llap Posted November 5, 2017 Author Share Posted November 5, 2017 Maybe he sees humans in the same way he sees these poor animals: as prey. I'm not joking when I refer to the royals as a bunch of reptilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 8 minutes ago, llap said: Maybe he sees humans in the same way he sees these poor animals: as prey. I'm not joking when I refer to the royals as a bunch of reptilians. Just to be clear, do you think the royals are not actually human? Or do you mean reptile in some other sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llap Posted November 5, 2017 Author Share Posted November 5, 2017 They're human, but not entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 4 hours ago, llap said: They're human, but not entirely. Nice cop out, the way you avoid answering questions you'd make a good politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 4 hours ago, llap said: They're human, but not entirely. Yes, human, but not too humane at times. Oh and completely out of touch with real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 31 minutes ago, dilligaf said: Oh and completely out of touch with real life. not at all, most are hard grafters and can you imagine having to be nice to people all the time.... not the life i would ever choose.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, woody2 said: not at all, most are hard grafters and can you imagine having to be nice to people all the time.... not the life i would ever choose.... Most don't know they are born FFS. What is this "graft" you think they do.? they may as well be green slimy monsters for all the use they are. As for choosing a life. That is not a life, it is a function and nothing else. Their loss, not ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 58 minutes ago, woody2 said: not at all, most are hard grafters and can you imagine having to be nice to people all the time.... not the life i would ever choose.... It’s easier to snipe from a position of anonymity. A luxury the Royals don’t have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 i signed a form more than once, so can't say alot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llap Posted November 5, 2017 Author Share Posted November 5, 2017 1 hour ago, mojomonkey said: Nice cop out, the way you avoid answering questions you'd make a good politician. It wasn't a cop out or avoidance of answering the question at all. I answered you in the most straight to the point way possible. The Royal Family inhabit physical bodies but on a higher dimensional level they are something entirely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 I suggest that there is no such thing as a 'human population the world can support'. Rather, there is a level of consumption of resources and a level of pollution that the world can support for a finite but variable period of time. If each and every one of the human population consumes like an American, that time probably isn't very long if nothing else changes. But bringing everyone's material well being at least up to the level of, say, an average European country is surely a reasonable and equitable goal for any decently governed country? We need to become far better, as a species, at using raw materials, producing food sustainably and above all, finding plentiful renewable and less polluting energy sources. Put ridiculously simply, we could carry on as we are, and fight the wars that will result as resources dwindle, or we can collectively re-balance the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 17 minutes ago, guzzi said: I suggest that there is no such thing as a 'human population the world can support'. Rather, there is a level of consumption of resources and a level of pollution that the world can support for a finite but variable period of time. If each and every one of the human population consumes like an American, that time probably isn't very long if nothing else changes. But bringing everyone's material well being at least up to the level of, say, an average European country is surely a reasonable and equitable goal for any decently governed country? We need to become far better, as a species, at using raw materials, producing food sustainably and above all, finding plentiful renewable and less polluting energy sources. Put ridiculously simply, we could carry on as we are, and fight the wars that will result as resources dwindle, or we can collectively re-balance the books. We can either go Star Trek or Mad Max...I know which is the more likely... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said: We can either go Star Trek or Mad Max...I know which is the more likely... mad stars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 When I take over every left handed person is going to a concentration camp. That'll help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 Seems reasonable enough to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.