On Dec 31, 8:02 pm, "Don White" wrote:
"Tom Francis" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:41:28 -0400, "Don White"
wrote:

"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.

I say we start with Canada...

Our leaders say were just the opposite.
We need at least 250k immigrants each year to maintain services for an aging
population.

I disagree with almost everybody here, the problem will NOT be
overpopulation but will be underpopulation. Every western nation
expects to have a population crisis within 50 years due to NOT ENOUGH
people. Japan is in such bad shape that thye are having to develop
robots to take care of old people. The solution is to bring the
entire world up to our standard of living so we have that many more
minds to help solve the minor local problems population causes while
also making everything better. We truly are better oiff with all
those ppl in India working on high tech stuff instead of subsistence
farming. People with good braisn should be doing stuff that uses
their brains, not subsistence farming.
We need more people in the USA to have kids. We need smart people to
have more smart kids. I wish I had had more than 3 but am too old
now.
Dont be foolhardy pessimists, be techno-optimists, otherwise we will
all starve.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


I don't go around interviewing Catholics, but is the church's rule about
birth control really still such a powerful issue for them? I mean, are
people still that goofy?


In a word, No.

Those days are long gone.

Eisboch


Well, bless them anyway. Within 10 minutes of my home, on Fridays, there are
at least a dozen spectacular fish fry possibilities to be had.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


I don't go around interviewing Catholics, but is the church's rule about
birth control really still such a powerful issue for them? I mean, are
people still that goofy?


In a word, No.

Those days are long gone.

Eisboch


Well, bless them anyway. Within 10 minutes of my home, on Fridays, there
are at least a dozen spectacular fish fry possibilities to be had.

Tradition. The "no meat on Fridays" rule went out years ago due to lack of
interest.

Eisboch

"John H" wrote in message
...
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

Lets just say any religion burried in the past does this, I don't think it
is limited to Catholics. Muslim/Islam and others could be included quite
easily in the statement and be at least as accurate.

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.

On Dec 31 2008, 3:52*pm, Boater wrote:
Don White wrote:
"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.

I agree completely, and I think it inappropriate for families to have
more than one or two kids.

Or cats or dogs. Animal shelters are over run by cats and dogs that
are unwanted.

wrote in message
...
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.

==================


I think Obama makes his doubters nervous and perhaps defensive because he
can speak English. He can correctly assemble plural and singular verbs &
nouns, something Bush had difficulty with. This makes Obama an elitist in
the eyes of his doubters, although these are the same people who also like
to complain about the "failed education system". When the "system" succeeds,
it produces elitists. The "system" just can't win. :-)

To understand this twisted way of thinking, you have to be from a certain
part of the country:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...g?t=1230822728

"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.

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.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

"John H" wrote in message
...
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'?

John H


The country which you think cannot be attacked because you've been told
they're our ally, and you actually believe that nonsense.