Post: #26

^^^ I'd bang that girl as long as she isn't a blob behind that sign. The sign doesn't look too big.

Post: #27

The Economist is the publication which will run articles on how immigration is good right next to articles about how the Swedish welfare state is running a surplus due to immigration.

Expecting self awareness is futile

Post: #28

Exactly. It's a correct assessment, but utterly lacking in self awareness.

Every person with a strong awareness of society and history knows what they're saying. My own mother who was, thankfully, very aware would speak with worry about how some parts of the world(which I don't need to name) were breeding huge numbers of young men who, in her words, "will have nothing to do with their lives except fight".

How right she was....but what she couldn't have anticipated is that the West would collectively think it's a good idea to import them here.

Post: #29

Just go to any nightclub with a big surplus of men and you'll see how tense the place is.

Post: #30

Quote:"However, in 1965 morals had changed. Until then it would have been unthinkable to a mother — whether she was white or black — to become pregnant, hide the identity of the father and then let the public pay for her kids. Now she did not even have to push the father out of a tall building. This caused an explosion of the number of welfare-dependent American families. From 1965 to 1995 their share rose to 10 per cent of all American families and 15 per cent of the children. That was the reality Clinton had to face.”

Quote:“Most of these welfare dependents were blacks, and that made racists claim that the problem was in the black genes. But the Republicans and the Democrats worked together on a new law, ‘Temporary Assistance for Needy Families’, which was a smart law. It told American women: We will give you welfare up to five years. You decide whether it should be five years straight, or whether you want to divide the five years into shorter periods. The new law was passed in 1996 and took effect on January 1, 1997. It caused several top officials in the Clinton administration to walk out in protest stating the law was a racist attack on the weakest — single mothers and their children. They had predicted that by 1997-98, the number of adversely affected would have grown from 12 to 14 million. As it turned out, it was these well-meaning people who were the racists. The black girls were smart enough to go on the pill with the result that the welfare-dependent population shrank from 12 million to 4 million. It was the most successful social reform in history.”

I agree with the article overall and I agree with the authors numbers. But his conclusion regarding welfare reform is wrong. Women didn't stop spewing out bastards. In fact the share of children born out of wedlock is nearly 50% of all births. All Clinton did was was restrict cash assistance to deadbeat moms in some instances, and institute automatic child support instead. Now instead of getting a meager amount of welfare for 18 years, women can get cash assistance for a limited amount of time; as well as food stamps, medicaid, and child support for 18 years. Unlike welfare child support can be spent on whatever the mother wants, doesn't have work requirements, doesn't require the mother to have a clean record, and there is no punishment if the mother commits fraud to get it.

On top it all the amount of child support is usually much more then cash assistance; and there is no upward limit on the dollar amount that can be collected. If a shady slut can get her hands on the used condom of a doctor, lawyer, or other high earner then she's hit the jackpot! As the cherry on top you the taxpayer are still paying for the enforcement of this kafkaesque scheme. The salaries of lawyers, judges, and correctional officers aren't cheap. But don't worry! Since government money isn't going directly to irresponsible mothers it's not classified as: "welfare" in the budget.

Post: #31

(01-23-2016 05:45 PM)Celtic_Austrian Wrote:  

Quote:“Most of these welfare dependents were blacks, and that made racists claim that the problem was in the black genes. But the Republicans and the Democrats worked together on a new law, ‘Temporary Assistance for Needy Families’, which was a smart law. It told American women: We will give you welfare up to five years. You decide whether it should be five years straight, or whether you want to divide the five years into shorter periods. The new law was passed in 1996 and took effect on January 1, 1997. It caused several top officials in the Clinton administration to walk out in protest stating the law was a racist attack on the weakest — single mothers and their children. They had predicted that by 1997-98, the number of adversely affected would have grown from 12 to 14 million. As it turned out, it was these well-meaning people who were the racists. The black girls were smart enough to go on the pill with the result that the welfare-dependent population shrank from 12 million to 4 million. It was the most successful social reform in history.”

“In Europe we have not even begun to discuss such a reform.”

Clever, clever shit. It would be interesting to know who was the architect of that.

(01-23-2016 06:48 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 04:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:It is also polygamous: 40% of married women share a husband.

And this is why Islam will never ever be able to give peace to the world.

Islam has no intention of bringing peace to the world, so the stance on polygamy will not change.

The further I have dug into this the the more I have realised how little global and national strife has to do with Islam, Marxism and other ideologies. They are just the vehicles for which strife is propagated. Any old book will do.

As Celtic_Austrian's link above expresses: Population, demographics, resources and some very sharp subconscious, instinctual, evolutionary directives responding directly to the environment in which the subjects lives - This is what controls where peacetime exists for three generations, and where cities get razed to the ground.

For example, there are some parts of Australia that overrun by Kangaroos. They are a complete pest and there are large scale culling programs in effect to control this. I learned that their population explosion was due to the advent of farming in Australia, specifically the construction of small paddock dams. Kangaroo's had developed and evolutionary control to their population levels to maintain their survival rate in the harsh, dry, Australian climate: When there is water about, breed up, when there is not freeze reproduction as a means of conserving resources for the exiting population. Putting dams everywhere was telling their evolutionary triggers: Get busy.

With a working knowledge of the environmental factors that have similar effects on human triggers, like birthrates, aggression levels, depression, etc... Well you could just sit back and adjust things global population wise like turning dials on a control panel - 20 tons of food aid there, shipment of arms here, 20 million 20 - 25 year old males there...

Post: #32

Well, going off the kangaroo analogy, the populations of ME countries have been rapidly rising.

IIRC SA had a population of about 6 million in 1970. It's now over 30 million.

Post: #33

Im of the opinion that things need to get much worse before they get better. Right now people are still thinking life is OK, even though they are getting pissed on daily.

What really needs to happen is a complete economic meltdown, a war, 20 million refugees going to Europe, etc. Something that shakes people to their core, so that they lose it all. With that kind of a crisis its possible things get better.

Its been said before: things don't get better slowly, they get worse slowly as our liberties and quality of life are taken away. Things get better in a bang, with wholesale change. Life can also become horrible quickly as well if the wrong leader comes into power (Hitler, Stalin). Im excited about Trump though, but he might become a complete loser after being elected. Its no promise he enacts anything he said he would. Obama promised to be out of the war immediately. How did that work out?

Post: #34

(01-25-2016 12:35 AM)mpr Wrote:  On top it all the amount of child support is usually much more then cash assistance; and there is no upward limit on the dollar amount that can be collected. If a shady slut can get her hands on the used condom of a doctor, lawyer, or other high earner then she's hit the jackpot! As the cherry on top you the taxpayer are still paying for the enforcement of this kafkaesque scheme. The salaries of lawyers, judges, and correctional officers aren't cheap. But don't worry! Since government money isn't going directly to irresponsible mothers it's not classified as: "welfare" in the budget.

Nevada has a cap. There is a maximum amount for one child (last time I checked it was under $1,000 per month), meaning that a guy who grosses a billion dollars per year wouldn't pay any more than a guy who grosses $100,000 per year.

Post: #35

(01-25-2016 03:07 AM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 12:35 AM)mpr Wrote:  On top it all the amount of child support is usually much more then cash assistance; and there is no upward limit on the dollar amount that can be collected. If a shady slut can get her hands on the used condom of a doctor, lawyer, or other high earner then she's hit the jackpot! As the cherry on top you the taxpayer are still paying for the enforcement of this kafkaesque scheme. The salaries of lawyers, judges, and correctional officers aren't cheap. But don't worry! Since government money isn't going directly to irresponsible mothers it's not classified as: "welfare" in the budget.

Nevada has a cap. There is a maximum amount for one child (last time I checked it was under $1,000 per month), meaning that a guy who grosses a billion dollars per year wouldn't pay any more than a guy who grosses $100,000 per year.

Glad to hear it! I've never heard of a state having a Child Support cap. I'm living in one of the 3 biggest states in the US by population and we don't. I'm glad Nevada does! For example singer Usher was forced to give his wife $96,000 a year tax free until he recently won custody of his two sons. There's no way it costs roughly $50,000 per year to raise a child. Ideally I'd like to see child support abolished and make everyone responsible for their own reproductive choices again. But putting a cap on child support payments, and setting child support levels at payable amounts for low income men would go a long way towards making things fair. As well as restricting what can be purchased with child support funds as they currently do with welfare. Instead of just handing cash over to the mother.