Maybe so, in many ways I was like them. I did have the intellect to maintain a decent job, but not the moral wherewithal to abstain from many worldly pleasures. I had my mind/heart changed, there is hope.

Stop importing more, and strip them from immigrating and thus problem fixes itself.

Yeah I am sure the tax collectors will stop as a firm no.

Yes we could, but it’s no so Much as too many people, just too many of the wrong kind. Too many low IQ, burdensome idiots and not enough High IQ independent thinkers, innovators, inventors, people who question, resist unjust authority, nor mindless boobs who believe everything someone tells them and will gladly vote you into a prison or shallow grave because “duh Tv PeOplE sAY PeOplE who OwN duH GuNs is bAdz”


I don’t get the meaning of the last sentence.

If by Eugenics you mean not importing or paying people to screw l/vote against your rights, freedoms and future then you would be shocked to learn it has supporters.

I'm not sure how immigration is related to my comments. But, I'm for intelligent and limited LEGAL immigration, not the dumpster fire Biden immigration plan. From your other posts, I think I can agree with your idea of useful immigration applicants, even though I empathize with the 6M who have flooded in in the last 3 years. Mexico and other south of the border countries are real hell holes. But, massive unchecked immigration will ultimately destroy the country.

Eugenics, as...your race is inferior to mine. I'm not interested in importing people that would destroy my principles.

@Socio Dont hold your breath for an answer my friend.

I am not sure why some here think I am obligated to set myself on fire to keep my enemies warm.

Are you will to wager the future of the country on you anecdotal evidence?

What are your views on immigration? Explain them to me in detail.

Ah, Muh legal immigration canard. What do you think is happening now?! Mostly the effects of actions which are either partyly lawful (moronic refugee treaties) or no one enforcing the law and arresting that bald Cuba import for treason.

The evils of immigration are first a matter of quantity, and second a matter of quality. The legality or illegality is totally irrelevant.


How can you empathize with the 8 million invaders who think we owe them anything but truely believe in the hollow vastness of their skulls that we owe them the world? That keeping them out was some sort of crime?

I don't know the future, and I have almost zero pull on absolutely everyone. So I'm not in charge of the future of the country. I know someone that is, but that's a different subject. I try to uphold my principles, I try to point people to good principles, but see the 1st sentence.

I don't empathize with them on those principles, like I owe them something. I don't agree with their flooding over the border unchecked, I don't agree with the illegality of it. I can empathize with their suffering in the country they have been born to, that is incompetent, corrupt and evil. That doesn't give them some sort of right to "invade". Relatively free and prosperous countries are always a draw to those that live in not so free countries. It's always been an American tradition to allow some immigration (legal).

If your principles hamper or prevent your survival or cause/mandate preventable harm to that which you care about, are they really a set of principles or a set of self obliterate moralistic feel goodisms?

My principles have allowed me to survive on a personal level. I don't think I've put forth a principle at this time that would harm the country. I don't believe in unchecked immigration, I don't believe in unchecked abortion, I don't believe in unchecked welfare, I don't believe in uncheck taxation, I don't believe in unchecked gov't or corporate power. I do believe in the God of the bible.

Ever consider such places are that way because of the people who live there?

And heaven is a draw of a the attention of the damned, does that mean St Peter is obligated to allow them in?

“An American Tradition to let people in “ not really, some of the first laws in place in Jamestown were laws restricting who could immigrate, same for the Colonial era, hell the first law Congress past as a free country was the Immigration Act of 1790 which limited immigration.


The idea this country was always open to anyone was a lie spread by the immigrationists.

Good, now answer me this. If two others DO believe in unchecked welfare, spending, immigration, etc and they both vote, what does that mean for you?

This is correct.

Which is why we became a foster home. Plenty of mothers initially think they can handle it. But responsibility is hard and consistency is hard and giving selflessly is hard, and when a person has never thought beyond their own personal desires in the moment, the time to start that doesn’t come when an infant is placed in their arms. They screw it up badly, and the state is slow to step in (usually).

There is need of adoptive homes for infants. But the need is far greater as those children get older.

Regardless of where you stand in the issue,Let’s we all give this dude some respect and recognition for being awesome.

I don't think I discussed the "why" of the horribleness of many countries, but, yes, bad things happen because of bad people. Bad things are happening in the US because of bad people. We're not immune.

I never said that the US is obliged to allow good or bad people in. I said we have had a "general" tradition of limited immigration. And as you just said...the Immigration Act of 1790. You seem to think by talking about different traditions of "limited" immigration, that somehow I believe in "unlimited" immigration...again...I don't.

I am not an "immigrationist", is that an unlimited immigrationist? That I'm not. And I never said or implied that the country should or has been "open" to anyone.

When you say "checked", what does that mean? limited or unlimited or something else?

Just because you may not support unlimited immigration does not mean that others don’t. I never said you were an immigrationist.

An immigrationist is a person who will see any issue, any crisis, any event or none at all as a reason for more immigration.

Updated, meant to say unchecked.

Wasn't sure, but I wanted to make sure that handle didn't stick to me.

I've seen this immigration problem going on for a long time, since the time of Reagan. I've learned to deal with it by living my life as a free as possible. If 2 out voted me, I would press on with life. I'm not going to do something to wind up dead or in prison to change things.

Learning to tolerate a problems existence only enables to problem to feast, enabling more misery and suffering.

As free as imported welfare voting parasites allow? Doesn’t sound fair to me, nor is it right. Our forefathers did not achieve freedom by voting or obeying insane edicts, nor did they intend we give it away to a bunch of low IQ idiots with a sob story.

And what is your solution since you won't tolerate it?

You know he is right.

As of now? Support Trump, if he gets in, apply for the deportation force.

What..You think I’m gonna fed post?

Don't know what you would post, I don't know you and this AR15.com

Everyone crossing into the US or Europe is someone whose parents had no business having children. I would look at all the third world countries, determine their self sustainable population size. Then use foreign aid to coerce them into limiting birth rates to achieve and maintain that size via some sort of birth licensing or mass chemical castration.

Likewise I would do the same thing in the US, where to get a birthing license you must be a heterosexual married couple, been married for at least five years, and prove your financially stable enough to provide for that child, perhaps have to invest X amount in a trust fund, and or life insurance policy to make sure that child has what they need in case of the worst. I would also make it so that if you collect welfare in any form you must be on chemical castration drugs and routinely tested, if you have a child while on welfare you are automatically ban for life from getting welfare.

Aborting a child is inhumane, forcing that child to be born in a world where it is not wanted or subject to a lifetime of poverty I would think is far more inhumane. On the other hand ensuring every child that is born is both wanted and has the best chance for happiness and success and the least chance of being a burden on society would be both the most humane for the child and the most beneficial for humanity.

Just stop with the aid, and food, and make it know you cross the line of peace you will be treated as hostile.

Sadly too many in the west are traitors, who gladly feed off of preventable misery and suffering for profit or political gains. They are the greatest threat to our society, liberty and indeed our survival.

“Looks at DIY DIAS nervously”

Why do you assume we like it to begin with? @Obo2

who's we though?
I was only really responding to those who made wtfs to my comments about the positive effects of fewer abortions on society while they focused on the negative effects of it.
That's not to say that they like abortion but that they clearly feel the consequences of fewer abortions would be detrimental.
I personally believe they will be overwhelmingly positive.

Oh yeah, the old "kill them now so we don't have to kill them later" argument.  A favorite of the left.  I just cannot get there.

Ah, misread the post then.

When you see you rights, property, future and that of your kids voted away by people who think your mere existence is to blame for every one of their self inflicted miseries, it tends to change your view on a few things.

More people that should have been aborted.

So far, it's only increased the whining in GD about the ruling and the lamentations of man-whores and proper whores.

Honestly, I wish you would all get together and start a new non-profit to fund whore ways so GD would be less clouded by "muh abortion" threads and we could all move on to how the B-58 Hustler is less gay than the B-52 but not as rad as the B-70.

And when those people rob us of our rights/freedoms/future at the ballot box I hope those moralists just keep their mouths shut.

Honest Question, why can’t you get there?

This is not a troll but an honest question, what would it take for you to get there?

Why do you think I/those like me got to this point, if you have any opinion/view on it at all.

@MaximusEmanatus

1. Preservation of Life: Those who believe that life begins at conception see ending abortion as a way to preserve and protect those lives.

2. Potential for Adoption: If abortion were not an option, there could potentially be more babies available for adoption, providing opportunities for individuals and couples who are unable to conceive.

3. Moral or Religious Fulfillment: For those whose moral or religious beliefs oppose abortion, ending abortion could bring about a sense of moral or religious fulfillment.

4. Possible Decrease in Medical Complications: Like any medical procedure, abortion carries a risk of complications. Some argue that ending abortion could decrease these risks, though it's important to note that legal and professionally performed abortions are generally very safe.

5. Societal Changes: Some believe that ending abortion could lead to increased responsibility regarding sexual activity and contraception, and a greater respect for life in general.

6. Increase in Workforce: A larger population could lead to a larger workforce, potentially filling gaps in various professions, including firefighters, law enforcement, engineers, scientists, doctors, and lawyers.

7. Economic Growth: More people can lead to increased consumption, demand for services, and potentially, economic growth.

8. Innovation and Progress: With more individuals in fields like science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), there could be an increase in innovation and technological progress.

9. Public Service: An increase in population might lead to more individuals serving in public service roles, such as firefighters and law enforcement, contributing to safer communities.

10. Healthcare: More doctors could help address current healthcare shortages, particularly in rural and underserved areas.

11. Legal Field: An increase in lawyers could lead to better representation and access to legal services.

12. Potential for Innovation: With an increased population, there could be a greater chance for innovative minds to emerge. Just as we've seen significant inventions and breakthroughs from individuals in the past, more people could mean more potential for individuals to make significant contributions to society. This could lead to advancements in technology, medicine, science, and other fields.

13. Advancements in Various Fields: An increase in population could lead to a larger pool of individuals who might contribute to various fields. This could mean more inventors, scientists, doctors, engineers, artists, and others who could make significant contributions to their fields and society as a whole.

14. Societal Progress: More individuals could lead to a greater diversity of ideas and perspectives, which can drive societal progress. Diverse perspectives can lead to more robust problem-solving and innovation.

15. New Inventions and Discoveries: With more people, there's a higher probability of new inventions and discoveries that could revolutionize our lives. Just as past inventors and scientists have brought forth technologies like the telephone, the internet, or medical breakthroughs, future generations could bring forth their own revolutionary inventions and discoveries.

Well while they feel good about saving hordes of future hostiles the rest of us have to live with the consequences.



Oh their will be societal changes alright, largely dysgenic ones, lower average iq, more crime, more welfare years, more democratic voters so more growth of the state and shrinking of personal freedoms, property rights and etc.





We have 3-5-7 generations of welfare recipients who exist because the state enables their continued existence in exchange for a vote, you think these people are the next Elon Musk, an engineer or future Astronaut?



They consume more then they put in, that’s a net loss, NOT a gain.



Again, these people are not in the center or right side of the Bell curve. Ok?

You know what would led to massive technological advances? Not wasting trillions on welfare for vote buying and not giving up the conquest of space.


Robert Putman study bowling alone, says this will not happen.



You think these people are going to be doctors, why again?



Yeah, we need need fewer lawyers, not more pal:



And you think that will come from people on the left side of the Bell curve why?

You will get nothing from tens of millions life long welfare voters?



No you won’t, unless grifting becomes a new form of study.



The last 50 years have taught us many things, namely, You can’t fix stupid. The only thing a majority of these people think is the deserve more of your wealth and you deserve le



Not true, at all.

The problems you describe are with the welfare system.
You would be surprised what you can do if you have to.

Ok, and you expect people who exist only because and support this system to vote against it why?

Never mind judges will protect it blindly, so tell me, short of a hard reset and die off does the welfare industrial complex go away?

I have to read this.

Explain to me how something that is unsustainable sustains itself?