To: E. Pluribus Unum
He’s not necessarily wrong about this. We could use with a lot fewer people, so long as we are selective.
To: oldplayer
“He’s not necessarily wrong about this. We could use with a lot fewer people, so long as we are selective.”
Isn’t this a major plank of the New World Order-ers?
The problem is, they need all us little people around to do the work to keep their uber-rich lives uber.
20 posted on
11/03/2017 7:52:38 AM PDT by
treetopsandroofs
(Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
To: oldplayer
We could use with a lot fewer people, so long as we are selective.
And who gets to do the selecting? This is Free Republic, not Eugenics Republic.
23 posted on
11/03/2017 7:54:01 AM PDT by
Dr. Sivana
(There is no salvation in politics.)
To: oldplayer
That’s all Adolph tried to do.
26 posted on
11/03/2017 7:54:43 AM PDT by
E. Pluribus Unum
(<img src="http://i.imgur.com/WukZwJP.gif" width=800>)
To: oldplayer; Ken H; RegulatorCountry
"...population growth..."
He is correct in some aspects.
I rarely say to myself:
”....Gee, this situation would be greatly improved if we only had a few million more uneducated, unskilled, and filthy Third Worlders here...”
29 posted on
11/03/2017 7:59:20 AM PDT by
Blue Jays
( Rock hard ~ Ride free)
To: oldplayer
We could use with a lot fewer people, so long as we are selective. I select the guy who cut me off on the way to work this morning.
30 posted on
11/03/2017 8:02:46 AM PDT by
henkster
(The View: A psychiatric group therapy session where the shrink has stepped out of the room.)
To: oldplayer
Tons of people in the West aren’t even having kids, allowing them to be outbred by Muslims and other invaders.
To: oldplayer
I think that a population “correction” is coming soon.
58 posted on
11/03/2017 9:14:56 AM PDT by
Chuckster
("Them Rag Heads just ain't rational" Curly Bartley 1973)
To: oldplayer; E. Pluribus Unum
Hey oldplayer, "We" could "use" a lot fewer people?
Is that what other people are here for, for us to use? And then, conversely, are "we" here for others to use? Are you any use to the people you have no use for?
What ARE people "for"?
And how could their interest in life be any less than ours, if together we make a "we"?
Please reassure me that you're not a robot or something.
Because at some point, the robots could realize "they" could use a lot less people, and boy, could they get selective.
63 posted on
11/03/2017 1:24:08 PM PDT by
Mrs. Don-o
(There are more things in heaven & on earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Hamlet)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson