Have Less Kids! Gore Pushes Population Control

reply to post by e11888

Youre a sweetheart
Dont be quick to bite in the future.. you may bite the hand of true allies and people willing to share information and work for the things you hold dear.

reply to post by e11888

As ive already stated, what exactly do you think population control really means? Are you really not able to connect these dots?

As has been already pointed out, Al Gore never said a word about population control in the video. The title of the thread is blatantly false.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by e11888

 

As ive already stated, what exactly do you think population control really means? Are you really not able to connect these dots?

As has been already pointed out, Al Gore never said a word about population control in the video. The title of the thread is blatantly false.

And here you are back again to spread your disinfo. Im curious, how much exactly are you paid to sell out your own people? How do you sleep at night knowing you are pushing an agenda that kills people around the world? Does it make you feel powerful? Special?

reply to post by TheOrangeBrood


Wikipedia - Texas

Either way, who did your math? Texas has 900,000 acres, that's about 40 billion square feet... 6.7 billion people can split up 40 billion and get less than SIX square feet, not ONE FREAKING THOUSAND. I'm amazed at how you proudly posted this non-fact that could be disproven by anyone with a first grade education and a calculator... and I just did it in my head...

So according to your Logic 900,000 Acres in Texas? So you're saying there is about 4 acres per mile since Texas has 268,000 Square miles of Land

Actually instead of touting false information there are actually 640 Acres in a square miles.



Before arrogantly touting about who's better at math; not that it matters i suppose you should look at the facts and realities of the actual size of Texas which you so falsely stated.

Reality Check! Time!

*Sigh* You actually think Texas has only 900,000 Acres because its the first think you saw when you googled right?
Wikipedia - Texas
Well you're absolutely incorrect. Google isn't always the Answer.

With 268,820 square miles of area and 640 acres per square mile the actual acerage is 172,044,800 acres. Texas is big however the first answer is a big stretch of even a Tall Texan's Tale. You probably notice that the question asks about land and not land and water. Texas does have a little land (about 2.5 percent) that is covered by water so even the second answer is a bit of a stretching of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The number is way SMALLER than the correction so it is more of an underestimate and there are 639.73 acres in a square mile So using the 268,820 x 639.7 = 171,972,218.60 ac - 4,299,305.47 (2.5% for water)= 167,672,913.14 approximate total land area in acres OR Read more: wiki.answers.com...

wiki.answers.com...
You really are *Sigh*
167,672,913.14 Acres in Texas.

I suppose you should keep watching The Inconvenient (Lie) Truth Movie you probably have watched before..

Originally posted by Youmakemewonder
reply to post by nenothtu

 

In what reality do people only use up 4 square feet of space? You talk about fuzzy math, completely disregarding the materials that come along with humankind especially the waste is deceptively not as naive as it suggests.

You obviously skimmed over this part:

Now granted, you'll never be able to pack them all into one place like that (Sunnis would start killing the Shia, Brits and French would start brawling, the Africans would just start killing anything that wasn't them, and lord help us if anyone suggested a soccer game or a hockey match in the midst of the circle!), but as an exercise it illustrates just how much of the planet is currently uninhabited, and how much space there still is per person. "Overcrowding" my ass.

Actually reading what is written can be an interesting exercise every now and then....

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by Pervius
How come Al Gore isn't slamming Obama for making +1 million FOREIGNERS new US citizens every year???


How come ANY Leftist person isn't calling Obama out on this? If we are so overpopulated why are we taking in 1/300th of our entire population every single year under Obama??

So which Native American tribe are you from?

I'm Shawnee.

How 'bout you?

I stand behind what HE said.

if you an afford to take care of 10 kids all the power to ya , there are plnety of people now days either not having enough kids or not at all. I`m speaking of course about westran soceties,. Gore pisses me off he's a wind bag .In a few years from now people will be required to have procreation licences . And I`m sure 20 years from now his chiildren will be eating meat while the servent castes will be eating soy ,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How many more of these are we going to survive? The fact is, we have more important things to be worrying about than overpopulation especially when there is not one single fact that backs the idea that it even exists.

Originally posted by e11888

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by e11888

 

As ive already stated, what exactly do you think population control really means? Are you really not able to connect these dots?

As has been already pointed out, Al Gore never said a word about population control in the video. The title of the thread is blatantly false.

And here you are back again to spread your disinfo. Im curious, how much exactly are you paid to sell out your own people? How do you sleep at night knowing you are pushing an agenda that kills people around the world? Does it make you feel powerful? Special?

What? There is no disinfo, what I have stated is a fact.

When it comes to casualties, lets compare: How many people were killed by birth control and emancipation of women (thats the only thing Gore talked about in the video)?
How many people were killed even by government reproduction control programs (China, India, Iran..)?

And how many children died, how much suffering is caused by reproduction anarchy?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by Pervius
How come Al Gore isn't slamming Obama for making +1 million FOREIGNERS new US citizens every year???


How come ANY Leftist person isn't calling Obama out on this? If we are so overpopulated why are we taking in 1/300th of our entire population every single year under Obama??

So which Native American tribe are you from?

I'm Shawnee.

How 'bout you?

I stand behind what HE said.

I would too if I was native American, I'm not; however I didn't ask you.

reply to post by TheUniverse


I've been told that the entire population of the world could fit in Texas, but at a density of New York City. Want to fact check that? Cause it does make sense if you think about it. It's just not that comfortable.

reply to post by nenothtu


But even the native tribes Europeans found were land steelers of the tribes before them. No individual on Earth can state that the land they live on was taken without blood. Every one of us stole land from someone.

An amazing example of just how much of the earth is actually inhabited by people would be Canada. 90% of the population of Canada lies near or along the southern Canada/US border and the rest of the country is completely wild except for the Native peoples living in the northern parts of the country. This doesn't mean that Canadians could actually hack living in these types of areas with their harsh weather systems, those that do are a very hardened breed like Canada's First Nations people. I've been to Yellowknife in the middle of winter and it isn't a place for the average southern city dweller. It gets so cold that the shock absorbers on cars start to fail and transmissions start to freeze up.

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by Pervius
How come Al Gore isn't slamming Obama for making +1 million FOREIGNERS new US citizens every year???


How come ANY Leftist person isn't calling Obama out on this? If we are so overpopulated why are we taking in 1/300th of our entire population every single year under Obama??

So which Native American tribe are you from?

I'm Shawnee.

How 'bout you?

I stand behind what HE said.

I would too if I was native American, I'm not; however I didn't ask you.

No, you didn't, but your implication is that no one but "native americans" (God, I hate that PC phrase!) has any right to an opinion in the matter. I say otherwise, as does Graham Greene. I'm of the same mind as he is - being born here makes you "native" regardless of where your great great gramps came from. We can't help what Europeans did aeons ago, nor is there any way possible to rectify it now, since all the perpetrators are long dead.

We have to deal with the here and now, and what we can do NOW. If Americans, "native" or not, don't start pulling together pretty damned soon, there won't be an America left to strive for. Even now, the likes of La Raza are trying to claim birthright to ancient lands belonging to the Apache and Navajo, because they are "native". They are not, and have no birthright to the mythical "Aztlan". The Apache, Navajo, and allied tribes drove them out long ago, and even then they were just "passing through", for bad behavior. If that land belongs to anyone, I'd have to say to say it belongs to the Dene speakers, not the alleged Nahuatl speakers.

The Nahuatl birthright is to Tenochtitlan and environs. Let 'em agitate for that, not our lands.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by nenothtu

 

But even the native tribes Europeans found were land steelers of the tribes before them. No individual on Earth can state that the land they live on was taken without blood. Every one of us stole land from someone.

Perhaps some, but not as much as one would believe. Intertribal warfare rarely took place for conquest of territory. Most tribes settled in empty or abandoned territory. My own people were a bunch of wanderers, and settled nearly everywhere, but generally by invitation or in the empty places. We were a rowdy bunch, and some tribes liked having us there, would give us a place to settle, just so they'd have a buffer against the next tribe over that might want to do hit-n-git raids on them. They would give us just the right patch of turf to make sure the other tribe had to get through us to get to them. An example is the Savannah River settlement. "Savannah" come from the word "Shawnee", and we were allowed to settle there to buffer the more easterly tribes from the hereditary enemies to the west.

Some settled among the Lenape in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Ohio because of presumed familial relations (Shawnees refer to the Lenape as "grandfathers", and we split from a common tribe long ago).

Perhaps a worse vice involving tribal territory was the practice of "selling" land a tribe didn't own to begin with, that actually "belonged" to another tribe, to white settlers. The Cherokee did that, selling Shawnee lands in Kentucky to Richard Henderson and the "Transylvania Land Company" at Long Island on Holston River. The Iroquois were bad about doing that, "claiming" lands all over that they had no claim to at all, and selling it to the whites. I reckon they must have thought it was a grand joke, taking the money and running, and letting the white guys try to sort it out!

The world was a little different back then, though. The modern concept of "ownership" - as in individual ownership of land with titles and such, didn't exist among the tribes. Borders were less well defined, more vague in general. So vague, in fact, that whites can't sort out who was where to this day. Most "tribe maps" will show Cherokee territory going all the way through the eastern half of Kentucky, when in fact no Cherokees lived there, ever. The boundary between Cherokee land and Shawnee land was the Clinch River in Southwest Virgina, a fact which most white folks STILL don't know - or claim not to know, since they bought Kentucky from the Cherokees, and had to make that purchase stick somehow. Even Shawnees didn't live in Kentucky for the most part, beyond seasonal hunting camps, as it was reserved for hunting grounds. One Shawnee settlement, Eskipakithiki, was made there, and only lasted about 20 years or so.

Nowadays, the world is gripped with ownership concerns, and that drive for ownership is the very thing, in my opinion, fueling this debate about "overpopulation". It's not that there isn't enough land to support everyone, it's that there isn't enough for each of these "overcrowding" proponents to own as large a swath as they'd like to own. Urban areas ARE overcrowded, in my opinion, and that probably contributes fuel to the fire. They can't grow enough to feed themselves on concrete, of course, but then it IS their choice to live stacked up like ants in an ant hill, so it's not really a surprise to me that they think the whole Earth is situated like that.

There are kids around here who think that steak comes from (originates at) a grocery store, and have no concept at all of what a "cow" is. It's not surprising that they fear starving to death if the distribution machinery breaks down, but again that's an urban problem that they tend to project onto the whole planet, more than the reality of the situation.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by e11888
And thats what Im defending MY CHOICE! This is all this is about. My freedom to have a choice without Government or some billionaire telling me otherwise.

In the near futre, Hispanics will be the majority in the US and they are the poorest of all races. And most of them are on welfare. I do not want to pay for their kids. Now where is MY CHOICE in that?

Correction, Natives are the poorest race currently. Also I think you need to distingish the difference between illegals and "hispanics" as a whole. There are plenty of hispanics that are doing well without government assistance.

edit on 24-6-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

I had to star that post. Don't put me in the position of having to agree with you again - it's a very uncomfortable place to be.

Your right in your assessment of the hispanics. The neighborhood I live in is mixed, predominately black and hispanic. The hispanics are generally doing better than the blacks, and the legal hispanics (who are probably in the majority in this neighborhood) are doing better than the illegals. Not a single soul among them, neither black, brown, white, nor me (as "none of the above") lives in a clapboard shack without running water like the one I grew up in. That, by the way, wasn't a function of race, it was a function of the area I was raised in. I'd post a picture of the shack to show you what I mean, but all I have is a grainy screencap from a nearly worn out VHS tape shot years ago, and the shack burnt to the ground about 12 years ago or so, so no new pictures are to be had.

All in all, I'd really have to say that the "poverty stricken" here really don't understand how good they have it, comparatively, and that the overall level of living in this neighborhood really isn't race dependent. That comes into play when you start comparing this neighborhood to others, like the gated communities.

Given the same socioeconomic area, race differentials in the standard of living within it are nearly nonexistent from my perspective.

Originally posted by e11888

I believe in the definition of freedom and the ability to live my life without Government or billionaires telling me how to raise a family, feed myself or take a #. The last time I checked, the United States broke away from a tyranical King that wished to do the very same thing. I care not who argues their points in this thread, I simply stated that I was the original poster. No you were not the person I was refering to. I also do not care if its the responsible thing to do to have more children than necessary nor am I even stating that I have or shall. The right to make that decision is the only thing Im defending here and Im being made out to be the bad guy.

Star his post because you disagree with me. Thats how we do things here on ATS.

I think what you're arguing about here is the key term, however nebulous, of "necessary", and just whose job it ought to be to determine what "necessary" IS.

Personally, I don't think "necessary" enters the equation at all - it should be determined more by what one wants, and what one can afford to feed. "Necessary" is just too relative, not objective enough, and not something that someone else is qualified to determine for you.

"Irresponsible" would be, to my mind, having more children that you can personally feed, more than you can be "responsible" for.

Originally posted by blackrain17

Do you live in a big city or in the woods? Where I'm from it takes over an hour to travel 30 miles. I go to the DMV and I have to wait 3 hours, just to get a new license. And let's not talk about the emergency rooms, I have to wait 6 hours before a doctor even talks to me about what my problem is. It wasn't like this 20 years ago. So don't tell me over-population isn't a problem. I know I know, I should just move to the woods where no one's around right? I don't want to move, I was born and raised here. It's my personal choice to stay where I was born.

I've lived in both the big city and the woods. "Overpopulation" probably IS a problem where you are, but it's a purely localized phenomena, and, as you admitted yourself you have CHOSEN to live in it. It doesn't logically follow that just because YOUR chosen stomping grounds are crowded, that by extension EVERYWHERE must be.

As I said above, it's your choice to live like that. No need to punish the rest of the planet over your own choices.

BTW, your avatar is a problem. Every time my daughter sees it, she wants one, and I already live in a menagerie!

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by TheUniverse

 

I've been told that the entire population of the world could fit in Texas, but at a density of New York City. Want to fact check that? Cause it does make sense if you think about it. It's just not that comfortable.

Want to fact check that? Cause it does make sense if you think about it. It's just not that comfortable.

We aren't all forced to live in the state of Texas the world is much larger than this so what you're implying is simply backwards logic

The world is much larger than Texas..

I suppose you'll imply anything to further the depopulation agenda.


Now to bury your post lets compare Texas's Land mass to the worlds total Land mass.

Texas Total Land Area: 268,820 Sq Miles
World Total Land Area: 57,308,738 Sq. Miles

And here comes the burn.

Texas equates to less than 0.5% of the Worlds Land Area

No There isn't too many humans

There is enough space for every human on the planet to have 1000 Sq ft of space if we were to all live in the State of Texas.

1000 sq feet per person equates to about 32X32 feet and this is only if we had everyone living in Texas Now expand it to the whole world.

Keep touting and spouting that non-sense you are only helping bolster the Elites depopulation Agenda There is plenty of Room for More humans.

reply to post by TheUniverse


no, no. I was asking if the entire world's population could fit into Texas if they lived in a texas-sized city with the population density of Manhattan. You can't say that they won't fit just because Texas has less land than the world. Land available is not necessarily land used.