Forget the rug-rats causing our environmental problems lol lol lol
it's MANKIND that needs to be eliminated. [well, almost]
SAVE THE WHALES.....let the humans die off.
This is just too much.
IF we do as the wacko environmentalists call for.....
and not have children....that ends all of mankind.
IF we save the whales and let 'mankind' die off....
well...you get the picture.
Are these nutcases the result of our FINE, GOVERNMENT run, liberal schooling
?
I believe they are.
Meanwhile.....as France and Germany are just now waking up to notice......
...their populations ARE decreasing while their IMMIGRANT population is INCREASING.
And that, in their countries would be radical muslism youth....who want to CHANGE everything that's always been 'France', 'Germany' etc. Make them ALL muslims.
We have the same problem here....more, at this time, with the illegal mexicans who are GROWING our populations....while the PRODUCING American's are decreasing in population.
So....vote the radical, progressive liberals/socialists into office.
Then the few humans that ARE left....lol lol can enjoy all those fish, birds, trees, they'd rather protect than 'mankind'.
posted on May 7, 2007 01:01:57 PM new
"IF we do as the wacko environmentalists call for.....
and not have children....that ends all of mankind"
Linda, as usual your propaganda-spewing post would make Tokyo Rose jealous. Your own C & P said it would help if families just had 2 children instead of 3---not zero children. I am not necessarily agreeing with this theory(although less people would mean less gobbling up of natural resources) but at least be accurate.
posted on May 7, 2007 01:10:18 PM new
In 1997, Candace Korasick, a 32-year-old graduate student from Columbia, Mo., launched the ChildFree Web site to link up with others like herself: married people who don't want children. Within days of posting the site, Korasick says, she was inundated with grateful e-mails from other deliberately childless couples, and was even offered cash donations toward maintaining the site.
Korasick and her husband, John, 30, are members of a small but growing demographic group here in the U.S. According to the Census Bureau's 1998 Current Population Survey, a greater percentage of women of all ages are not having children. In that year, 5.7 million (or 18.4 percent) married women of childbearing age (defined by the Census as between 15 and 44 years old) were childless. And many of them like it that way. The National Center of Health Statistics confirms that the percentage of women of childbearing age who define themsleves as voluntarily childless is on the rise: from 2.4 percent in 1982, to 4.3 percent in 1990, to 6.6 percent in 1995 (the most recent available figure). That's 4.1 million women saying no to motherhood in 1995.
It's a trend that applies to all age groups: For the 25 to 29 bracket, 28 percent were childless in 1998, up from 16 percent in 1976; for 30- to 34-year-olds, it was 20 percent, compared with 11 percent in 1976; for 40- to 44-year-olds, 19 percent were childless, up from 10 percent in 1976. The 2000 census figures on fertility weren't available at press time, but Amara Bachu, co-author of the Census Bureau's 1998 report, "Fertility of American Women," says: "From the data we've gathered so far, it looks like childlessness is continuing to go up."
The reasons for opting out of parenthood range from religion to ideology to simple lifestyle preference. (See Sidebar, next page.) Yet, whatever their motives, these couples say they are either overlooked or looked down upon by the surrounding, child-oriented society. "When I refer to 'my family,' people seem baffled," says Candace Korasick. "They say, 'I thought you didn't have kids.' I absolutely consider my husband and myself a family, but other people don't even use family terminology for us."
In recent years, a number of Web sites, including Korasick's, (web.missouri.edu/~cak307), have popped up, such as Child-free by Choice (www.childfree.net) and Childfree Families (http//24.89.14.183/cf.nsf/main), as well as social networks such as No Kidding!, an organization with 68 chapters in North America, up from 47 last year. The members of this group are not only clamoring to be recognized by society, but also by businesses. "Couples without children are totally ignored as a group, and businesses lose money that way," says Karen Smith, co-founder of the Leavenworth, Wash.-based organization Childless by Choice. "We are not to be lumped with single people or empty-nesters. After all, we're different ages, we have different priorities, different expenses, and we're at completely different life stages." Adds Scott Wenzel, 39, a computer consultant from Knoxville, Md., who is married and childless: "We're probably the largest and least recognized group in Western society right now."
Yet, as consumers, this diaper-free brigade wields considerable financial clout. According to analysis done for American Demographics by Third Wave Research Group, a Madison, Wis.-based demographic marketing firm, childless couples spend more per person in almost every consumer category than their married-with-children counterparts (See methodology, left). In general, married couples without kids have more discretionary income than households with children, says Ed Wallander, a principal at Third Wave.
"Marketers may take childless couples for granted when marketing to married couples as a whole," says Wallander. "But their discretionary income and their buying patterns - as well as their size and their growth - show that couples without children should be recognized as a unique marketing opportunity." He points out that in some spending categories, the higher per-person outlays by childless couples are especially notable: Compared with couples with kids, they spend 60 percent more on entertainment, 79 percent more on food and 101 percent more on dining out. (See chart, previous page.) They also spend a lot on booze, clothing and - surprisingly - pets. "Some cliches are true," says Elinor Burkett, author of The Baby Boon: How Family-Friendly America Cheats the Childless (Free Press, 2000). "Childless couples very often have pets, and they spend a lot of money on them. They also tend to be insanely generous to their nieces and nephews. Part of it may be overcompensation."
The spending behavior of childless couples rests on some attractive demographic qualities. Two-income couples without children are better educated than two-income couples with children. As of 1998, the census reports, 30 percent of childless couples consisted of two college graduates, compared with 17 percent of those with kids. The childless are more likely to have professional or managerial occupations (24 percent versus 16 percent of dual-employed couples with children). Although there is little difference in income (55 percent of childless couples have incomes over $50,000 versus 54 percent of couples with children), childless families have no child-related expenses to contend with. They don't have to save for their child's college education, let alone pay preschool tuition. They don't need to pay for diapers or baby food or their children's health care. There are no pediatrician bills, no orthodontists and no family-size SUVs. They also don't structure their lives around the academic year and school vacations or choose their residence according to the quality of the school district.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 7, 2007 01:16:39 PM new
In Greece, as in much of the world, having kids is no longer a given among a growing swath of the population. "Never before has childlessness been a legitimate option for women and men in so many societies," says Catherine Hakim, who studies the phenomenon at the London School of Economics. In a rapid shift occurring in countries as disparate as Switzerland and Singapore, Canada and South Korea, young people are extending their child-free adulthood by postponing children until they are well into their 30s, or even 40s and beyond.
A growing share are ending up with no children at all. Lifetime childlessness in western Germany has hit 30 percent among university-educated women, and is rapidly rising among lower-class men. In Britain, the number of women remaining childless has doubled in 20 years. In Japan, where the birthrate stands at a dismal 1.25 per woman, a record 56 percent of 30-year-old women are still childless, up from 24 percent in 1985. "Whether they become mothers or not will determine the future of Japan," says Miho Iwasawa of Japan's National Institute for Population Research.
The trend has spawned a new culture of childlessness. In Britain, there's a growing market for books such as "Child-Free and Loving It," which journalist Nicki Defago says she wrote "to let women deciding against children know that their feelings are perfectly normal." New support groups for the childless have sprung up, from the Vancouver-based No Kidding! to the British Childfree Association. In Japan, the trend toward postponing or not having children has given rise to an array of products like bedding supplier Kameo's Boyfriend Arm Pillow, and fueled trends like the unprecedented surge in pet ownership. Capitalizing on the growing status of these baby-substitutes among young Japanese, Honda is now designing cars that replace child seats with dog crates, and has even created a glove compartment with place for a Pekingese.
.......
The latest surge in childlessness does not follow historic patterns. For centuries in Western Europe, it was not unusual for a quarter of women to remain childless—a higher rate than in any country today. (In fact, demographers say it was the family-happy 1950s and '60s that defied the historical norm.) But in the past, childlessness was usually the product of poverty or upheaval, of missing men in times of war; infertility strikes 3 percent of couples at most. Today the decision to have—or not have—a child is the result of a complex combination of factors, including relationships, career opportunities, lifestyle and economics.
The new normalcy of childlessness affects all social classes, not just the stereotypical urban slackers or DINKs (double-income-no-kids). Katy Hoffmann, a 37-year-old hairstylist in the village of Friesack, an hour west of Berlin, says, "Even when I was a little girl I knew deep inside I didn't want children." Growing up in communist East Germany, the pressure was intense to marry and get pregnant by the age of 18, not least to qualify for a state-assigned flat. With the fall of the wall came the freedom to choose her life. Her husband, Lars, a 39-year-old firefighter, says he's long been indifferent to kids as well. "At the station the guys with kids tell us childless guys we should do our duty so that we Germans don't die out," he says. "But if I look at all the unemployment today, I'd say a little [population] shrinking couldn't hurt."
And while child-free households have long been common in the big cities of America and Western Europe, they're fast gaining acceptability in more-traditional rural societies as well. Only a few decades ago, Southern European countries like Italy, Greece and Spain were synonymous with fruitful families and tight knit clans— and their social ostracism of those who didn't fit the mold. Now those three countries are tied for Europe's lowest birthrate. Today close to a quarter of all 40-year-old Italian women expect to remain childless.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 7, 2007 01:24:22 PM new
The link Linda posted is nothing new. There were some that had the same belief years ago, Linda must have missed the prior articles on the subject.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 7, 2007 02:15:03 PM new
I would not approve of a law limiting families and I don't think that's what your article meant. But, if individuals would like to limit their families to 1 or 2, it might just help, even if it means less natural resources being consumed.
posted on May 7, 2007 02:38:35 PM new
I understand, CC, that all this is going WAY over your head. tsk tsk sk
FREE nations have reduced their populations. BUT....those like muslims countries aren't doing so. THEIR populations are growing WAY past ours. As are those of our illegal immigrants into the US.
Then THEY, just by their numbers, have a GREATER influence on political positions....changes THEY will make to our society. WHICH aren't ALL what our nations were founded upon.
But rather the changes that they want to support THEIR ideological positions.
Like women and children have no value...etc. The quran is the ONLY way one MUST believe...etc...etc...etc.
Read up on what France, Germany and mostly the UK are experiencing RIGHT NOW because of the 'immigrant growth' in their OWN countries.
You might be surprised....unless you support the continuing growth of radical muslims who want to RULE the entire world. Then you, like helen, would not be able to see the consequences of FREE nations limiting their own growth.
=========
And on your "Linda, as usual your propaganda-spewing post would make Tokyo Rose jealous."
Better PRO-American....than anti-American - pro-terrorists ideology. Better an AMERICAN SUPPORTING TR than all the liberal 'hanoi janes' we have here.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 7, 2007 03:50:32 PM new
Poor Linda may not understand what Zero Population Growth means.
It doesn't mean having NO children. It means only having two (for a couple). If their children then have only two, the population hasn't grown. It's remained static. This means that we're simply REPLACING ourselves, not adding to the population.
We fully intended to have just two, in the '60s, but we were surprised by one little caboose, whom we love of course!
And the fact that more couples who choose to have NO children are better educated and more likely to be in the professional/managerial ranks should say something. Is it just possible, Linda, that they are intelligent, thinking people who care about the future of this world????
_____________________
There is more to life than increasing its speed. --Mahatma Gandhi
[ edited by roadsmith on May 7, 2007 03:51 PM ]
posted on May 7, 2007 05:01:32 PM newFREE nations have reduced their populations. BUT....those like muslims countries aren't doing so. THEIR populations are growing WAY past ours. As are those of our illegal immigrants into the US
Linda do you lay in bed at night fearing a take over by Muslims and illegal aliens. Are you afraid of being a minority? You can't handle that notion can you?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
I am neither poor in financial wealth nor in knowledge.
But your arrogance appears to have NO LIMITS.
Zero population growth is the TERM that was used. You have no clue as to MY understanding of the term.....so quit acting so arrogant and PRETENDING you do.
Just like on the 'bra burning' statement. ALSO a term used in those days....to depict what the feminists were supporting - and connecting it to the burning of draft cards.
Of course neither actually MEAN what they referred to literally. They were only TERMS used....so others knew what was being discussed.
Get real for once....and quit pretending to be something you're not. LIKE a crystal ball read/palm reader.
=========
There is still plenty of land and resourses to handle population growth.
It's the world leaders like saddam who take those nations wealth and spend it on THEMSELVES. Just like saddam did while his own people suffered greatly.
That applies to ALL dictators. That's why spreading freedom and liberty
were thought to be SO very important to the JFK democrats. The more free the world was....the better off for all.
Now we have the cowardly dems/liberals in office....who want to SURRENDER to our enemies.
Think THOSE they want to surrender to give a #*!@ about their children when they're using them - murdering them for their OWN victory????
And given the chance, they'll do the SAME to ours.
Maybe you do support THEIR victory. Maybe that's why you support their war methods continuing.
Sure NEVER hear a liberal screaming about THEM using the Geneiva convention rules of war.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on May 7, 2007 05:47 PM ]
posted on May 7, 2007 08:13:47 PM new
"FREE nations have reduced their populations. BUT....those like muslims countries aren't doing so. THEIR populations are growing WAY past ours. As are those of our illegal immigrants into the US.
Then THEY, just by their numbers, have a GREATER influence on political positions....changes THEY will make to our society. WHICH aren't ALL what our nations were founded upon."
So, in order not to be outnumbered by "THEM" we should all have as many kids as we can? If we don't, what will happen? Will THEY swarm like locusts and overtake us?
Overpopulation sucks the life out of countries. Due to the enormous amount of people, there is a dearth of food, medical care, schools to accomodate the vast population. They would be in no position to conquer anyone. As for illegal immigrants influencing political positions--well certainly not by voting. I do not think they could have enough influence on the American people to change their political opinions--at least they haven't so far. If anything, Americans are even more vehemently against illegals than ever.
[ edited by coincoach on May 7, 2007 08:15 PM ]
posted on May 7, 2007 10:32:53 PM new
"certainly not by voting"
LOL...what world do YOU live in, CC?
They vote all the time. Just like they often collect our benefits - AND get FREE medical, dental, etc care that even many AMERICAN'S don't QUALIFY for.
Don't fool yourself. and the liberals continue to want to give them more and more of OUR EARNED rights.
Why in the world do you think so many states allow them to vote in LOCAL elections NOW???
How in the world do you think states are KEEPING them from voting in our national elections????
Many states don't require ANY ID in order to vote.
NONE.
Anyone can walk up and vote at those voting places/booths.
And many have been reported to vote in the names of their dogs and cats, for crying out loud.
Don't you ever read anything about these EXTREMELY important issues?
The liberals always focus on voting FRAUD by the republicans lol lol...but rarely do they worry about voting FRAUD done by illegals.
Their party LOVES the support from illegals....the more they given them ....the more that vote for the dem party.
PLEASE get informed.
edited to add:
And we're CERTAINLY not running out of food. American's and many other nations are fighting OBESITY now. That's NOT because of LACK of food. We throw milk and many different foods away....to keep the prices up.
THAT could be stopped.
American alone could feed the entire world each and every year.
posted on May 8, 2007 08:41:02 AM new
"And we're CERTAINLY not running out of food. American's and many other nations are fighting OBESITY now. That's NOT because of LACK of food. We throw milk and many different foods away....to keep the prices up."
I was not talking about America or a handful of other countries who have plenty of food. I'm talking about the rest of the world where the large population cannot be supported. There are so many other problems, besides food, in an overpopulated country. Get informed!!
"They vote all the time. Just like they often collect our benefits - AND get FREE medical, dental, etc care that even many AMERICAN'S don't QUALIFY for"
Illegal aliens cannot legally register to vote. I'm sure there are a relaltive few who manage to vote, just as there are always a few "dead" people who vote and a few hanging chads. Most illegal aliens want to stay under the radar and would not vote. If our current laws are enforced, no illegal aliens would vote or collect benefits they are not entitled to.
posted on May 8, 2007 08:46:44 AM new
LOL......oh please show us where illegals have ANY legal benefits at all.
lol
They're illegal.
You may chose to remain in your 'let's pretend' illegals don't vote....but they DO.
And there are thousands of articles/studies/reports just waiting for YOU to discover than will prove to you they ARE a financial DRAIN on American taxpayers.
Of course, as I've already pointed out the liberals LOVE them. They vote them in to GET more legal benefits from the bleeding heart liberals who don't MIND our LAWS being broken.
posted on May 8, 2007 09:40:27 AM new
"Of course, as I've already pointed out the liberals LOVE them. They vote them in to GET more legal benefits from the bleeding heart liberals who don't MIND our LAWS being broken."
Who is "them"?
"You may chose to remain in your 'let's pretend' illegals don't vote....but they DO."
Well, what are you doing sitting there posting? Our laws are not being obeyed. Go and stop them!
posted on May 8, 2007 01:31:32 PM new
Looks to me like Condi rice has higher morals than most of the liberals who have long supported the 'if it feels good do it'.
She's not married....so it's no surprise that she wouldn't have children yet. Maybe she never will....maybe she can't.
So unlike those who support all these so called liberated 'women' lol lol who have their children out of wedlock and then EXPECT the taxpayers to support THEM and their off-spring. Because they don't NEED a man. lol lol lol
posted on May 8, 2007 02:32:03 PM new
"IF we do as the wacko environmentalists call for.....
and not have children....that ends all of mankind"
Environmentalists are not telling us to NOT have children. Anyone with half a brain would know that. Don't you know the difference between limiting the number of children you have and not having any children? Do you really think the goal of environmentalists is to obliterate mankind?
posted on May 8, 2007 02:50:01 PM newLooks to me like Condi rice has higher morals than most of the liberals who have long supported the 'if it feels good do it'.
How does anyone know who Condi is doing it with or if it feels good for her or not?
And a conservative has never done it just because it feels good but only liberals do it if it feels good?
Where do these stats come from and who is keeping count? I ask because I keep hearing this over and over here like it's supposed to be fact. Who is keeping track of the sex lives of others when it comes to their political beliefs?
posted on May 8, 2007 02:50:36 PM new
Linda, you certainly are a sucker for right-wing rag writers who slaughter the truth. Al Gore has never advocated abortion as a means of population control. You should append your signature with Linda - LOL & LUL (LAPPING UP THE LIES).
posted on May 8, 2007 02:53:23 PM new
And I wanted to also mention that today, there are two articles that speak to just this issue.
The population growth in Israel...between the Orthodox Jews and the Arabs.
Anyone who thinks that a 'switch' in population growth won't make a HUGE political/social change in ANY country....is just NOT willing to see the truth of the situation.
Think the more Arabs that reproduce in Israel and SHOULD the Jews produce less.....that's going to help the Jewish cause at remaining right where they are?????
I sure as heck don't.
It will change many of Israel's DYNAMICS like no one would have ever believed.
We need to KNOW what we're doing when we call for population DECREASES.....and who will be following that ideal and who won't.
And I'm saying this is the EXACT same thing that is now happening in the UK, France and Germany.
AND imo, why their countries have voted in conservative leaders who are willing to do something about the changes the muslims are trying to FORCE on them.
Their own populations were decreasing....so they welcomed muslims in. NOW they're being outpaced by the muslims who ARE working to change them into MUSLIM nations - insisting the ALL live by shaia law/muslim laws/religious muslim laws and changing French ones.
And they're the SAME ones who are RIOTING....bombing....etc KILLING the people in these Nations - now because they're second and third generation muslim, their OWN countrymen/women.
One reason why those nations are NOW looking into very much LIMITING their immigrant population.
And why the UK has taken a position they will throw OUT any muslim cleric that continues to call for muslim aggression/destruction in the UK.
And I'm saying that the same thing is happening HERE, in the US, with the increase of mexicans.....mostly illegals.
I think most everyone saw those pictures of thousands upon thousands of protestors both citizens HERE supporting allowing these illegals to live here.
Think that their voting BLOCK isn't/can't change the TOTAL politcal dynamics HERE in the US? It ALREADY HAS.
That's WHY we have immigration policies that limit how many and who may enter.
But neither party wants to actually DO much about this issue.
Soon....not only will we be seeing all those mexicans putting up their mexican flags above ours - as we recently did - even in our taxpayer LIBERAL schools....but we'll be seening ONLY the mexican flags being flown in parts of the US....WHEN they get enough political clout/power.
And...same thing could happen with the muslims. Although at THIS TIME.....they're not presenting as big a problem for the US as the muslims in Germany, France and the UK are for them.
It's ALL population related. The larger the population....add to that their unwillingness to 'mix in' as other immigrants in the long ago past have done/ accept OUR ways....the more of these issues we will see and be forced to deal with in our future.
[ edited by Linda_K on May 8, 2007 03:28 PM ]
posted on May 8, 2007 05:39:44 PM new
Linda, it is you who cannot read. You said "IF we do as the wacko environmentalists call for..... and not have children....that ends all of mankind".
Even the extremist you chose to C & P did not say we should all stop having children. That is what you are saying. No children. Zero. Nada. End of mankind. If that is not what you meant, then don't say it.
posted on May 8, 2007 07:20:59 PM new
Thanks for comparing me to Coincoach, Linda_K. I feel honored as you often compare me to the most intelligent ones who make you jealous with envy because of your everyday ignorance...... kinda like you did on the other board where you suspected others may be me. Your paranoia about me being all over the place under different user-names is amusing. Can you spell o-b-s-e-s-s-e-d?
posted on May 8, 2007 07:26:22 PM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You ARE really dense, CC." Did that make you feel better? I thought so. Insults always make you feel better. I was responding to your specific remark below. That is why I put the quote in my posts--twice. Get it? And you call me dense?
"IF we do as the wacko environmentalists call for.....and not have children....that ends all of mankind"
You wrote it. Guess that is why you are so defensive.
