While I'm not specifically trying to be a dick here...

[wig]

2015, the most recent year for which we have statistics, 638,169 abortions were reported in the U.S. (This is down 2% from 2014, btw).

Fewer immigrant children died on the U.S. Mexico border in 2018-19.

I find it interesting, the stereotypical view of both republicans and democrats.

It would seem republicans don't care what happens to the child AFTER it's born while democrats don't care one bit about it UNTIL it's born!

 

[Steelworth]

Well, to be fair, the unborn do not have a single choice in the matter, while immigrant children are often used as pawns by sick or unfit individuals, and who's to know what happens to them before they get to the United States border? How's that the responsibility of the U.S.?

And what would you suggest they do to improve the medical care for immigrant children, give more funding for better facilities, equipment & patient care? Hasn't Trump already concluded that issue as a humanitarian crisis and that immigration laws/loopholes need fixing? I'm not sure what's all proposed in doing that, but isn't that the step in the right direction?

 

[oneforthebus]

2015, the most recent year for which we have statistics, 638,169 abortions were reported in the U.S. (This is down 2% from 2014, btw).

Fewer immigrant children died on the U.S. Mexico border in 2018-19.

I find it interesting, the stereotypical view of both republicans and democrats.

It would seem republicans don't care what happens to the child AFTER it's born while democrats don't care one bit about it UNTIL it's born!

What is your evidence that Republicans don't care about children after they're born? Because some people do something incredibly stupid like dragging their kid across deserts and rivers and try to cross a border illegally? How is that the fault of Republicans?

 

[wig]

Whoa, easy there folks.

I merely pointed out the "stereotypical views" regarding democrats and republicans. I didn't say either was actually accurate. Obviously we must concede that as a platform the right generally prefers to limit or end abortion, yet they also prefer limiting social programs that support unwed or under-employed mothers/parents. It's not hard to see where that stereotypical view came from.

On the other hand, democrats tend to clamour for more and more programs to help the afore-mentioned single mothers and under-employed households to care for themselves and their children through tax-supported programs, yet they will absolutely die on the "right to choose" hill.

I think it is an interesting dichotomy between the two factions is all. I'm not saying either is "across the board" true. If you folks haven't been paying attention, I am hardly a liberal.

 

[Ironcitysteelers]

Racist! He supports trump!!!!!

 

[Steelworth]

If you folks haven't been paying attention, I am hardly a liberal.

You white nationalist, racist son of a *****!

Joking aside, good points, and I was simply illustrating the difference between the unborn and kids getting drug across a country to be used as pawns for an asylum scheme.

 

[Steeltime]

I merely pointed out the "stereotypical views" regarding democrats and republicans. I didn't say either was actually accurate. Obviously we must concede that as a platform the right generally prefers to limit or end abortion, yet they also prefer limiting social programs that support unwed or under-employed mothers/parents. It's not hard to see where that stereotypical view came from.

I cannot remember the last time Republicans actually supported cutting spending - not reducing the rate of growth, mind you, but actually CUTTING - any of the aforementioned social giveaways.

As far as I am concerned, I am responsible, legally and morally, to care for my wife and children. I should NOT be legally obligated to pay for somebody else's children. My faith may require that I devote some of my time and money to help those who cannot help themselves, at least temporarily, but using the threat of the IRS to extort such charity from me is a fraud and a scam.

Finally, I will repeat a line that has been around for 34 years, since Live-Aid, since it seems to be accurate.

Q. What do you get when you save 1 million starving Africans?
A. 4 million starving Africans.

 

[oneforthebus]

Obviously we must concede that as a platform the right generally prefers to limit or end abortion, yet they also prefer limiting social programs that support unwed or under-employed mothers/parents. It's not hard to see where that stereotypical view came from.

You mean the social programs that discouraged work, discouraged marriage, encouraged out of wedlock births and have created permanent communities ridden with generational poverty and failing schools? I don't support those programs because I DO care about children. Unfortunately the damage done by the them and the dependence created is going to be incredibly difficult to ever undo, so they are necessary. But expanding them just expands the problems.

Looking beyond the stereotypes you'll find that many Republicans do an awful lot to support children in a variety of ways. Republicans give more to charity than Democrats do, and they do so at all income levels. The fact that someone doesn't agree with the government confiscating their money and deciding who to give it to doesn't have anything to do with how much they care about people.

 

[jitter77]

You mean the social programs that discouraged work, discouraged marriage, encouraged out of wedlock births and have created permanent communities ridden with generational poverty and failing schools? I don't support those programs because I DO care about children. Unfortunately the damage done by the them and the dependence created is going to be incredibly difficult to ever undo, so they are necessary. But expanding them just expands the problems.

Looking beyond the stereotypes you'll find that many Republicans do an awful lot to support children in a variety of ways. Republicans give more to charity than Democrats do, and they do so at all income levels. The fact that someone doesn't agree with the government confiscating their money and deciding who to give it to doesn't have anything to do with how much they care about people.

This is the abortion conundrum. Allow abortions and face moral issues or ban abortions and have more babies being born into poverty with little to no hope of having a productive life. The only solution is to totally rework the whole welfare system. If someone goes to work everyday and at least tries to make a living they should get more help than people sitting around doing nothing. The system is backwards. Social security also seems backwards to me when you turn 62? you can only make around 20k i believe before you pay it back + your still paying into it while working. After 65 you can make around 50k i believe. I dont understand the concept of limiting people who are younger and able to work more hours and pay more into the system. I would limit the amount of SS you can get at 62, but not limit your income to an extent. I have a lady at work who was making probably around 25k and ended up owing several thousand to SS. Now she is 65 and is having a lot of health problems and unable to work as much even though she is "allowed" to.

 

[oneforthebus]

This is the abortion conundrum. Allow abortions and face moral issues or ban abortions and have more babies being born into poverty with little to no hope of having a productive life.

I reject the idea that it's right and good to exterminate people simply because they "have little to no hope of having a productive life". It's not a conundrum to me. No one should get to decide for another human being that their life is not worth living.

As to the rest of your post, I agree. The incentives are all backwards and we should change that. Probably won't happen because it's a lot easier to buy votes by promising people a bunch of free stuff with no strings attached.

 

[Steelin]

This is the abortion conundrum. Allow abortions and face moral issues or ban abortions and have more babies being born into poverty with little to no hope of having a productive life. The only solution is to totally rework the whole welfare system.

But here is where I believe you may be wrong. I am a living, breathing example of give a hand up not a handout. I dropped out after ninth grade and very fortunately received information about Job Corps in the mail. I was facing fast food employment. I got my GED, took the ACT and was approved to attend college. My first four quarters were paid in full by the Dept of Labor. It was probably $5,000. I've never collected food stamps or any other form of assistance in my adult life. I could've surely popped out four kids from three men as my mother did. We received assistance almost my entire childhood. The gubmint has had that money paid back in tax receipts many times over. Do I think it should be just thrown at them? Hell no. Work for it like I had to.

 

[Djfan]

I would also suggest that the stereotypes are propagated by a very biased media. Be careful accepting them.

 

[DBS1970]

I cannot remember the last time Republicans actually supported cutting spending - not reducing the rate of growth, mind you, but actually CUTTING - any of the aforementioned social giveaways.

As far as I am concerned, I am responsible, legally and morally, to care for my wife and children. I should NOT be legally obligated to pay for somebody else's children. My faith may require that I devote some of my time and money to help those who cannot help themselves, at least temporarily, but using the threat of the IRS to extort such charity from me is a fraud and a scam.

Finally, I will repeat a line that has been around for 34 years, since Live-Aid, since it seems to be accurate.

Q. What do you get when you save 1 million starving Africans?
A. 4 million starving Africans.

The problem is that if you cut spending for real you gore somebodies ox on both sides. If do that you don't get reelected and the guy that takes your seat undos all the good you did and in most cases does more damage. The problem is universal suffrage and I maintain that a collapse is necessary because as long as non taxpayers are voting it can't be corrected. We need a hard reset.

 

[deljzc]

I cannot remember the last time Republicans actually supported cutting spending - not reducing the rate of growth, mind you, but actually CUTTING - any of the aforementioned social giveaways.

As far as I am concerned, I am responsible, legally and morally, to care for my wife and children. I should NOT be legally obligated to pay for somebody else's children. My faith may require that I devote some of my time and money to help those who cannot help themselves, at least temporarily, but using the threat of the IRS to extort such charity from me is a fraud and a scam.

Finally, I will repeat a line that has been around for 34 years, since Live-Aid, since it seems to be accurate.

Q. What do you get when you save 1 million starving Africans?
A. 4 million starving Africans.

I was around in the 1980's and me, in my youthful, republican arrogance at the time, argued with my liberal friends that sending food to Africa wasn't a good idea. That unless you had the infrastructure, economy and food production all you are doing is saving a generation to grow up into an unteneble situation.

And lo and behold, the 1990's came around and civil war dominated Africa. Gang violence (which is the direct result of boys growing up without jobs and infrastructure to support them) led to militant groups and dictators with endless supply of "soldiers" to throw to the slaughter. Millions died to violence. Millions of women were raped or killed.

Almost all exasperated by the West and their so-called "no one shall starve" religion that took place in the early to mid 1980's. You take a culture that for hundreds of years made 7 babies knowing only 3 would live and you suddenly tip the scales using science and economic prosperity to even keep 4-5 alive and you create a population explosion that can not be absorbed in any good way.

Much of the violence and genocide that happened in Africa from 1995-2005 can be traced back to feeding millions in the mid 1980's and changing the population growth in Africa to unsustainable levels. Now that science has practically cured AIDS, Africa is again going through a population explosion that will likely only lead to one thing... violence. Africa's population growth might be the single most threatening thing to human life in the next 30 years. It's population will double from 1.3 billion to 2.6 billion. It's percetage of world population will go from 17% to over 25%. The ecosystems will be destroyed (don't worry, liberals will blame climate change).

The amount of violence and civil wars that will happen in Africa over the next 30 years will be unprecedented. Maybe the west will ignore it like they have over the past 100 years. Maybe because the resources in Africa aren't as important as the Middle East, the violence can be contained. Who knows. It is not going to be pretty, that's for sure. And I'm not even sure there is anything we can do about it.

 

[Vincent]

This is the abortion conundrum. Allow abortions and face moral issues or ban abortions and have more babies being born into poverty with little to no hope of having a productive life.

OK, lets consider why all the migrant idiocy is taking place in Europe and the US. Many reasons circulate. Why would Germany allow its ethnicity to be destroyed. France does what France does because they're French. Why is the UK allowing dey-sevs to be overrun by muzloids? Why is the US being invaded, apparently with the support of both parties? Why has Poland said 'pass' and built walls?

Could it be that these economies can't go forward at the birthrates of recent decades and that their leadership have made decisions to keep the economic engines running with cheap imported labor? Western birthrates aren't sustainable because people are killing their children. The societies will eventually die out. So will their GDPs. Its a simple decision - open these societies to the third world who breed like rabbits.

Now the obvious flaw in that thinking is that the 'societies' the migrants seek to escape do not lend themselves to assimilation, and by extension, continued economic growth. That could be a healthy thread by itself, but it isn't the point I wish to make here.

So I ax this question. Would we be allowing the wholesale invasion of our Southern border, which BTW is Über unconstitutional and they all know it, had we not as a nation murdered upwards of 70 million of our children since 'Roe v Wade'? I think not. And that's evidenced by both parties being on tape with 'we must maintain our border' until it was apparent we had entered into negative growth birth rates.

Back to Poland. Abortion is illegal in Poland except in instances of blah, blah, blah. See the relationship?

 

[Vincent]

It is not going to be pretty, that's for sure. And I'm not even sure there is anything we can do about it.

Ponder this graphic...

 

[IndySteel]

The Asians and Aussies are doing some serious screwing.

 

[deljzc]

OK, lets consider why all the migrant idiocy is taking place in Europe and the US. Many reasons circulate. Why would Germany allow its ethnicity to be destroyed. France does what France does because they're French. Why is the UK allowing dey-sevs to be overrun by muzloids? Why is the US being invaded, apparently with the support of both parties? Why has Poland said 'pass' and built walls?

Could it be that these economies can't go forward at the birthrates of recent decades and that their leadership have made decisions to keep the economic engines running with cheap imported labor? Western birthrates aren't sustainable because people are killing their children. The societies will eventually die out. So will their GDPs. Its a simple decision - open these societies to the third world who breed like rabbits.

Now the obvious flaw in that thinking is that the 'societies' the migrants seek to escape do not lend themselves to assimilation, and by extension, continued economic growth. That could be a healthy thread by itself, but it isn't the point I wish to make here.

So I ax this question. Would we be allowing the wholesale invasion of our Southern border, which BTW is Über unconstitutional and they all know it, had we not as a nation murdered upwards of 70 million of our children since 'Roe v Wade'? I think not. And that's evidenced by both parties being on tape with 'we must maintain our border' until it was apparent we had entered into negative growth birth rates.

Back to Poland. Abortion is illegal in Poland except in instances of blah, blah, blah. See the relationship?

Abortion isn't the reason for population decreases in the U.S. and Europe over the last 50 years.

What happened, and I hate to say this, was the women's liberation movement. Birth control. Women in the workplace. The destruction of gender rolls. The lack of importance on the family unit. Yes, abortion is a small piece of that "revolution" too. And yes, I am in no means implying keeping women barefoot and pregnant is better or more ethical. The strides to make women more independent and equal to men financially and more self-sufficient has had a huge impact on procreation of the human species.

And maybe that's a good thing in the long run. I have long argued that the most important impact, globally, we can do as a country, is to empower women. That actually will HELP the world, the environment, and America. We don't need crazy population increases. 1% growth, at most, is all we need to keep a healthy economy. You don't want "baby booms" that cause massive influxes of working men with nothing to do but war/violence (see Africa) and then creates a older generation that can't be taken care of by younger generations (see America and what will be Japan/China).

It is the evolution of 1st world countries that this happens. I want my daughter to have the ability to choose what she wants to do without discrimination or favoritism. But I also want her to appreciate the incredible gift she has to procreate. To have a baby. To be a woman and a mother. Something men just can't do on their own.

It is the goal of our species to make that happen around the world in a balanced, respectful way.

 

[IndySteel]

 

[Vader]

I agree with a lot of what's being said. If you put together the pieces of American and Europe having less children you come to the conclusion that it's a mixture of abortion, women's being turned into quasi men, and destruction of the family unit. The issue is why? Why has all of this happened? Why is it only white countries are now being destroyed by rampant immigration? I'm just glad that Poland and a few other European countries don't allow migrants or there would be no whites left after a few generations. BTW if you don't think that is the goal of all of this then you need to do some research.

 

[Sarge]

Or it could be that "white" countries are the most economically viable. That is where the wealth is. Why would I leave, say, Guatemala for Venezuela or even Mexico when the US is just right up the road? And not only that, but the US economy is booming, lots of jobs to be had, higher standard of living. Much of the same can be said about much of Europe. It would make no sense to leave one impoverished nation for another. Plus, when these white nations are offering up all kinds of freebies, who wouldn't want to cash in on that? Can't really blame them. Besides, no one is invading Russia or Romania or the Czech Republic. I think that is more likely than some world wide conspiracy to eradicate white people from the planet.

 

[oneforthebus]

When you start worrying about "white countries" being destroyed that's where you lose me. Immigration issues should have nothing to do with color. I have no great interest in preservation of the "white race", (whatever that is, most of us all already high order mongrels). I have interest in preserving n orderly immigration process where we know who's coming into the country, what their background is, whether they are a crime or national security concern, and whether they can support themselves when they get here. I could not care less what color they are.

 

[Vincent]

Abortion isn't the reason for population decreases in the U.S. and Europe over the last 50 years.

I agree with the rest of that post. How do you figure that upwards of 70 million (US alone) murdered children isn't material to population decline? That number alone is well more than three times the numbers of illegals we've welcomed to avail themselves of our coffers. If you apply normal birth rates to that 70M over the three generations since RvW, the number more than doubles. With an additional 140M+ (and they would multiply as well), we would have long since shut down immigration.

Whether or not abortion is acknowledged to be the culprit by the tools that lead us, it's clearly the cause of the debacle we find ourselves in, spiritually and otherwise.

 

[Vincent]

I agree with a lot of what's being said. If you put together the pieces of American and Europe having less children you come to the conclusion that it's a mixture of abortion, women's being turned into quasi men, and destruction of the family unit. The issue is why? Why has all of this happened? Why is it only white countries are now being destroyed by rampant immigration? I'm just glad that Poland and a few other European countries don't allow migrants or there would be no whites left after a few generations. BTW if you don't think that is the goal of all of this then you need to do some research.

Indeed, why?

The trend lines aren't arguable.Whitey be gone in a few generations. I'll be dead, so my concern is for our descendants. Note the treatment of whites in the third world holes that are rising up. That isn't a racist statement. Sub-Saharan Africa has been around since the beginning of time. Nothing civilized appeared in that part of the world until the Europeans colonized. As the Europeans depart, Sub-Saharan Africa regresses. Much more could be said here but I won't further ruffle feathers. We can speculate endlessly.

Back home we are being invaded by other third world holes. Here there is a bipartisan campaign to get as many third worlders across the border before bad orange man shuts it down. Will any of the Guatemalans, Hondurans, Congolese, Syrian, etc, etc, etc make a contribution to this society and its economy any time soon? Ever? Before you answer that, consider that the same rationale was used by Merkel and her tools to allow Germany to be overrun. "We aren't birthing enough little Krauts to keep the DAX going". On the surface, that sells. In reality of the 665,000 DAX employment opportunities in June of 16, 54 were filled by migrants - in menial positions.

So again, why? Cloward Piven.

 

[Vader]

When you start worrying about "white countries" being destroyed that's where you lose me. Immigration issues should have nothing to do with color. I have no great interest in preservation of the "white race", (whatever that is, most of us all already high order mongrels). I have interest in preserving n orderly immigration process where we know who's coming into the country, what their background is, whether they are a crime or national security concern, and whether they can support themselves when they get here. I could not care less what color they are.

I know you probably hate whitey as well. I get it. To you color is an imagined construct. But in reality it is important. Why do you think blacks want to see black dolls? You should tell them to STFU because there is no race. Everyone sees color whether they admit it or not. If you have any black friends ask them about black identity and how they feel about black pride. I promise you if there was a chance of black people being destroyed you'd damn well hear about it and you'd probably agree it was a bad thing. You've been brainwashed into thinking that whites have no common interest and that we don't deserve to live. Sorry if I disagree.

Also your "mongrels" comment is just ignorant. If we were all mongrels we'd all be the same color. But we're not. Nobody has any issue of saying who is white when it suits them. Is Warren an Indian? Hell, no she's a white woman. And you have no issue say it. But now that we are talking about the destruction of the white race... well nobody is really white. It's just silly.