Err America files Chapter 11

[Ramius]

You are.  If we transported white women to the Third World, she wouldn't be able to find a job and make money, therefore she'd be stupid, therefore she'd have more kids and just create more stupidity in the world.  What we really need to do is import more blacks to Europe and America.  That way they'll have jobs, and therefore have fewer, smarter kids.

 

It's all perfectly sensible and consistent, if you accept the a priori assumption that HA isn't a !@#$ing idjimit.

806657[/snapback]

 

Now i am confused. Is it the finding a job that makes a white woman smart, or is it having kids that makes the white woman dumb? Does each kid lower her IQ by X number of points?

 

I think the real problem is that US white women are to fuggin lazy. Look how smart they are with only working 1 job. If these lazy chicks work 2 or 3 jobs, imagine how much smarter they will be! They obviously have no desire to better themselves or the world.

[GG]

Once again, you've found it easier and more fun to criticize me, than to come up with a solution to the overpopulation crisis. 

 

Easier, no. More fun, definitely.

 

The day will come--probably in your lifetime--when the total amount of food farmed in the world falls short of the world's caloric needs.  You will be shown pictures of starving children. 

 

Does this mean there won't be a sequel to Supersize Me?

 

When that day comes, will you admit the fact your present outlook and behavior are irresponsible?  Will you congratulate yourself for having spent your time criticizing me and my solutions, instead of thinking about how to solve these problems before children started starving?  Or will you find it easier to blame everyone except yourself for this disaster?  "World leaders should have seen this coming, and should have done something," you might say.  And you might forget the fact that any politician who did want to do something would have not gotten the vote of you or others who think like you.

806666[/snapback]

 

But I'm still a bit puzzled, what's your solution for controlling the population? What I read is it would be grand for rich folk to have more babies, but they won't, because they're too intelligent to have many babies. So you advocate government subsidies to provide incentives for rich people richer to have more babies. Yet, you criticize liberal programs that incentivized poor people to have more babies.

 

And who would this grand master (wizard?) be that decides which woman gets the $100 for the extra child?

[Orton's Arm]

But I'm still a bit puzzled, what's your solution for controlling the population?  What I read is it would be grand for rich folk to have more babies, but they won't, because they're too intelligent to have many babies.  So you advocate government subsidies to provide incentives for rich people richer to have more babies.  Yet, you criticize liberal programs that incentivized poor people to have more babies.

 

And who would this grand master (wizard?) be that decides which woman gets the $100 for the extra child?

806678[/snapback]

You ask how I'd control global population growth, which is a very fair question. The solution requires several things:

- A strong United States

- A United States that's willing to make sacrifices to help the Third World

- A United States that's aware the Third World's biggest problem is overpopulation

 

To guard the long-term strength of the U.S., two things are necessary: immigration reform and a eugenics program. This strength would then be used to benefit the Third World through free birth control, education efforts, and perhaps even more. A full scale effort would also involve paying people to get their tubes tied, as well as helping Third World nations create basic retirement programs so that elderly people in the Third World wouldn't have to rely upon their children for support in their old age. The programs would only be for those who had few if any children.

 

Through these means, the U.S. would make it more possible and more financially desirable for people in the Third World to reduce their birthrates. But every family would make its own decision as to how many children to have.

 

Clearly such massive efforts will require a strong U.S., which is one of the reasons why I recommend a eugenics program. The program would provide all intelligent women with financial incentives to have children, regardless of economic status. It would also provide financial disincentives for less intelligent women to have children, again regardless of how much or how little money they had.

 

It's true that women on welfare are, on average, less intelligent than other women. This is why it was a mistake to give welfare women financial incentives to have as many children as possible. These incentives helped perpetuate the cycle of poverty by causing children to be born into circumstances where, both because of a poor environment and low genetic potential, they had little chance of success.

[IBTG81]

I think most of us DO understand your point, Herr Holcomb.

806550[/snapback]

 

 

[GG]

To guard the long-term strength of the U.S., two things are necessary: immigration reform and a eugenics program. 

 

So, are smart Indian immigrants who program code good? Dumb Indian immigrants who can only dig ditches, bad?

 

I'm getting confused. What if a mother has twins, and one is a ditch digger and the other is a doctor? Do we tie her tubes to prevent these accidents in the future?

 

This strength would then be used to benefit the Third World through free birth control, education efforts, and perhaps even more.  A full scale effort would also involve paying people to get their tubes tied, as well as helping Third World nations create basic retirement programs so that elderly people in the Third World wouldn't have to rely upon their children for support in their old age.  The programs would only be for those who had few if any children. 

 

Through these means, the U.S. would make it more possible and more financially desirable for people in the Third World to reduce their birthrates.  But every family would make its own decision as to how many children to have.

 

Silly me, I thought that having clean water and a stable supply of food is a far more effective method. But population control does have a ring in select circles.

 

Clearly such massive efforts will require a strong U.S., which is one of the reasons why I recommend a eugenics program.  The program would provide all intelligent women with financial incentives to have children, regardless of economic status. 

 

I don't know how old you are, but maybe when you get to middle age you will discover that the most intelligent of women can gain economic status without the carrot (pun intended) that you're offering.

 

It would also provide financial disincentives for less intelligent women to have children, again regardless of how much or how little money they had. 

 

I'd love to be the copywriter on that ad. "Coming up, after American Idol, America's Stupidest Woman. For $100, Janie gets her tubes tied on national TV to save the world." I tell you, it's cutting TV entertainment that can't lose.

 

It's true that women on welfare are, on average, less intelligent than other women.  This is why it was a mistake to give welfare women financial incentives to have as many children as possible.  These incentives helped perpetuate the cycle of poverty by causing children to be born into circumstances where, both because of a poor environment and low genetic potential, they had little chance of success.

806787[/snapback]

 

Why not just kill them? It would be a lost faster and cheaper.

[Orton's Arm]

So, are smart Indian immigrants who program code good?  Dumb Indian immigrants who can only dig ditches, bad?

 

I'm getting confused.  What if a mother has twins, and one is a ditch digger and the other is a doctor?  Do we tie her tubes to prevent these accidents in the future?

Silly me, I thought that having clean water and a stable supply of food is a far more effective method.  But population control does have a ring in select circles.

I don't know how old you are, but maybe when you get to middle age you will discover that the most intelligent of women can gain economic status without the carrot (pun intended) that you're offering.

I'd love to be the copywriter on that ad.  "Coming up, after American Idol, America's Stupidest Woman.  For $100, Janie gets her tubes tied on national TV to save the world."  I tell you, it's cutting TV entertainment that can't lose.

Why not just kill them?  It would be a lost faster and cheaper.

806861[/snapback]

You're working very hard to try my patience. I'll do my best not to become frustrated, but it sometimes seems like communicating a non-liberal point of view to a liberal requires the patience of a saint.

 

I'm guided by several principles:

- Children are more important than are adults

- The next generation is more important than is this one

- People should have the discipline to see things as they are.

- We should be humane, especially to children, but also to non-criminal adults

- Humanity should strive for greatness

 

If a woman lives in the ghetto, if she's unmarried, if she's addicted to drugs, it's not a humane act to encourage her to have children. No, the humane approach is to pay her to get her tubes tied, so that there will be fewer crack babies in the world. Yes, she'll take that check and spend the money on drugs, but you know what? At least she didn't inflict the misery of her own life on children yet to be born. At least the problem ends with her, and doesn't get passed onto the next generation. This is how to go about breaking the cycle of poverty. This will work. Liberal ideas about how to get rid of poverty haven't worked, and won't work in the future. To cling to misguided ideas about fighting poverty in the face of disasterous results is an act of cruelty to children yet unborn.

 

U.S. immigration policy consists of two parts. There's general immigration, which basically amounts to allowing Third World nations to send their surplus people here. Then there's H-1B visa immigration, which basically amounts to the U.S. siphoning off the intellectual talent of other nations. I oppose the first form of immigration on the grounds that, instead of absorbing Third World nations' excess population via immigration, the U.S. should be helping these nations with birth control. I also oppose H-1B visa immigration, because the U.S. should be working harder to develop our own talent, instead of robbing other countries of the talent they need to emerge from Third World status.

 

The policies I'm suggesting are better in the long term for both the U.S. and for the Third World. With a little help in population control, it would be much easier for Third World nations to emerge from poverty. The less talent Third World nations lose to the H-1B visa program, the more they'll have left with which to build wealth. The U.S. will also be better off. Instead of being absorbed by the Third World (which is what will happen if we don't change our ways), the U.S. can raise the average standard of living, reduce poverty, and ensure that far more children are given the chance to succeed.

[D_House]

Back on topic, I don't think that too many tears will be shed over the loss of Air America. Obviously it's problem was lack of listeners, and I actually think that PastaJoe had it partly right.

 

The failure wasn't neccessarily because of the ideology of the station (I think it's safe to say that there are approximately equivalent numbers of libs and cons in the states, therefore there theoretically should be enough listeners to support "liberal radio"), but rather because there is simply less of a market for liberal punditry, for whatever reason.

 

I lean left, and I know I personally don't care to listen to other people spouting off on politics, especially when only one side of the story is presented. Frankly, I don't know why anyone would be entertained by that sort of thing.

[catchescannonballs]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15249280/?GT1=8618

803554[/snapback]

I love it!!! Rush Limbaugh kills liberals. He really should be President. I think Rush is the smartest man in America. Obviously Americans love to sit and listen to him. No one wants to listen to liberals. That's why they are out of power.

[GG]

You're working very hard to try my patience.  I'll do my best not to become frustrated, but it sometimes seems like communicating a non-liberal point of view to a liberal requires the patience of a saint.

 

We lefties do test your willpower. It's our job.

 

I'm guided by several principles:

- Children are more important than are adults

- The next generation is more important than is this one

- People should have the discipline to see things as they are.

- We should be humane, especially to children, but also to non-criminal adults

- Humanity should strive for greatness

 

That's why it's imperative that we launch America's Stupidest Woman TV project, ASAP. Think of the ratings, man.

 

If a woman lives in the ghetto, if she's unmarried, if she's addicted to drugs, it's not a humane act to encourage her to have children.  No, the humane approach is to pay her to get her tubes tied, so that there will be fewer crack babies in the world.

Yes, she'll take that check and spend the money on drugs, but you know what?  At least she didn't inflict the misery of her own life on children yet to be born.  At least the problem ends with her, and doesn't get passed onto the next generation.  This is how to go about breaking the cycle of poverty.  This will work.  Liberal ideas about how to get rid of poverty haven't worked, and won't work in the future.  To cling to misguided ideas about fighting poverty in the face of disasterous results is an act of cruelty to children yet unborn.

 

Because all poor women are ghetto-living, stupid, drug user-rearing mothers. Is this a new conservative platform to get the government out of people's lives? What would you call this new order?

[catchescannonballs]

We lefties do test your willpower.  It's our job.

That's why it's imperative that we launch America's Stupidest Woman TV project, ASAP.  Think of the ratings, man.

Because all poor women are ghetto-living, stupid, drug user-rearing mothers.  Is this a new conservative platform to get the government out of people's lives?  What would you call this new order?

807752[/snapback]

 

What's wrong with actually working for a living?

[Orton's Arm]

We lefties do test your willpower.  It's our job.

That's why it's imperative that we launch America's Stupidest Woman TV project, ASAP.  Think of the ratings, man.

Because all poor women are ghetto-living, stupid, drug user-rearing mothers.  Is this a new conservative platform to get the government out of people's lives?  What would you call this new order?

807752[/snapback]

I've lost track of the number of straw man arguments which have been thrown my way, but your statement about "all poor women" is certainly one of them. The Great Society Program paid welfare women in general to have more kids. Yes, a few such women were smart, but on average such women were less intelligent than women who weren't on welfare. So the overall effect of the policy on the gene pool was a negative one. Moreover, a number of welfare women were and are the drug addicts I described, and these women were paid to have kids! I shouldn't have to work this hard to convince you there's a problem there.

[VABills]

I've lost track of the number of straw man arguments which have been thrown my way, but your statement about "all poor women" is certainly one of them.  The Great Society Program paid welfare women in general to have more kids.  Yes, a few such women were smart, but on average such women were less intelligent than women who weren't on welfare.  So the overall effect of the policy on the gene pool was a negative one.  Moreover, a number of welfare women were and are the drug addicts I described, and these women were paid to have kids!  I shouldn't have to work this hard to convince you there's a problem there.

807845[/snapback]

Yes I'll let my mother know she is an idiot because you say so. Children raised by herself, no father (he ran away), all have some college, three with degrees, two with masters, one with a PHD, and one with some pretty medals from the Marine Corps. But hey, moms, stupid because you said so.

[Orton's Arm]

Yes I'll let my mother know she is an idiot because you say so. 

There are more straw men on this thread than there are in Kansas! For the umpteenth time, I'm not saying all welfare women, or all unwed mothers, or all of [insert category of the day here] women are stupid.

 

Bear with me here. You'll agree that the average Harvard student is probably smarter than your average community college student, right? But at the same time, not all Harvard students or graduates are smart. Some were let in based on family connections, and despite a mediocre level of intelligence. Our current president is a case in point. Nor are all community college students stupid--there are very smart people who, for various reasons, choose community college.

 

Now imagine a government program which encouraged community college graduates to have as many children as possible, while discouraging Harvard graduates from doing so. Some of the community college students having children would be very, very smart. Some of the Harvard students who'd been discouraged from having children wouldn't be all that bright. But, on average, the population which had been discouraged from having kids has a higher I.Q. than the population which is being encouraged to have them. This is also the case with failed liberal social policies.

[GG]

I've lost track of the number of straw man arguments which have been thrown my way, but your statement about "all poor women" is certainly one of them.  The Great Society Program paid welfare women in general to have more kids.  Yes, a few such women were smart, but on average such women were less intelligent than women who weren't on welfare.  So the overall effect of the policy on the gene pool was a negative one.  Moreover, a number of welfare women were and are the drug addicts I described, and these women were paid to have kids!  I shouldn't have to work this hard to convince you there's a problem there.

807845[/snapback]

 

Ok, I think I'm getting it.

 

It's not all stupid poor women that you're after. Just the ghetto living below average intelligence crack 'ho. The trailer park living below average intelligence crack 'ho is ok-dokey?

 

I'm just confused.

[Bungee Jumper]

There are more straw men on this thread than there are in Kansas!  For the umpteenth time, I'm not saying all welfare women, or all unwed mothers, or all of [insert category of the day here] women are stupid. 

 

Bear with me here.  You'll agree that the average Harvard student is probably smarter than your average community college student, right?  But at the same time, not all Harvard students or graduates are smart.  Some were let in based on family connections, and despite a mediocre level of intelligence.  Our current president is a case in point.  Nor are all community college students stupid--there are very smart people who, for various reasons, choose community college.

 

Now imagine a government program which encouraged community college graduates to have as many children as possible, while discouraging Harvard graduates from doing so.  Some of the community college students having children would be very, very smart.  Some of the Harvard students who'd been discouraged from having children wouldn't be all that bright.  But, on average, the population which had been discouraged from having kids has a higher I.Q. than the population which is being encouraged to have them.  This is also the case with failed liberal social policies.

807919[/snapback]

 

You know what? No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

[IBTG81]

There are more straw men on this thread than there are in Kansas!  For the umpteenth time, I'm not saying all welfare women, or all unwed mothers, or all of [insert category of the day here] women are stupid. 

 

Bear with me here.  You'll agree that the average Harvard student is probably smarter than your average community college student, right?  But at the same time, not all Harvard students or graduates are smart.  Some were let in based on family connections, and despite a mediocre level of intelligence.  Our current president is a case in point.  Nor are all community college students stupid--there are very smart people who, for various reasons, choose community college.

 

Now imagine a government program which encouraged community college graduates to have as many children as possible, while discouraging Harvard graduates from doing so.  Some of the community college students having children would be very, very smart.  Some of the Harvard students who'd been discouraged from having children wouldn't be all that bright.  But, on average, the population which had been discouraged from having kids has a higher I.Q. than the population which is being encouraged to have them.  This is also the case with failed liberal social policies.

807919[/snapback]

 

Save your breath. You'll need it later to blow up your date.

[Orton's Arm]

Ok, I think I'm getting it. 

 

It's not all stupid poor women that you're after.  Just the ghetto living below average intelligence crack 'ho.  The trailer park living below average intelligence crack 'ho is ok-dokey? 

 

I'm just confused.

807938[/snapback]

I went back through this thread, and you've made 11 separate misinterpretations of what I'm proposing. I'll correct the above misinterpretation, but the number of times I'm willing to do this is limited.

 

What I'm proposing is to provide financial incentives for smart women to have more kids, while also providing incentives for less intelligent women to have fewer children. Economic status doesn't matter to me. I don't care if a Mensa member is on welfare or lives in Beverly Hills; she should have a financial incentive to have children.

 

The problem I have with misguided liberal social policies is that, on average, the women who were encouraged to have kids were less intelligent than the average woman who was discouraged from having children.

[VABills]

Wow HA, you are really using that entreching tool quite effectively.

[Bungee Jumper]

I went back through this thread, and you've made 11 separate misinterpretations of what I'm proposing.  I'll correct the above misinterpretation, but the number of times I'm willing to do this is limited.

 

What I'm proposing is to provide financial incentives for smart women to have more kids, while also providing incentives for less intelligent women to have fewer children.  Economic status doesn't matter to me.  I don't care if a Mensa member is on welfare or lives in Beverly Hills; she should have a financial incentive to have children.

 

The problem I have with misguided liberal social policies is that, on average, the women who were encouraged to have kids were less intelligent than the average woman who was discouraged from having children.

807975[/snapback]

 

In other words: welfare should be based on the intelligence of the recipient, not economic need.

 

How is that not providing financial incentive to eugenically create a master race?

[VABills]

In other words: welfare should be based on the intelligence of the recipient, not economic need. 

 

How is that not providing financial incentive to eugenically create a master race?

808072[/snapback]

Well that's a little more agreeable then basing it on the color of there skin.

 

Seriously though, we grant H1B visas to people based what they can do here, have certain technical or other skins. Uneducated or unskilled folks have to sneak in. I believe the government already has some part of this smart/stupid program in place.