Posted on 12/21/2010 12:51:14 PM PST by neverdem
The U.S. Census Bureau today announced its long-awaited final population and reapportionment numbers. The official population of the U.S. as of April 1, 2010 was 308,745,538, up from 281,421,906 in 2000. The Northeast grew 3.2 percent, the Midwest grew 3.9 percent, the South grew 14.3 percent and the West grew by 13.8 percent. Overall, it was the slowest growth in the country since the 1930s.
The apportionment winners were: Texas (4 seats), Florida (2 seats), Arizona (1 seat), Georgia (1 seat), Nevada (1 seat), South Carolina (1 seat), Utah (1 seat), Washington (1 seat). The losers were: New York (2 seats), Ohio (2 seats), Illinois (1 seat), Iowa (1 seat), Louisiana (1 seat), Massachusetts (1 seat), Michigan (1 seat), Missouri (1 seat), New Jersey (1 seat), Pennsylvania (1 seat)...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
So, how many kids do you have, o wise one?
Who are you, and why did you decide to pick an argument with me?
I’m a FReeper on a thread with you. That’s what we do here at FR. We discuss issues. I’m asking you a simple question based on your assertion that people who don’t have a proscribed number of children are “selfish.” All I’m asking is, how many is that, and do you walk the walk?
Don’t be coy. “o wise one” implies you are picking an argument. You didn’t literally expect me to be happy with your introduction.
Are you bored on this good Boxing Day afternoon?
BTW, we don't celebrate Boxing Day in the US. If you hop in your car and drive north on I-95 until it ends at the border, you might be able to squeeze an hour or two out of it.
So, please tell me what the ideal number of children is, and whether or not you practice what you preach.
Like I said to the other guy, get off your high horse. I’m not condemning you.
We are being overrun by illegals, because people have got too rich and are choosing big screen TVs over kids. Liberals more so than conservatives. And I hope that trend continues.
THAT’s the point, and by trying to rub my nose in the crap for attempting to address the issue, you are part of the problem.
Typical hypocrite. And a bad noobie attitude on top of it.
Your question had no good answer. As such it was a simple attack.
Your answer was the same whether I answered or whether I did not. You decided the answer then generated a question which would allow you to deliver it.
‘Married couples are 60 percent of the birthrate. So in order to have replacement, youd need closer to 4.’
If there are no illegitimate children.
‘But they might not have made their symbolic votes.’
There was nothing symbolic about the 1960 Byrd voters. They were deliberately trying to throw the election to the House, and planning to elect Nixon or Kennedy, whoever would put more restrictions on Civil Rights laws.
Certainly not from your perspective. You'd have been forced to admit that you are a hypocrite.
That’s warped thinking. It’s the kind of thing we call liberals out for, day in day out around here.
It’s a pathetic childish question, like “can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it?”.
You come across on the issue like Al Gore does on global warming..."Do as I say, not as I do." Well, noob, we don't award Nobel prizes for hypocrisy here on FR.
You’re a manipulative arguer who picks random fights with people and ignores the real issues.
I've been here for over 10 years. Those who behave as you describe don't last 10 months. They get the Zot.
You, sir, are simply a coward.
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.