I don't think there's much of a solution to trashy culture. You can't force parents not to raise their children thinking the a-holes on reality tv aren't role models. You can't force people not to be irresponsible and have kids they don't care about.

But I do believe very strongly what I said above: We should NOT be financially incentivising this behavior or rewarding it. We do now, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that it has a very negative effect on behavior. The illegitimacy rate among blacks in Amerika has _skyrocketed_ since the creation and expansion of welfare, and it hasn't gone down for anybody else either.

We're getting what we encourage. We should stop encouraging it. That's one very significant thing we can and should do.

Democrats still control the senate (picked up a couple seats, but not enough to avoid filibusters), Republicans still control the House. Some the races are still contested (still counting), so the final numbers aren't in yet.

If you disagree with anything I said, please inform me of what. I'm dying for actual conversation. My statements were clear, as were my points. I never suggested reproduction be regulated. I only suggested that our current policy of encouraging the least productive in society to have the most children is harmful to all of our society, including those children themselves.

We currently financially incentivize the laziest among us to reproduce more, and birth rates among those who rely on the government for income confirm that it is affecting behavior--They're slightly higher than those not relying on government to provide for them, despite their inability to provide for their children. That these children are statistically more likely not to graduate from high school, become criminals, and also live life jobless, dependent on government suggests that it's the financial incentives of our welfare system, not love of their children, which causes these parents to exceed the birth rates of working parents not relying on government--whose children statistically achieve significantly greater educational/economic success.

I'm merely stating observations and posting them for discussion; and, based on these observations, I'm suggesting that we probably shouldn't be incentivizing the dumb and the lazy to have the most kids. I'm all for helping out those in need, but when a mother on welfare has 4 more children while already on welfare, maybe we should start to reduce the amount she receives per child in order to weed out the A-holes who are just having kids for the money. Those people are horrible parents and their children are statistically far more likely to grow up uneducated and become jobless (thus poor), drug-addicted, and involved in crime. Their rates of teenage pregnancy increase, as well. BAM third generation on welfare in a hurry!

I'm browsing research as I write this and it's just depressing.
(This open ATM, for instance, on page 11: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5479)

The statistical discrepancies in the educational/economic/civic success of these people's children suggests that it's love of money, not their kids, which leads [many of] them to have so many. I'm not proposing policing them having kids. I'm just proposing we not encourage unfit parents to have more children that they tend, statistically, not to really want.

It's bad for the kids. It's bad for our economy. It's bad for our tax rates and tax revenues. It's bad for the economic freedom of all. And it's bad for our democratic process. If you disagree, let's talk about it. Pretending I proposed regulating reproduction is not productive.

Amerika has more takers than givers. Watch as its standard of living falls and rejoice: Communist revolutionaries incentivized the unproductive to reproduce more than the productive and indoctrinated youth to the point that they are now the majority. Freedom and the unparalleled standard of living it affords has been defeated by ignorance, greed, and laziness.

Combined with our tyrannical 2-party system in which both parties support the federal reserve robbing us, foreign aggression, huge debt, expanding government, huge corporate bailouts and cronyism, and eroding civil rights, all demographic and cultural indications are that America is going to continue to move toward socialist government, lower earnings, less rights, higher taxes, and lower standards of living. The fastest growing demographics are demographics with disproportionately high unemployment rates, disproportionately low educational achievement, and disproportionately high poverty rates: ie, their cultures often do not encourage achievement, but dependency on entitlements.

I'm obviously not referring to "their cultures" as if any racial group shares a singular culture, but certain groups demonstrate significantly different representations of certain values. I'm simply referencing that some racial/ethnic groups MASSIVELY outperform others despite having shared similar impoverished/discriminatory histories. Certain cultures/subcultures have much higher rates of producing educated, productive people; and others, likewise, have much higher rates of producing a lot of babies (with high dropout/jobless/poverty rates themselves later) while watching their welfare checks grow in size.

Talk of content matters less and less. President Obama could have killed those 4 Americans with his bare hands on national TV and maybe still won. There are that many people in Amerika who will vote for literally whoever offers them the most handouts, regardless of anything else. A glance at a map of the voting trends of various districts of states with close votes shows that most of these states are dominated by Romney supporters, but the urban centers and ghettos, with their disproportionately large populations, vote Obama. And Obama carries states like PA and OH solely by the votes of these urban centers. (nearly every other district votes Romney in these states)

What do you know, where there's section 8 housing for millions and disproportionate amounts of cultures which produce high high-school drop-out rates, crime, and drug abuse, there's the largest portion of Obama's supporters! What do you know, they have a higher average number of children too! Kinda weird, since they can't even afford to take care of themselves, yet they're not only having babies, but more than working people not taking government income.

How irresponsible of their culture(s) for this to be the trend. Having more children when they're jobless means less to go around for their other children. Having more children when they're jobless makes it harder for them to find and maintain new work. It's selfish, irresponsible, and, in the language of my people, trashy.

It's not fair to the children because of resource scarcity. It's not fair to the children because it raises them with role-models who demonstrate no work ethic, distorting their view of the world, success, and personal responsibility. It's not fair to society because we want to help those who need, not subsidize lazy people who would rather have more children and collect bigger checks than work.

The CIA wasn't there to kiss babies. They were involved in something Obama would rather not be news. Given the choice of committing to use of force in a nation he wanted to pretend was peaceful or letting some Americans die who he didn't want talking anyway, it's clear what decision he made.

It's gross negligence and terrible decision-making. The Obama administration would have us believe that virtually every decision made by his administration is made by low-level bureaucrats, and he never knows about these decisions. Supposedly, we're told, a low-level bureaucrat decided to reduce security despite repeated requests for more. Why would a low-level bureaucrat take risks in the name of Obama's campaign? They wouldn't. But as long as enough Americans don't care, there's still enough people who will vote for socialism and handouts to reelect!

Who cares if he's inept and lying to us. Or that Americans, pleading for help, were killed. He'll give us more handouts!

Don't underestimate the number of victims in this country who will support literally anyone who offers them the biggest handouts.

Both parties used the various bailouts to enrich their friends, donors, special interests, and [let's be honest] themselves. Obama's donors got disproportionate amounts of many stimulus funds. Oh, how shocking, Romney's not a saint either.

This is why I say "no" to bailouts and "yes" to Gary Johnson 2012!

I want to weigh in, but if I use the word "hate" to voice an opinion on the subject your thread will be locked!

I'm just stating that, while their goals are fractions of a percent production over decades, there's no evidence that they actually intend to use this less economical technology to produce [more expensive] power in their own nation. There's no evidence of any remotely significant move in that direction.

I want to talk about the presence of a symbol that represents oppression and the murder of millions on a poster displayed in the EU.

I don't want anyone to agree with me. I just want to talk about the significance of this poster being displayed, just as I would if it displayed swastikas or the prophet Muhammad on fire in a pool of feces.

Which rule does this violate? How is this hateful? How is something displayed at EU headquarters not remotely related to the EU?

I didn't even get to my most substantial points yet. In fact, all of this and censorship and hate is part of my point. I haven't said a word of "hate," nor did I ever question the "right" of the EU to display this poster.

My own personal opinion, as I hoped would be many of yours, was that the implicit message of this poster wasn't enough to warrant making a fuss over removing it. Though I do think it's ignorance and offensive, as is a culture which tolerates oppression and murder. "Hey, as long as they're doing it, whatever. Other governments have a right to brutalize and enslave their peoples!" <==That's a pretty scary attitude, in my humble opinion. Tolerance of it is worth talking about, in my humble opinion. I don't care if you disagree; how is it against the rules to talk about?

I just posted a link to basic information about the poster being displayed. I asked pertinent questions regarding the predominant symbol in the poster--the thread was not without content. And I intended to ask more questions and raise more points once a few people had weighed in.

The point of the thread was more to highlight attitudes of people. I never expected the attitudes of moderators on this forum would be an extreme example of my worst fears. Hate? What hate? There was no hate, a moderator made that baseless accusation in order to censor the forum and whitewash an issue he preferred be kept silent. As I just explained my personal opinion above, you can see it's not remotely hateful or particularly strong at all. It's reactions to this poster I find more interesting.

Bartman, if you are unable to moderate this forum for personal reasons, please discontinue to do so. There was clearly absolutely no "hate" involved in the creation of this thread or the last one, and you were clearly factually wrong in closing the original one. This isn't rocket science. I expect better.

Edit: I'd post this somewhere else, but there literally is nowhere to post. Chat/email are ignored. This is a PSA. I don't want to violate the rules in posting this discussion of thread closings in the forum, but there's literally nowhere else to post it. Two threads have been closed for absolutely no reason beyond a moderator's personal politics. There's no where else to post about a moderator failing terribly at his task.

I concede your point, that they want to be .05% greener. This, of course, just backs up my point that you have no basis for your claim that they have any real "green' aims, beyond developing inefficient tech to sell us idiots in the west.

The "investments" in research you talk about can be used to export junk, as i have claimed is their goal. Unless you have any evidence that they're actually buying/using much of what they're selling, i'm not sure what you think you've proven or otherwise established.

Hydro is "green" as defined purely by CO2 emissions, but not by more general environmental principles of conservation, seeing as it decimates environments.

Seeing as you shy away from presenting a figure of what size portion of their production that is, why would we presume it's a significant portion?

I can look it up, but why bother when you're not even making a case? What's 3.3 GW compared to what they produce with coal? If it's like 1%, less, or barely more,  it's not something they're doing to any significant degree.