On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 10:17:53 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 07:04:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 31 2008, 2:47 pm, John H wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:25:34 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
(considering what hasn't changed here in this NG)

http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/

Even though it was Bush's fault, Obama will have that fixed in no time.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Here's what I find odd. Seems that those who have already concluded
that Obama is a bad president, even though he hasn't been in office
yet, are the very same ones that didn't see that Bush would be a
miserable failure, and STILL don't see it.

Who has made conclusions that Obama will be a bad president?

Bush wasn't a miserable failure. His accomplishments in Iraq and
Afghanistan are remarkable. If it hadn't been for the Barney Frank crowd,
he would have had a great economy going for him.
John H


Too bad he failed to punish the country responsible for attacking us.


What country would you have had him 'punish'?
--
** Good Day! **

John H

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 07:04:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 31 2008, 2:47 pm, John H wrote:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:25:34 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
(considering what hasn't changed here in this NG)
http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/
Even though it was Bush's fault, Obama will have that fixed in no time.
--
** Good Day! **

John H
Here's what I find odd. Seems that those who have already concluded
that Obama is a bad president, even though he hasn't been in office
yet, are the very same ones that didn't see that Bush would be a
miserable failure, and STILL don't see it.
Who has made conclusions that Obama will be a bad president?

Bush wasn't a miserable failure. His accomplishments in Iraq and
Afghanistan are remarkable. If it hadn't been for the Barney Frank crowd,
he would have had a great economy going for him.
John H


Too bad he failed to punish the country responsible for attacking us.

Which country was responsible for attacking us? Name the country or
countries?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
(considering what hasn't changed here in this NG)

http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/

There's just way too many people in the world today.
We have to come up with a way to 'thin the herd' over the next few
generations or we'll all be over run.

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
(considering what hasn't changed here in this NG)

http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/

There's just way too many people in the world today.
We have to come up with a way to 'thin the herd' over the next few
generations or we'll all be over run.



True, but many will think that means government control, as in China. I
believe enough in people to think that if we were told "It would help to
limit the family to 2 kids", quite a few would do that. No laws needed.
After all, most of us recycle, and nobody's holding a gun to our heads to
force us to do that.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
(considering what hasn't changed here in this NG)

http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/
There's just way too many people in the world today.
We have to come up with a way to 'thin the herd' over the next few
generations or we'll all be over run.



True, but many will think that means government control, as in China. I
believe enough in people to think that if we were told "It would help to
limit the family to 2 kids", quite a few would do that. No laws needed.
After all, most of us recycle, and nobody's holding a gun to our heads to
force us to do that.

Wrong. You are compelled to pay for recycling. If you don't pay the
recycling "fee" you may have your property confiscated from you at point
of a gun.

"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
(considering what hasn't changed here in this NG)

http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/
There's just way too many people in the world today.
We have to come up with a way to 'thin the herd' over the next few
generations or we'll all be over run.



True, but many will think that means government control, as in China. I
believe enough in people to think that if we were told "It would help to
limit the family to 2 kids", quite a few would do that. No laws needed.
After all, most of us recycle, and nobody's holding a gun to our heads to
force us to do that.

Wrong. You are compelled to pay for recycling. If you don't pay the
recycling "fee" you may have your property confiscated from you at point
of a gun.


What police state do YOU live in?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
(considering what hasn't changed here in this NG)

http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/
There's just way too many people in the world today.
We have to come up with a way to 'thin the herd' over the next few
generations or we'll all be over run.


True, but many will think that means government control, as in China. I
believe enough in people to think that if we were told "It would help to
limit the family to 2 kids", quite a few would do that. No laws needed.
After all, most of us recycle, and nobody's holding a gun to our heads to
force us to do that.
Wrong. You are compelled to pay for recycling. If you don't pay the
recycling "fee" you may have your property confiscated from you at point
of a gun.


What police state do YOU live in?

People's Republic of Montgomery County in the Democratic Republic of
Maryland. Our motto is "Your money is our money."

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:50:37 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


True, but many will think that means government control, as in China. I
believe enough in people to think that if we were told "It would help to
limit the family to 2 kids", quite a few would do that. No laws needed.
After all, most of us recycle, and nobody's holding a gun to our heads
to force us to do that.

It isn't birth rates, it is death rates. Birth rates in developed
countries, are not large enough to maintain the population. That's one
of the reasons we need immigrants to sustain our Ponzi economy. Death
rates, however... Infant mortality is down. Life expectancy is up.

wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:50:37 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


True, but many will think that means government control, as in China. I
believe enough in people to think that if we were told "It would help to
limit the family to 2 kids", quite a few would do that. No laws needed.
After all, most of us recycle, and nobody's holding a gun to our heads
to force us to do that.

It isn't birth rates, it is death rates. Birth rates in developed
countries, are not large enough to maintain the population. That's one
of the reasons we need immigrants to sustain our Ponzi economy. Death
rates, however... Infant mortality is down. Life expectancy is up.


Interesting point.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:50:37 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Don White" wrote in message
.. .

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
(considering what hasn't changed here in this NG)

http://www.slate.com/id/2202423/pagenum/all/

There's just way too many people in the world today.
We have to come up with a way to 'thin the herd' over the next few
generations or we'll all be over run.



True, but many will think that means government control, as in China. I
believe enough in people to think that if we were told "It would help to
limit the family to 2 kids", quite a few would do that. No laws needed.
After all, most of us recycle, and nobody's holding a gun to our heads to
force us to do that.


When I was a kid, overpopulation was already an issue and the limit of two
was already the 'solution'. Hasn't worked at all.

As long as the Roman Catholic Church maintains its stance on birth control,
I believe the overpopulation will get worse.
--
** Good Day! **

John H