever today!

Perry is fading. Romney is the odds on favorite and Cain is a Wall St insider. I have a real problem supporting anyone that thinks Alan Greenspan was a great Federal Reserve chief and zero Foreign Policy experience. I think the three above are owned by either the banks, military industrial complex or other special interest.

HPL
10-26-2011, 03:36 PM
I would really like to elect someone who has a reasonable chance of living through two terms in good health, and statistically, the odds are against RP. That is pretty much my only concern with RP, just afraid it will be RIP before term's end.

charly_t
10-26-2011, 03:43 PM
I like the ideas of RP but if his mind has a senior moment at the wrong time we could be in a world of hurt. I can only judge by what my own mind and my older friends' minds do sometimes........Lord help us !

Franco
10-26-2011, 04:22 PM
Y'all worry too much!

As this current political GOP field falls apart and if RP gets close to a nomination, don't be surprised to see his son Rand run as the VP and turning the reigns over to him 2016. The apple didn't fall far from the tree and where do you think Rand got his smarts from?

We need a meaningful debate this coming election season between Obama and Paul. If we don't, then it will be just more sideshows and the real problems/real issues will never be debated!

Franco
11-05-2011, 04:56 AM
A victim of politics and our poor Foreign Policy.........

Gen. John Allen issued a statement Friday saying that Maj. Gen. Peter Fuller has been relieved of his duties as deputy commander for the Afghan training mission.
In a recent interview with the website Politico, Fuller characterized Afghan leaders as erratic, ungrateful and isolated from reality. The interview quotes him as saying Afghan leaders don't fully recognize America's sacrifices on their country's behalf.
Referring to Karzai's recent assertion that Afghanistan would side with Pakistan if Pakistan got into a war with the U.S., Fuller was quoted as calling the comments "erratic," adding, "Why don't you just poke me in the eye with a needle! You've got to be kidding me . I'm sorry, we just gave you $11.6 billion and now you're telling me, I don't really care?"

Gerry Clinchy
11-05-2011, 07:30 AM
Well, that's the second general in the ME that has been removed due to politics of the situation. Wonder if he will retire, too?

Seems like Karzai is cooking his own goose.

Hew
11-05-2011, 09:11 AM
A victim of politics and our poor Foreign Policy.........
He sounds more like a victim of his own hubris to think he can say such impolitic things to a reporter and not face repurcussions.

Pete
11-05-2011, 09:34 AM
Ahhh, finally the response I have been expecting. "The right to reproduce is the most basic of ALL human rights, etc., etc., etc." To that statement, my response would have to be "Says who?" To say the it is insane to suggest that it may be time for some coercive measures to get the human population catastrophe under control is simply ludicrous. It took from the time man stood up and became man until around 1860 or so for there to be one billion people on the earth at one time. It only took until I was born in the mid 1950's for that number to triple!! (so it took about 100 years to add two billion). We hit a bit over seven billion sometime last month I believe (so only about 50 years to add another FOUR BILLION!!!!). We are pouring pollutants into the air and water, we are over harvesting the oceans to provide protein for the human population, we are converting highly productive rain forest into marginally productive crop land, and on and on and on. It is because there are too many of us (way too many). Anybody with a biology, ecology, animal science, or math education can see where this is headed. Only a fool would be unable to predict the likely consequences. In this world having more than two children is the height of immorality and to suggest that it is OK for anyone to have more than two children is just ridiculous. We need a comprehensive, world wide population management plan and we need it yesterday


The Japaneese just developed it.
They have taken raw sewage and turned it into food for human consumtion. And it scores high on the taste test. I think this is the answere to world hunger.

Pete

HPL
11-05-2011, 01:51 PM
Although over the years it has on occasion been suggested by various people that I should dine on excrement, I have always just considered it a colorful colloquialism, and now you are telling me that sometime in the future we may see it on the menu!!!

HPL

Pete
11-05-2011, 02:21 PM
Yes



They say it has the texture of tofu whatever that is and can be colored to suit ones fancy. Taste like chicken I would suppose :D Saw it on a PBS show or something similiar. The scientist was very proud of himself and should be. He gave a demonstration.

Pete

Pete
11-05-2011, 02:25 PM
Looky there I was wrong. Taste like beef,,,,, Bona petite

http://www.dailytech.com/Japanese+Make+Delicious+Nourishing+Steaks+From+Hum an+Feces/article21932.htm

2tall
11-05-2011, 02:50 PM
Pete, I saw this too. But what, pray tell, does eating poop have to do with Karzai or Population Management. Are you suggesting that the over producers, "eat s&*t and die"? ;););)

HPL
11-05-2011, 04:10 PM
Pete, I saw this too. But what, pray tell, does eating poop have to do with Karzai or Population Management. Are you suggesting that the over producers, "eat s&*t and die"? ;););)
Sounds more like dine on excrement and live to me (not a particularly pleasant prospect)
HPL

BonMallari
11-05-2011, 04:33 PM
anyone remember the movie Soylent Green w/ Charlton Heston

Pete
11-05-2011, 04:42 PM
Pete, I saw this too. But what, pray tell, does eating poop have to do with Karzai or Population Management. Are you suggesting that the over producers, "eat s&*t and die"? :wink::wink::wink:
__________________


:p:p Good one Carol

wasn't hunger and world population side tracked in this thread. I can't remember now. Changing water to keep it from freezing and my head is numb.
New advertising slogan,,, "Got sludge" For strong teeth and healthy bowels:D

Pete

charly_t
11-05-2011, 05:01 PM
anyone remember the movie Soylent Green w/ Charlton Heston

Is this the one where they were using the dead to feed the living so to speak ? Of course it was disguised when it was ready to give to the living.
I never saw it but one of my sons did and came home and gave me the details of the plot.

HPL
11-05-2011, 05:39 PM
Is this the one where they were using the dead to feed the living so to speak ? Of course it was disguised when it was ready to give to the living.
I never saw it but one of my sons did and came home and gave me the details of the plot.
They way it went was that this: Some conglomerate was the food source for everyone in this dystopian future and they had different "rations", Soylent Red, Soylent Yellow, etc. and had come out with a mysterious new product "Soylent Green" which did indeed turn out to be rendered from human carcasses. (Probably tasted like pork).

HPL

charly_t
11-05-2011, 05:46 PM
Thanks, HPL. Interesting plot for sure. That was a lot of years back ( late 1970s maybe ?).

HPL
11-05-2011, 06:06 PM
Wikipedia says 1973. I know I saw it when it first came out.