Your Political Profile

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Can we please get back on topic?

If this keeps up I'll have to lock the thread

 

[Sky Green]

Oh gawd. Another uneducated person talking about homosexuality. You know, it's important to possess some knowledge about a topic before you start stating things.

First of all, homosexuality is NATURAL. It's just as natural as heterosexuality. Homosexuality has been observed in the animal kingdom among thousands of species. Within some groups homosexuality is actually dominant.
Get your facts straight.

Second of all, tests that have been conducted show that kids raised by homosexual parents function just as well, or perhaps better than those raised by heterosexual parents.

It annoys me so much when people just spread lies like they were truth, so stop with it, and start paying attention in class.

Now, I hereby demand that you get back to the topic, or this thread will surely be closed.

Ok I don't know what I'm saying. But explin why it's natural, why do they function well or better. In what groups is homosexuality dominant.

Ok I'm done with off-topic

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

No you're not done with offtopic, you're only continuing it and saying you're done with it.

Back on topic

 

[The Reborn Devil]

Yeah, please stay on the topic. I'm not going to respond to the post above, just pay attention in class and you will learn what you need to learn.

Soo, it seems like the majority here are communists. That is very fun

 

[Zombie]

pay attention in class and you will learn what you need to learn.

Schools... *Sigh.*

The perfect ground for ruling governments to shovel whatever policies and rules into kids they deem fit. Paying attention during class sure as hell won't let you develop an individual opinion or world awareness, as far as I'm concerned. Don't suggest the poor guy something like that.

Also hey, Sky Green. I'm looking to visit the Sinj gay parade in this, you can man the gunner seat.

Finally, I sincerely don't think most of the site is consistent of communists, if it is I really missed out on something a few years ago. The survey is just wrong.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

So Zombie, what extreme political affiliation are you gonna play next year?

 

[Zombie]

Hmmm, I thought of liberalism / pacifism / multiculturalism, but since I'm not too keen on either in actuality, I decided to drop the idea.

Now I'm a Scandinavian occult shaman, didn't learn the trade good enough to troll with it yet, though.

So, when am I getting banned next?

 

[The Reborn Devil]

Communism is the best! Most hivers are smart to some degree, and smart people like communism, just like metal is the genre that educated people like.

Oh, and my schools I mean schools (you know what I mean...), and not indoctrination centres.

 

[Zombie]

Most hivers are smart to some degree

You lost me there.

Btw, all schools are indoctrination centres. It's impossible to view a politically unbiased history class, for example.

 

[Linaze]

Damn right there, Zombie. Just look at the Holocaust: There are a whole lot of people who actually believe the Nazis made soap out of Jews, even though this has never been proven. But I suppose this is the result you get when your teachers and other academics are all (or mostly) socialists or communists, and the ones that aren't leftists have a gun pointed at them, so to say.

 

[Zombie]

It's more that the victors established a picture on Nazi Germany that's purely a negative one, so Germany can never get that strong again. Regardless of the positive aspects, even Germans themselves believe that the nazi regime was all about the holocaust, which didn't even have as many victims as how many German soldiers (or civilians) died in the war. Millions gave their lives in the belief of a better future for those who think of them as butchers and marauders these days. Sad really.

At any rate, making Germany pay fines and splitting it apart just made the spirit of unity stronger, resocialization and brainwashing worked out perfectly. Most Germans hate the nazi regime without knowing anything about it or thinking about what actually caused them to commit all those terrible actions on the Eastern front or in Poland (Olyka massacre or Bromberg, anyone? No, I don't think you've heard about either cases).

Why teachers teach bullshit or don't teach both sides of the same coin has nothing to do with communism or socialism. It's simply that no one ever wants to see a strong Germany again.

Same applies to all other aspects of history: The winners write it, after all. What they want to get remembered gets written down and taught for the past generations, it all serves political needs.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

If you think schools are indoctrination centres then I must say it's a sad world you're living in. Here in Norway it works like this:
Every time we learn something about history or science or related subjects we look at multiple independent sources so we see the whole picture. Also, the government doesn't decide what books each school has. The school decides which books they want to have. Also, we often have tests where we are supposed to use many sources when writing an article about a certain event in history.

This is how Norway manages to have schools which are schools, and not indoctrination centres. Bias is not a problem here.

 

[Zombie]

You slipped over what I said.

Your school may decide what it wants to teach and it may make you use multiple sources but that won't change the fact that history is written by the victors.

Go ahead and feel as free and democratic as you want though. Shows how well mind control works.

 

[The Reborn Devil]

It's not the victor who writes history, it's written by those who experience history. Even though Christianity is a religion which is rather big the documents that contradict certain things that are written about Jesus in the Bible (which were written at the same time as the Bible) still exist.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

The main problem with "brainwashed" theories is that it's hard to determine who exactly is brainwashed. Everyone thinks everyone else is mind-dead for not seeing it their way, so determining who exactly has been conditioned is hard to do without bias. Who knows, most likely both sides have had done their own deal of brainwashing.

These sorts of "wake up people" mentalities never seem to gain much support because it's fairly difficult to prove exactly who's "asleep" on a relative sense, everyone is the robot to everyone else.

 

[Fussiler1]

Communism is the best!

Yeah it's been proven how well Communism works.

It's more that the victors established a picture on Nazi Germany that's purely a negative one, so Germany can never get that strong again.

So what? Germany is a huge economic power and is with France the strongest power in the EU. I heard people complaining about a Franco-Germanic powerblock.

But I suppose this is the result you get when your teachers and other academics are all (or mostly) socialists or communists, and the ones that aren't leftists have a gun pointed at them, so to say.

Source?

 

[FaTaL]

http://politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=0.25&soc=-1.23

 

[Sky Green]

Communism was a great idea, but the communists wanted everyone to be like that. The society needs to be more advanced to go commie.

 

[Zombie]

It's not the victor who writes history, it's written by those who experience history.

Partial truth.

The official documentation of historical events, the ones that gain more publicity at least, are written by the victors solely because the ones defeated don't have a voice anymore. Thus, the majority of the world (not all of it) indeed goes by what the victors (or the ones in power) claim, without even bothering to think otherwise. Then again, a lot of those who 'experience history' don't live to tell about it, if they're on the defeated side.

Even though Christianity is a religion which is rather big the documents that contradict certain things that are written about Jesus in the Bible (which were written at the same time as the Bible) still exist.

^Good example of what I said.

The main problem with "brainwashed" theories is that it's hard to determine who exactly is brainwashed. Everyone thinks everyone else is mind-dead for not seeing it their way, so determining who exactly has been conditioned is hard to do without bias. Who knows, most likely both sides have had done their own deal of brainwashing.

These sorts of "wake up people" mentalities never seem to gain much support because it's fairly difficult to prove exactly who's "asleep" on a relative sense, everyone is the robot to everyone else.

Correct.

I never said I'm not brainwashed though, since obviously everyone has undergone some sort of bias or influence; it's impossible to know the "full truth" about any historical or political event, even if you experience it first hand.... especially if you experience it first hand.

I'm not considering my way of historical or political thinking superior, don't get me wrong. I just consider it different.

I could relate that to something that has been said above: Just because I don't like a million of arabic minorities living in my city, that doesn't mean I feel superior to them.

Communism was a great idea, but the communists wanted everyone to be like that. The society needs to be more advanced to go commie.

Got any more clichés to share?

_____________________________

EDIT: Slipped over this, sorry.

So what? Germany is a huge economic power and is with France the strongest power in the EU. I heard people complaining about a Franco-Germanic powerblock.

People have a tendency of always wanting more, see if the Axis would have won the war, Germany would be a world-wide superpower, something akin to the USA today, if not superior.

Then again, I'm not complaining. Just because I oppose the way the German vassal-government is handling its history (and relates it to politics today), that doesn't mean I'd be happier with a nazi regime over my head... or well, who knows.

 

[Sky Green]

Yea I do. The problem today is that a lot of people like to discriminate and be mean. You can say you're not like that but your just lying to yourself. Capitalism has rottened people, they would betray their friends to survive. Criminals can get out of jail by paying with money? Ain't that stupid? Money controls the world... not good.

I'm not sure what to believe in today, what's right what's wrong who can tell the difference. This "society" is just FUCKED UP! ((srry for harsh language))

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Yea I do. The problem today is that a lot of people like to discriminate and be mean. You can say you're not like that but your just lying to yourself. Capitalism has rottened people, they would betray their friends to survive. Criminals can get out of jail by paying with money? Ain't that stupid? Money controls the world... not good.

I'm not sure what to believe in today, what's right what's wrong who can tell the difference. This "society" is just FUCKED UP! ((srry for harsh language))

Discrimination and aggression is the natural order and way of response of humanity when nothing else overrides it, like say morality or ethics which are hammered in to oppose this instinct. No society can wipe out that natural tendency, no society can be perfect - blame it on capitalism but it's a natural habit that is evident in any government, economic system or society.

If anything the main problem with Communism is that it overestimates human's capability of rationality and good nature.

 

[Dawn Whitelighter]

http://politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-2.38&soc=-1.79

mine

 

[The_Silent]

Discrimination and aggression is the natural order and way of response of humanity when nothing else overrides it, like say morality or ethics which are hammered in to oppose this instinct. No society can wipe out that natural tendency, no society can be perfect - blame it on capitalism but it's a natural habit that is evident in any government, economic system or society.

If anything the main problem with Communism is that it overestimates human's capability of rationality and good nature.

So instead of aiming high, we aim the lowest, do I get it right?

Well, if that is the argumentation, then Stalin any day

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

So instead of aiming high, we aim the lowest, do I get it right?

Well, if that is the argumentation, then Stalin any day

Well aiming for the lowest isn't exactly the best idea either haha
Stallin type communism only breads unrest among the workers, which isn't exactly very good for a system of government that's supposed to be run by the workers - even with an iron first like Stallin had, that sort of unrest breads revolution and destroys the will to work.

Personally I don't think Communism can work as well as Capitalism in that along with the numerous political difficulties it has to overcome to get to their desired final result (rule by the people), there's a large difficulty in maintaining the work ethic that's required for it to work among the workers because many of the changes it makes counter-act normal things that drive one to want to work hard (wow I just said "work" a lot in one sentence).

 

[The_Silent]

Well aiming for the lowest isn't exactly the best idea either haha
Stallin type communism only breads unrest among the workers, which isn't exactly very good for a system of government that's supposed to be run by the workers - even with an iron first like Stallin had, that sort of unrest breads revolution and destroys the will to work.

Personally I don't think Communism can work as well as Capitalism in that along with the numerous political difficulties it has to overcome to get to their desired final result (rule by the people), there's a large difficulty in maintaining the work ethic that's required for it to work among the workers because many of the changes it makes counter-act normal things that drive one to want to work hard (wow I just said "work" a lot in one sentence).

Well, that is the problem with ideas xD we're aren't exactly in a true capitalist society either you know, so my argument would be that capitalism don't work either, (well, not real capitalism )

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Well of course, La zefarre (I always forget how that's spelled) was is just as dangerous as pure communism

 

[The World Is Flat]

So the answer is that there is no answer!

 

[The_Silent]

Well of course, La zefarre (I always forget how that's spelled) was is just as dangerous as pure communism

pure communism isn't the rough one, it's every attempt to reach it that seems to be the killer.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

So the answer is that there is no answer!

Pretty much

pure communism isn't the rough one, it's every attempt to reach it that seems to be the killer.

To me it seems more like a romantic utopia then something feasible, so the question really is can you ever reach it?

 

[The_Silent]

So the answer is that there is no answer!

Did you expect one? D:

 

[The World Is Flat]

Of COURSE I DID!!!!!!!

 

[En_Fuego]

Imo dictatorship is the way to go...as long as you have a method to cycle through dictators.

I think Monty Python had it right, when he said that supreme authoritative power should be derived from a mandate of the masses. The United States kind of had the right idea, but there are WAY TOO MANY checks and balances to ever accomplish anything significant.

 

[shamanyouranus]

Um, I lost the results of the thingy, but I was somewhere in the middle, leaning towards the right, with slightly authoritarian beliefs or some shit.
Also, capitalism ftw

 

[Zarathustra]

I think Monty Python had it right, when he said that supreme authoritative power should be derived from a mandate of the masses. The United States kind of had the right idea, but there are WAY TOO MANY checks and balances to ever accomplish anything significant.

The US problem is not too many checks on power. If anything, we have too few. Since 9/11, our government has trashed civil liberties and waged a war on false pretenses. The problems are: 1.) a two-party system, and 2.) the replacement of debate with mindless mudslinging

Whoever loses an election is still in second place. The party out of power doesn't need to prove that their policies are good - they just need to convince people that the other party is worse. Why would either party bother with a substantive debate over actual facts? All they need to do is appear on the news for a few seconds and deliver a short, sensationalistic attack on the other party. It works, and it's easy.

 

[En_Fuego]

The US problem is not too many checks on power. If anything, we have too few. Since 9/11, our government has trashed civil liberties and waged a war on false pretenses. The problems are: 1.) a two-party system, and 2.) the replacement of debate with mindless mudslinging

I'm going to just tell you to stop doing what you're doing and try to not contradict yourself. The bi-partisan system was developed initially to provide checks and balance in the house and the senate.

If you think it's good that we have something like that at all, then I'm going to tell you you're completely wrong. Not just the fact that they disagree with eachother, but the fact that we have bi-partisanship at all.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

The US problem is not too many checks on power. If anything, we have too few. Since 9/11, our government has trashed civil liberties and waged a war on false pretenses. The problems are: 1.) a two-party system, and 2.) the replacement of debate with mindless mudslinging

Whoever loses an election is still in second place. The party out of power doesn't need to prove that their policies are good - they just need to convince people that the other party is worse. Why would either party bother with a substantive debate over actual facts? All they need to do is appear on the news for a few seconds and deliver a short, sensationalistic attack on the other party. It works, and it's easy.

I facepalmed so freaking hard when I saw a legitimate political ad that claimed the opponent hated puppies. Ditto about the mudslinging thing

 

[Zarathustra]

I'm going to just tell you to stop doing what you're doing and try to not contradict yourself. The bi-partisan system was developed initially to provide checks and balance in the house and the senate.

You seem to be a little confused about US government and history.

The bicameral (two-house) system refers to the two legislative bodies in the US - the house of representatives and senate. You'd be partially correct if you said this was designed as a check on power. The two-party system refers to the emergence of republicans and democrats as the dominant parties in US politics for the last 100+ years. It was not designed by anyone, but emerged by chance.

A third party has a difficult time invading a two-party dynamic. The success of a third-party candidate comes at the expense of one of the two main parties. In the US, third parties gain most of their voters at the expense of one of the established parties. They never get enough to win, but they get enough to keep one of the established parties from winning.

If you think it's good that we have something like that at all, then I'm going to tell you you're completely wrong. Not just the fact that they disagree with eachother, but the fact that we have bi-partisanship at all.

Um... were you trying to make a coherent point here?

 

[Magtheridon96]

I'm exactly between Ghandi and Hitler ^^
http://politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-1.88&soc=2.56

edit

I've seen some people talk about Communism in this thread, well, the thing is, our societies
will most likely NEVER EVER be communist societies due to all the RETARDS we have.
This is how the human race is divided:

97% - Idiots
3% - Smart people :>

Idiots are clearly dominant here :S

How to form a communist society:
call ForGroup(Idiots, function kill)

 

[fladdermasken]

The irony is that most gents ranting about global idiocy are ideal sapheads.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

The irony is that most gents ranting about global idiocy are usually ideal sapheads.

This. (still not enough to express the very depth of the emphasis I want to place on this)

 

[Nuclear]

Oh fff...

 

[Magtheridon96]

O how I loathe Irony >.<

The irony is that most gents ranting about global idiocy are usually ideal sapheads.

With the dominant word being "most"

 

[Dejavuu]

Here is mine.
http://politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=2.25&soc=-2.41

 

[Deleted member 157129]

Questions like this bother me:

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."

Do I believe in proportional punishment? Yes. Do I believe in 100% retributive justice? No.

Some of these questions don't even make sense. There's so many examples I can think of that I can't even pick an answer because I'm not sure what they're talking about exactly.

For example: By strongly agreeing with "Good parents sometimes have to spank their children." I feel like I'm going to get placed alongside people who believe that brutally harming their children is morally acceptable.

edit: Found another. How do you even disagree with this? "A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system."

Even if you're against a one-party system, I find it damn near impossible to disagree that it's more effective in accomplishing things.

Agreed.

Even so, I completed the test by looking beyond the statement and considering (what I believe is) the concealed meaning.
I agree to "Good parents sometimes have to spank their children" because I believe humans are designed to avoid doing things that cause harm, and as such, some kind of punishment for doing something wrong can have the desired effect - as opposed to not doing anything, and not having any effect at all. Of course, there's a question of how far you can go to teach a lesson, and there's also examples of children that do not learn from being punished - even examples of those that enjoy punishment, thus flipping the concept around.

I strongly agree with "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" because I belive the only correct way is to return what has been received. However, in the question of murder, for instance, I consider the victim to be the ones left behind, and as such, sentencing the murderer to death would be wrong. Both because it would punish his family (if any) more than the murderer himself, and because it would, effectively, relieve him of punishment.

I strongly disagree with "A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system" because, as far as my guessing goes, they are implying here that a fascist leader is better because it's more effective in terms of development. Although development can be good, it can also be bad. It is important to make sure that the development is as good as possible for the most people.

I could argue for my other answers as well, but I don't think it's necessary. Pop me a VM if you want to discuss anything.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-7.12&soc=-5.38

 

[Cihparg]

What ?

 

[Rui]

I'm pretty sure that political compass is based off Irish or UK politics based off some of the questions it asks in it, which aren't really big issues in the US.

It wrote «economic globalisation», notice the 's', it looks like UK English.

I am... not sure what I am can someone tell me?
My result

http://politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-3.25&soc=0.62
(...)
I can't say for sure whether or not this is very accurate. I lacked a thought-through opinion on many of the quiz's questions.

Most interestingly, we have similar results, and neither am I a communist as far as I know. I know little of politics, but for example, you're saying you're right-wing and I agree on most of what you said. I think these results are wrong.

Well, I don't believe in the entire "lebensraum" thing. I believe every people, whether we're talking about the Jews, Danes or Somalis, deserves a country to call their own. As an ethnic Swede I want to live in the country that belongs to my people among just my people, the Swedes. I don't hate Jews or the blacks, but that doesn't mean I want to live among millions of them, simply because I don't feel that I have much at all in common with these people and the fact that our different cultures and genes make us incompatible with each other. As you might have guessed I oppose immigration (especially from non-Western countries). I also want a large part of the immigrants already here to return to their home countries.

Now that's cleared out. Where was I? National socialism, right. I believe in a political system like that of WW2-Germany instead of the modern democracy. I oppose captialism, globalism, radical feminism, egoism, class stuggle and other elements that I consider dangerous for my people and our country.

I want to see a healthy family policy replace our current one. Nuclear families with lots of children should be encouraged. Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt children because I believe every child needs and deserves a father and a mother.

What more can I add? Economically, I'd say I am a leftist just like national socialism is a leftist ideology (again, economically). I believe in a strong state with lots of resources to spend on whatever the people requires.

I probably missed a few things out, but you should get the general idea.

I don't mind having Africans, Ukrainians(spelling), Chinese, and whatnot living in my country as long as they are contributory members of our society. Most Africans and Romani come here, do nothing but have children, and then they expect the state to give them all the benefits, becoming criminals...
When a robbery is divulged on the news and African criminals are involved, some people accuse the black people, and others like to point out that criminals are usually Caucasian. What I have to say is that, if most criminals are from my country, then we don't need people from other countries increasing the criminality. Call it circular logic, but it's true.
If an African or Ukrainian doctor wants to enter the country, then he is most welcome, but if he is a low educated individual, then no, just no.

And people already know I'm a little perverted on the gene conversation too ;P Ukrainians have that typical blond hair and colored eyes that I love very much ;P. But seriously speaking, that sort of phenotypes (blond, light skin, colored eyes) are the most successful nowadays, they add to this country's miserable genetic pool =P

I'll have to ask. What sources exactly says that there is an IQ difference between different ethnic groups solely based on biology and that social environment and/or anything else don't interfere. Find a test to determine that impossible to comprehend. And hell, whats wrong with having two dads or to moms? I grew up with only a mother, and it didn't make my life worse in any way. So I don't understand that argument.
I also noted that quite many of your views seems conservative rather than socialistic. Could just be me though.

Actually, it's a common fact in Psychology that, for example, kids who grow without a father tend to have insecurity, vengeance fantasies (towards other people, not the dad), and a few other psychological traits I cannot remember at the moment.
I'm not sure what the consequences of growing up with an homosexual couple are, but if something as common as having no father or mother will usually affect the psychology of children, then...

Oh gawd. Another uneducated person talking about homosexuality. You know, it's important to possess some knowledge about a topic before you start stating things.

First of all, homosexuality is NATURAL. It's just as natural as heterosexuality. Homosexuality has been observed in the animal kingdom among thousands of species. Within some groups homosexuality is actually dominant.
Get your facts straight.
(...)

Depends on the definition of natural, I myself don't quite get what you're trying to say with that word. Anyway, increased homosexual individuals in a population tends to happen in nature when there's a too large number of individuals in that population; it's a natural way of balancing out.

 

[The_Silent]

I don't mind having Africans, Ukrainians(spelling), Chinese, and whatnot living in my country as long as they are contributory members of our society. Most Africans and Romani come here, do nothing but have children, and then they expect the state to give them all the benefits, becoming criminals...
When a robbery is divulged on the news and African criminals are involved, some people accuse the black people, and others like to point out that criminals are usually Caucasian. What I have to say is that, if most criminals are from my country, then we don't need people from other countries increasing the criminality. Call it circular logic, but it's true.
If an African or Ukrainian doctor wants to enter the country, then he is most welcome, but if he is a low educated individual, then no, just no.

If you actually think people flee form their country and get into you country, just to have children on your country expense. Then I'm sorry for you. Its described in sociology how people going through intense stressful conditions usually "reproduce" a lot more. Criminals too often comes from families experiencing special difficulties. So I'd say its your country's lack of appropriate care (and a lack of tolerance) for these people, is the real cause of the problem.
Also, the nr. 1 student in my country is a immigrant from a muslim country.

Actually, it's a common fact in Psychology that, for example, kids who grow without a father tend to have insecurity, vengeance fantasies (towards other people, not the dad), and a few other psychological traits I cannot remember at the moment.
I'm not sure what the consequences of growing up with an homosexual couple are, but if something as common as having no father or mother will usually affect the psychology of children, then...

I find it hard to believe, as neither is true in my case. Homosexuals can adopt children and get artificial insemination in my country, and studies show no difference in children's psychology.

Depends on the definition of natural, I myself don't quite get what you're trying to say with that word. Anyway, increased homosexual individuals in a population tends to happen in nature when there's a too large number of individuals in that population; it's a natural way of balancing out.

Or homosexuality is just more accepted these days, doubt there were any less during the dark ages, put think less were homosexual because less dared say they were, due to the fact, being one would automatically lead to a death sentence. This is why the more overcrowded countries like, Africa, India and China has less homosexuals, its much less socially accepted.


The only problems immigrants and homosexuals ever had that made them different was ignorance and intolerance from others.

 

[Zarathustra]

If you actually think people flee form their country and get into you country, just to have children on your country expense. Then I'm sorry for you. Its described in sociology how people going through intense stressful conditions usually "reproduce" a lot more.

As standards of living improve, birth rates decline. Most immigrants are trying to raise their standard of living (by leaving countries with a lower standard of living). Not every immigrant is poor, but on the whole immigrant populations are generally less wealthy. There are a lot of reasons for this, but they're not as important to this discussion as the trend itself. The world's wealthiest countries tend to have the lowest rate of population growth.

Now for a dose of cold, hard facts. The more rapidly that people of low socioeconomic status reproduce, the greater the burden they place on welfare programs. There will exist some birth rate at which it becomes financially impossible to provide for this population. Birth rates must be reduced, immigration quotas imposed, or benefits cut.

 

[Rui]

God, do people love misreading -_-

Immigrants don't come here to have children at the expense of the state, the problem is that most are low educated, end up doing nothing else, and then the state has to give them the benefits, else it's racism and whatnot.

And yes, I too think that birth rates (mainly in African countries) need to be controlled somehow, and yes, immigration should also be limited. As for benefits being cut, that's probably not a good idea for the richest countries, because it affects the country's original population.

 

[D4RK_G4ND4LF]

And yes, I too think that birth rates (mainly in African countries) need to be controlled somehow

aids?