she should keep her mouth shut, and goats don't need birth control...
Posted on 01/02/2018 2:39:40 PM PST by Morgana
No, a strumpet may once have been a fair young lass, but has gone tragically wrong.
Understood. I prefer strumpets for fun, and a young lass for keepers.
Maybe he should have targeted the Muslims directly. They are having boatloads of kid, in every country to which they have migrated.
Mean while they are subsidizing Muslims to have kids. Crazy.
His granddad Philip has been saying the same thing for years, after siring 4 children himself, of course.
Got to make more room in London for the incoming Islamism.
“They are having boatloads of kid, in every country to which they have migrated.”
You know have yet to see a Planned Parenthood in a Muslim neighborhood. why is this?
My advice to William: Stop yer gob, Willy. You really don't want to go there.
“Three for me but none for thee!”
Chelsea’s daughter? /s
His Dad’s genes are coming out as he gets older. Expect him to sound even more like a total imbecile soon.
I have the same feeling...
I have the same feeling...
WOW, and here I thought Harry was the stupid one.
Remember history shows that there were a LOT of inbreeding going on among them for centuries. Tends to lead to many medical issues including weak mental faculties.
Prince Phillip is the Queen’s third cousin. Yes, inbreeding has caused problems, but these families control the ‘NWO’.
I suppose William does want (other) people to have fewer children -- that was one of his father's causes -- but he didn't come out and say it.
Indeed, the shortest way of connecting the dots is that he thinks that Africans should have fewer children, and if people read it that way it could be awkward for him.
The following is quoted from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. . . .
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
she should keep her mouth shut, and goats don't need birth control...
Hey bud...if you think there are too many people on this planet....OFF YOURSELVES and your kids!! I do NOT want you to do this because GOD doesn’t think there are to many, but stop the HYPOCRISY AND LEFTISM YOU TWITS!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.