Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Head Moderator

I don't cash em or see em on my statements Svec-neezy

 

It's Svec-Nasty.  ORRRRRR -Natty like Natty Ice.  Bitch.

 

All my posts are equally great, so I probably hit that button by accident thinking that I was liking someone elses' post. But I did laugh.

 

High five.

Not saying this is a bad idea, but aren't VHLM GMs supposed to do this anyway? I really only see this being a problem in cases like Coach D where you join in between the playoffs and the end of the off-season.

when I was on recruitment crew we did this whole thing where we were like told all the VHLM GMs that it was their job to mentor their players and we wrote this whole long instruction thing on how to and there was even talk about whether or not we should give them 1 TPE a week for doing their job, but that obviously wasn't going to happen.  So yeah, according to the recruitment crew post that was back on the smf forums you could lose your VHLM GM job if you weren't doing this but no one ever followed through and we got moved so the post doesn't exist anymore but yeah they are SUPPOSED to be doing this and it's a huge problem if they aren't.

  • Head Moderator

limiting the populations of the poor and lower middle class so that it's easier for the rich to stay on top

 

 

Demographics and the decline in birth rates are already doing their parts in this.

  • Head Moderator

He said limiting, as in limiting them socially, not eliminating them.

 

No I meant limiting, the average family worldwide is nearing the 2.1 tipping point.

  • Head Moderator

You will have to explain yourself better.

 

The tipping point between an increasing and decreasing population is 2.1 children per family.  Most industrialized nations are around or slightly above 2.1 (US is 2.3 I think)...  Europe is starting to trend below it.  Most third world nations are a good amount above it, but with the advancements in Africa and Asia it's been trending downward.  Probably before the end of our generation we will see 2.1 as a worldwide average.

Edited by frescoelmo

The tipping point between an increasing and decreasing population is 2.1 children per family. Most industrialized nations are around or slightly above 2.1 (US is 2.3 I think)... Europe is starting to trend below it. Most third world nations are a good amount above it, but with the advancements in Africa and Asia it's been trending downward. Probably before the end of our generation we will see 2.1 as a worldwide average.

So how does this have a causal relationship with the growing income gap in North America as you stated

  • Head Moderator

So how does this have a causal relationship with the growing income gap in North America as you stated

 

In regards to, "limiting the populations of the poor and lower middle class so that it's easier for the rich to stay on top"?  Hmm...  Population hits a growth ceiling, population levels off, population is therefore limited?  I don't believe I ever stated such a thing about the growing income gap.

In regards to, "limiting the populations of the poor and lower middle class so that it's easier for the rich to stay on top"? Hmm... Population hits a growth ceiling, population levels off, population is therefore limited? I don't believe I ever stated such a thing about the growing income gap.

Thats what he stated and you responded to. That still doesnt explain why people are getting poorer, which was his point and which you responded incorrectly to. He wasnt talking about the population going down.

  • Head Moderator

Thats what he stated and you responded to. That still doesnt explain why people are getting poorer, which was his point and which you responded incorrectly to. He wasnt talking about the population going down.

 

It doesn't explain why people are getting poorer because I never addressed that statement, merely a reasoning for why the population increase is slowing down.  There's nothing incorrect about how I responded, it just wasn't what you were expecting.

It doesn't explain why people are getting poorer because I never addressed that statement, merely a reasoning for why the population increase is slowing down. There's nothing incorrect about how I responded, it just wasn't what you were expecting.

Again, he didnt say that so I am not sure why you responded that way. Just admit you read it wrong already

  • Head Moderator

Again, he didnt say that so I am not sure why you responded that way. Just admit you read it wrong already

 

He said war was the reason why populations were limited.  I added in another reason why, strictly justifying his population claim.  That is 100% what I addressed in my original statement, and nothing else.  It makes complete sense how I responded.  Is this that hard to understand?

He said war was the reason why populations were limited. I added in another reason why, strictly justifying his population claim. That is 100% what I addressed in my original statement, and nothing else. It makes complete sense how I responded. Is this that hard to understand?

For you it is, yes.

He said war limits the low and lower middle class populations, keeping the rich on top. Where does he say anything about eliminating populations. No need to get touchy, but what you said didnt make sense. Look up the definition of limit and eliminate, son. They dont mean the same thing.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...