> Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

FOOD STAMPS ARE LITERALLY STALINISM!!!!
\

Baggers think that suffering makes the poor closer to ‘god’.
This is the same philosophy that evil witch Mother Theresa believed in.

Phew!

I had forgotten my bagger beliefs until a couple fags reminded me what they were.

Thanks!

/
Not allowing people who can't support themselves access to unlimited free shyt on the taxpayer's dime is 'causing them to suffer'!

 wrote:
/
Not allowing people who can't support themselves access to unlimited free shyt on the taxpayer's dime is 'causing them to suffer'!
We shouldn't have laws
\

What's especially funny is Spanky PROUDLY doesn't donate time or money to charity. Why? Because it is inefficient.
 
He expects to be taken seriously by the way.

So why do liberals insist on importing millions of third world workers to take jobs from the poor, drive up housing costs and overcrowd their schools?

Spanky just wants cheaper fast food slop from illegal labor.

Can't afford to feed your own children?
Get sterilised.

 wrote:So why do liberals insist on importing millions of third world workers to take jobs from the poor, drive up housing costs and overcrowd their schools?
None of those things happen.

 wrote:Can't afford to feed your own children?
Get sterilised.
How about free birth control, free abortion on demand, and remove all incentives to have children?

Spanky wrote:How about free birth control, free abortion on demand, and remove all incentives to have children?

       \

      Tell that to the Mexicans

Ron_Santo_Redux wrote:

       \

      Tell that to the Mexicans
Latina women in the US today have a much lower birthrate than white women in the 1950s. If the 1950s white woman birth rate was okay, then the modern Latina birthrate is okay.

Spanky wrote:Latina women in the US today have a much lower birthrate than white women in the 1950s. If the 1950s white woman birth rate was okay, then the modern Latina birthrate is okay.
Excrement.

Ron_Santo_Redux wrote:Excrement.
Why do you hate facts?

Ever notice that for a Bagger, a handout is literally Satan, except of course for a billionaire, pedophile, or Trump. They can have ALL the handouts forever! And even thinking of not giving them a handout is communism or something.

 wrote:Ever notice that for a Bagger, a handout is literally Satan, except of course for a billionaire, pedophile, or Trump. They can have ALL the handouts forever! And even thinking of not giving them a handout is communism or something.
I see our corpulent friend has dotted out after getting skooled. Again.

 wrote:I see our corpulent friend has dotted out after getting skooled. Again.
Nah. Wasn't me.

Curious, though.

Why are you entitled to the anonymity of being a dot, but others aren't?

Spanky wrote:Latina women in the US today have a much lower birthrate than white women in the 1950s. If the 1950s white woman birth rate was okay, then the modern Latina birthrate is okay.
Now do Jeets and Muzzies.

 wrote:Now do Jeets and Muzzies.
Almost certainly lower than rabbit-breeding whytes.

Spanky wrote:Nah. Wasn't me.

Curious, though.

Why are you entitled to the anonymity of being a dot, but others aren't?
Hey, I appreciate it dude.

Spanky wrote:Almost certainly lower than rabbit-breeding whytes.
Racist asshole. Falsely claims to be opposed to racism. Fuqing dishonest hypocrite scumbag fraud.

Spanky wrote:Almost certainly lower than rabbit-breeding whytes.
Try again.

muzz_br.png

 wrote:Try again.
You don't even know what you are talking about. First, religion is not reported on birth certificates. As a result, you are comparing apples to oranges when comparing Muslims to whites. Second, you are using the wrong measure. CBR is not appropriate for comparison between disparate populations. 

If you look at the TFR, Muslims (data from Pew, 2015) are at 2.70. Whites in the 1950s (data from CDC) were at 3.58.

Whytes breed like rabbits.

Spanky wrote:You don't even know what you are talking about. First, religion is not reported on birth certificates. As a result, you are comparing apples to oranges when comparing Muslims to whites. Second, you are using the wrong measure. CBR is not appropriate for comparison between disparate populations. 

If you look at the TFR, Muslims (data from Pew, 2015) are at 2.70. Whites in the 1950s (data from CDC) were at 3.58.

Whytes breed like rabbits.
Move_goalposts.jpg

> Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

wrote:

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

wrote:

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

wrote:

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Spanky wrote:

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Ron_Santo_Redux wrote:

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Spanky wrote:

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Ron_Santo_Redux wrote:

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

wrote:

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

wrote:

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Spanky wrote:

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

wrote:

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Spanky wrote:

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Spanky wrote:

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Spanky wrote:

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

wrote:

Re: Bagz: why does the “cruelty lever" always need to be set at 169%. Is there EVER a case where you think a poor person might not deserve to suffer?

Spanky wrote: