Author Topic: pharmacological population control in the US  (Read 610 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dragonfly

  • Guest
pharmacological population control in the US
« on: February 12, 2011, 11:54:11 AM »
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline seamus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 824
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: pharmacological population control in the US
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2011, 06:55:15 AM »
shit..... im dissapointed,thaught this thread would be more about the tiny bits of mercury derived chemistry,that go into 7 out of 8 'vaccinations' worldwide.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
It\'d be sad if it wernt so funny,It\'d be funny if it wernt so sad

Offline seamus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 824
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: pharmacological population control in the US
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2011, 07:05:19 AM »
Just a thought as well, but did anybody else ever wonder( in terms of population control) if straight wasnt hoping for a shitload of us to in one way or another, self distruct? so that we not send those"druggie" genes, into the gene pool?






























)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
It\'d be sad if it wernt so funny,It\'d be funny if it wernt so sad

dragonfly

  • Guest
Re: pharmacological population control in the US
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2011, 12:33:16 PM »
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline try another castle

  • Registered Users
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2693
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
this monkey's gone to heaven
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2011, 02:34:04 AM »
If this is true, Im very disappointed.

I would have hoped by now that we would have found a far more efficient and quiet way of population control than old-school stuff such as fluoride.

Albeit crude, I still stick by Jonathan Swift's suggestion to eat children. (A Modest Proposal) Especially since it solves three problems, population, starvation and the existence of children. However, it is also illegal. (I suppose some folks still stick to the belief that those little grubs are "cute".)

IMO, the best way to assist population control in the United States is to remove all "dont try this at home" disclaimers from TV shows. This should be followed up by introducing a "stupidity exemption clause" into liability/personal injury law.

Another way to help is to target a particular demographic. For example, if the government were to "leak" some hard, "believable" evidence about *any* pet issue to conspiracy theorists. (aliens, 9/11, anti-coagulants in tampons),  this may cause an epidemic of fatal coronaries, (as the validation of their beliefs would cause a severe physical crisis....) This should free up a few basements for more important things, like storage.

Although I still laugh at the idea of population control in this country. Seriously, if there is some government organization doing this, they are fucking idiots. We have millionaires who build mansions the size of amusement parks, *that" is how much space there is to waste in this country. Maybe these guys should ply their wares in China or India.

Although if they want to do it here, right on. Im sure Ill get mine, too.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Samara

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 488
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: pharmacological population control in the US
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2011, 01:42:03 PM »
Very funny, TOC.  I like my two, and don't plan on going Swift on them any time soon, but I provide for my modest family. I am definitely a 2 for 2 proponent.  A lot of our probs are overpop. Too much competition for resources... also the escalation of social ills, like more annoying people.  I wish people/gov't/religion would buck the theocracy and promote small families as responsible living in this era. As long as we have followers of religious nut jobs and literalists, this will never happen here unless we go totalitarian. So we'll probably just implode instead.  People don't like being forced to have common sense.

As far as pharmacology is concerned, control is secondary to profit.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »