Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Adolph Sanders ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Adolph Sanders ?

    Bernie Hitler ?

    Copy China ?

    Kill babies to control the weather ? . . .

    Which ?

    Do you really think this angry nut would be wise to install in the Whitehouse ?

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told CNNs climate change town hall attendees Wednesday night that he is willing to talk about population control, suggesting that abortion is key to addressing the climate crisis.

    Human population growth has more than doubled in the last 50 years, an attendee told Sanders, adding that the planet cannot sustain such growth.

    I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians but its crucial to face. Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact, the attendee continued.

    Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe? she asked.

    The answer is yes, Sanders said, arguing that population control in the form of abortion and birth control, specifically is something he very, very strongly supports.

    The answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions, Sanders said.

    And the Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that are that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control is totally absurd, he continued.

    So I think especially in poor countries around the world, where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies and where they can have the opportunity to birth control to control the number of kids they have is something I very, very strongly support, he added.


    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...ation-control/

  • #2
    There is a theoretical limit to the number of humans the planet and its resources can sustain.

    The thing of it is that due to human innovation that limit keeps getting raised.

    A small band of hunter gatherers needs a lot of land area to support themselves, as there are limits as to how fast their prey can reproduce which feed them.

    With the advent of agriculture, less land area could more easily support more humans. Further innovation and technological developments by humans keep increasing the population density that is supportable by a given land area to the point where we now have mega cities that now that house millions of people.

    Is there any indication that this human innovation has plateaued? I'm inclined to think not.

    ?


    • #3
      Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
      There is a theoretical limit to the number of humans the planet and its resources can sustain.

      The thing of it is that due to human innovation that limit keeps getting raised.

      A small band of hunter gatherers needs a lot of land area to support themselves, as there are limits as to how fast their prey can reproduce which feed them.

      With the advent of agriculture, less land area could more easily support more humans. Further innovation and technological developments by humans keep increasing the population density that is supportable by a given land area to the point where we now have mega cities that now that house millions of people.

      Is there any indication that this human innovation has plateaued? I'm inclined to think not.
      Yes, "human innovation" ... that can get interesting...

      It gets weirder with these people

      First - population control....kill off those damn babies !!!

      then...

      How about we eat each other ??

      Yeah !! That sounds good ! Stir fried Grandma !! ? Sauteed beetles on the side ?

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      The scientist mentioned the possibility of cannibalism during a broadcast on Swedish television channel TV4 this week about a fair in Stockholm regarding 'food of the future'.

      Sderlund is set to hold seminars at the event, entitled "Gastro Summit - about the future of food" where he intends to discuss the possibility of eating people in the name of cutting down greenhouse emissions.

      According to his research, the main problem with the idea is the widespread taboo of eating human flesh and said that conservative attitudes could make it hard to convince Swedes at large to take up the practice of cannibalism.

      Regardless of the likely immense resistance to the idea of eating people, Sderlund said it was important to examine different options in the name of sustainability.

      Sderlund is not alone in his call to reject the taboo of cannibalism.

      Last year, noted atheist and evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins advocated for lab-grown meat and suggested it may be used to 'overcome our taboo against cannibalism'.

      Psychologists Jared Piazza and Neil McLatchie of Lancaster University also questioned the taboo on cannibalism in an article for Newsweek last month but ultimately did not endorse breaking it.

      Cannibalism is not the only 'alternative meat' advocated by climate change activists. Many have embraced plant-based meat imitations, while others have put their support behind 'meat' made of insects as a way to cut down on greenhouse emissions and save on land and water use.

      A YouGov poll in the UK found that 37 per cent of respondents thought that the number of food products containing insects would grow in the next ten years.

      Last year in the German city of Aachen, shoppers were invited to try burgers made of buffalo worms with mixed reactions from the public.


      https://www.breitbart.com/europe/201...HKddSIz6pPRXTc


      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Of course Bernie STILL likes infanticide to "save the planet"

      One sick puppy ...

      RACIST TOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!

      What we would expect from an old white democrat..

      Get rid of those babies, get rid of those "brown people."


      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Global warming has always been a useful camel's nose under the tent for leftist politicians to justify their repulsive policies that won't sell otherwise with voters: ending meat consumption, getting average Joe out of his car and forcing him to ride the union-controlled bus, halting housing construction, you name it.

      Bernie Sanders, in response to a question by an earnest, stringy, dried up looking leftist woman with a Christine Blasey Ford voice at a Democrat climate change town hall, has come up with new one:



      READYOFF: Good evening. Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth. I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians, but its crucial to face. Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?

      SANDERS: Well, Martha, the answer is yes. And the answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions.

      And the Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that are - that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control, to me is totally absurd. So I think, especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, it's something I very, very strongly support.


      So let's pay to get rid of those little brown babies - even through abortion - and declare it part of the heroic and virtuous mission of saving the planet.

      Margaret Sanger would be so proud of him.

      Rather rightly, he was subject to criticism for this kill-'em-off abroad approach

      See comments of people ...

      Liz Wheeler@Liz_Wheeler .. at below link

      .....
      ..............................


      Naturally, the Washington Post is covering for Sanders, saying everybody does it.

      And nobody's bringing up that much of the world - from China to Russia to Japan to Mexico to Central America and certainly to western Europe - is in a population death spiral already.

      Nations such as El Salvador can't actually afford to lose more people, so pushing more abortion on them, far from saving the planet, will probably hasten its demise.

      But the Left just can't help itself. Facts are of no consequence. Just get rid of the little brown babies and break up those families.

      So much for the outrage over family "separations" - these guys don't even like families.

      It does call to mind how counterproductive the idea is of foisting abortion on other countries.

      But what it really goes to show is that global warming is the cure-all for every perceived problem by leftists.

      Can't sell paying for abortions of foreigners to voters in the states as an issue?

      Simple: Slap a global warming save-the-planet sticker on it, and watch the merchandise move.


      Saving the planet is an amazing justification for horrible ideas that can't stand on their own.

      No wonder Democrats such as Sanders and all socialists are so addicted to it.



      https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...he_planet.html

      ?


      • #4
        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

        Yes, "human innovation" ... that can get interesting...

        It gets weirder with these people

        First - population control....kill off those damn babies !!!

        then...

        How about we eat each other ??

        Yeah !! That sounds good ! Stir fried Grandma !! ? Sauteed beetles on the side ?

        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        The scientist mentioned the possibility of cannibalism during a broadcast on Swedish television channel TV4 this week about a fair in Stockholm regarding 'food of the future'.

        Sderlund is set to hold seminars at the event, entitled "Gastro Summit - about the future of food" where he intends to discuss the possibility of eating people in the name of cutting down greenhouse emissions.

        According to his research, the main problem with the idea is the widespread taboo of eating human flesh and said that conservative attitudes could make it hard to convince Swedes at large to take up the practice of cannibalism.

        Regardless of the likely immense resistance to the idea of eating people, Sderlund said it was important to examine different options in the name of sustainability.

        Sderlund is not alone in his call to reject the taboo of cannibalism.

        Last year, noted atheist and evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins advocated for lab-grown meat and suggested it may be used to 'overcome our taboo against cannibalism'.

        Psychologists Jared Piazza and Neil McLatchie of Lancaster University also questioned the taboo on cannibalism in an article for Newsweek last month but ultimately did not endorse breaking it.

        Cannibalism is not the only 'alternative meat' advocated by climate change activists. Many have embraced plant-based meat imitations, while others have put their support behind 'meat' made of insects as a way to cut down on greenhouse emissions and save on land and water use.

        A YouGov poll in the UK found that 37 per cent of respondents thought that the number of food products containing insects would grow in the next ten years.

        Last year in the German city of Aachen, shoppers were invited to try burgers made of buffalo worms with mixed reactions from the public.


        https://www.breitbart.com/europe/201...HKddSIz6pPRXTc


        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Of course Bernie STILL likes infanticide to "save the planet"

        One sick puppy ...

        RACIST TOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!

        What we would expect from an old white democrat..

        Get rid of those babies, get rid of those "brown people."


        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Global warming has always been a useful camel's nose under the tent for leftist politicians to justify their repulsive policies that won't sell otherwise with voters: ending meat consumption, getting average Joe out of his car and forcing him to ride the union-controlled bus, halting housing construction, you name it.

        Bernie Sanders, in response to a question by an earnest, stringy, dried up looking leftist woman with a Christine Blasey Ford voice at a Democrat climate change town hall, has come up with new one:



        READYOFF: Good evening. Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth. I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians, but its crucial to face. Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?

        SANDERS: Well, Martha, the answer is yes. And the answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions.

        And the Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that are - that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control, to me is totally absurd. So I think, especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, it's something I very, very strongly support.


        So let's pay to get rid of those little brown babies - even through abortion - and declare it part of the heroic and virtuous mission of saving the planet.

        Margaret Sanger would be so proud of him.

        Rather rightly, he was subject to criticism for this kill-'em-off abroad approach

        See comments of people ...

        Liz Wheeler@Liz_Wheeler .. at below link

        .....
        ..............................


        Naturally, the Washington Post is covering for Sanders, saying everybody does it.

        And nobody's bringing up that much of the world - from China to Russia to Japan to Mexico to Central America and certainly to western Europe - is in a population death spiral already.

        Nations such as El Salvador can't actually afford to lose more people, so pushing more abortion on them, far from saving the planet, will probably hasten its demise.

        But the Left just can't help itself. Facts are of no consequence. Just get rid of the little brown babies and break up those families.

        So much for the outrage over family "separations" - these guys don't even like families.

        It does call to mind how counterproductive the idea is of foisting abortion on other countries.

        But what it really goes to show is that global warming is the cure-all for every perceived problem by leftists.

        Can't sell paying for abortions of foreigners to voters in the states as an issue?

        Simple: Slap a global warming save-the-planet sticker on it, and watch the merchandise move.


        Saving the planet is an amazing justification for horrible ideas that can't stand on their own.

        No wonder Democrats such as Sanders and all socialists are so addicted to it.



        https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...he_planet.html
        You just want more Central American babies to be born so you can cage them and poke them with sticks. Sorry but I have trouble responding seriously to that American Thinker crap.

        ?


        • #5
          Originally posted by redrover View Post

          You just want more Central American babies to be born so you can cage them and poke them with sticks. Sorry but I have trouble responding seriously to that American Thinker crap.
          You have trouble responding to ANYTHING LOL

          maybe put on glasses and read more slowly ?

          maybe you need an interpreter ?

          I don't know ?

          In case you missed it - you did - here it is again

          Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
          There is a theoretical limit to the number of humans the planet and its resources can sustain.

          The thing of it is that due to human innovation that limit keeps getting raised.

          A small band of hunter gatherers needs a lot of land area to support themselves, as there are limits as to how fast their prey can reproduce which feed them.

          With the advent of agriculture, less land area could more easily support more humans. Further innovation and technological developments by humans keep increasing the population density that is supportable by a given land area to the point where we now have mega cities that now that house millions of people.

          Is there any indication that this human innovation has plateaued? I'm inclined to think not.
          Yes, "human innovation" ... that can get interesting...

          It gets weirder with these people

          First - population control....kill off those damn babies !!!

          then...

          How about we eat each other ??

          Yeah !! That sounds good ! Stir fried Grandma !! ? Sauteed beetles on the side ?

          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          The scientist mentioned the possibility of cannibalism during a broadcast on Swedish television channel TV4 this week about a fair in Stockholm regarding 'food of the future'.

          Sderlund is set to hold seminars at the event, entitled "Gastro Summit - about the future of food" where he intends to discuss the possibility of eating people in the name of cutting down greenhouse emissions.

          According to his research, the main problem with the idea is the widespread taboo of eating human flesh and said that conservative attitudes could make it hard to convince Swedes at large to take up the practice of cannibalism.

          Regardless of the likely immense resistance to the idea of eating people, Sderlund said it was important to examine different options in the name of sustainability.

          Sderlund is not alone in his call to reject the taboo of cannibalism.

          Last year, noted atheist and evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins advocated for lab-grown meat and suggested it may be used to 'overcome our taboo against cannibalism'.

          Psychologists Jared Piazza and Neil McLatchie of Lancaster University also questioned the taboo on cannibalism in an article for Newsweek last month but ultimately did not endorse breaking it.

          Cannibalism is not the only 'alternative meat' advocated by climate change activists. Many have embraced plant-based meat imitations, while others have put their support behind 'meat' made of insects as a way to cut down on greenhouse emissions and save on land and water use.

          A YouGov poll in the UK found that 37 per cent of respondents thought that the number of food products containing insects would grow in the next ten years.

          Last year in the German city of Aachen, shoppers were invited to try burgers made of buffalo worms with mixed reactions from the public.


          https://www.breitbart.com/europe/201...HKddSIz6pPRXTc


          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Of course Bernie STILL likes infanticide to "save the planet"

          One sick puppy ...

          RACIST TOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!

          What we would expect from an old white democrat..

          Get rid of those babies, get rid of those "brown people."


          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Global warming has always been a useful camel's nose under the tent for leftist politicians to justify their repulsive policies that won't sell otherwise with voters: ending meat consumption, getting average Joe out of his car and forcing him to ride the union-controlled bus, halting housing construction, you name it.

          Bernie Sanders, in response to a question by an earnest, stringy, dried up looking leftist woman with a Christine Blasey Ford voice at a Democrat climate change town hall, has come up with new one:



          READYOFF: Good evening. Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth. I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians, but its crucial to face. Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?

          SANDERS: Well, Martha, the answer is yes. And the answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions.

          And the Mexico City agreement, which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that are - that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control, to me is totally absurd. So I think, especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, it's something I very, very strongly support.


          So let's pay to get rid of those little brown babies - even through abortion - and declare it part of the heroic and virtuous mission of saving the planet.

          Margaret Sanger would be so proud of him.

          Rather rightly, he was subject to criticism for this kill-'em-off abroad approach

          See comments of people ...

          Liz Wheeler@Liz_Wheeler .. at below link

          .....
          ..............................


          Naturally, the Washington Post is covering for Sanders, saying everybody does it.

          And nobody's bringing up that much of the world - from China to Russia to Japan to Mexico to Central America and certainly to western Europe - is in a population death spiral already.

          Nations such as El Salvador can't actually afford to lose more people, so pushing more abortion on them, far from saving the planet, will probably hasten its demise.

          But the Left just can't help itself. Facts are of no consequence. Just get rid of the little brown babies and break up those families.

          So much for the outrage over family "separations" - these guys don't even like families.

          It does call to mind how counterproductive the idea is of foisting abortion on other countries.

          But what it really goes to show is that global warming is the cure-all for every perceived problem by leftists.

          Can't sell paying for abortions of foreigners to voters in the states as an issue?

          Simple: Slap a global warming save-the-planet sticker on it, and watch the merchandise move.


          Saving the planet is an amazing justification for horrible ideas that can't stand on their own.

          No wonder Democrats such as Sanders and all socialists are so addicted to it.



          https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...he_planet.html


          ?


          • #6
            Posted in the other thread, but pertinent here in that Climate Change is what Bernie Saunders (I'll just call him BS, OK?) was talking about.

            Climate Change would have a lot more credibility with me if any of their models actually predicted something accurately. To date, I don't believe that a single model has predicted any climate conditions accurately.

            Further, Climate Change would get more credibility with me if every proposed solution didn't sound, look, read and smell like a huge socialist wealth redistribution scheme from the advanced Western Democracies to the 2nd and 3rd world nations. Its like WTF does that have to do with addressing Climate Change anyway?

            Mind you that China can't be considered as anything but a first world nation, and is the greatest offender of greenhouse gas emissions, and yet they aren't held accountable to the same emission standards as all the other first world nations. What kinda of a crap deal is that? Besides, the US has already reduced their green house gas emissions

            Lastly, if green house gases are really what's tipping the scales, human innovation and scientific development will solve that problem:
            Reactor turns greenhouse gas into pure liquid fuel: Lab's 'green'
            https://www.sciencedaily.com › releases › 2019/09
            6 days ago - An electrocatalysis reactor built at Rice University recycles carbon dioxide to produce pure liquid fuel solutions using electricity. ... A common greenhouse gas could be repurposed in an efficient and environmentally friendly way with an electrolyzer that uses renewable electricity ...

            Machine Turns Carbon Dioxide Into Liquid Fuel
            https://www.popularmechanics.com › science › green-tech › machine-turns...
            5 days ago - Scientists at Rice University have devised an environmentally friendly way to take carbon dioxide and turn it into liquid fuel. The device uses a catalytic reactor to transform the greenhouse gas into formic acid, an important chemical reagent that is also found in bee and ant venom.

            Scientists have copied plants and turned CO2 into fuel
            https://www.sustainability-times.com › low-carbon-energy › scientists-have...
            May 25, 2019 - Scientists have copied plants and turned CO2 into fuel. Water and carbon dioxide. ... “Liquid fuels are ideal because they are easier, safer and more economical to transport than gas and, because they are made from long-chain molecules, contain more bonds, meaning they pack energy more densely,” Jain adds.

            Carbon Engineering Makes Gasoline by Capturing Carbon ...
            https://www.nationalgeographic.com › news › 2018/06 › carbon-engineeri...
            Jun 7, 2018 - Keith said capturing CO2 from the air and making fuel didn't require scientific breakthroughs per se as much as $30 million, eight years of ...

            Would almost seem as if human innovation already has.

            So, naa. I don't think that Climate Change has much credibility. Terribly disappointing to you, I'm sure, but frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn.

            ?

            Working...
            X