Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill [Archive]

Warren

January 30th, 2004, 07:38 AM

wrote...
> Great term Warren, I'll remember it. Since I've been in the habit of
> kill filing muskie's new addresses as soon as he posts sometj=hing, I
> might have missed this from long ago.

Actually, I see very little of Ken and none of Muskie no matter what
name he uses. I created these rules with my news reader so that any
posts that are cross posted to more than two groups are ignored and
threads with OT in the subject that have Forty as the author are
marked as ignored. Works freaking great. Thankfully Ken is kind
enough to put OT in his subject line so I don't have to plonk him
completely. With these two rules and one person in the "Bozo Bin,"
ROFF has become much more enjoyable for me. Your really should check
out MicroPlanet Gravity. It's free and has some pretty damn good
features and rule making capabilities.
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt3/MadisonConclave.html

Herman Nijland

January 30th, 2004, 10:32 AM

Warren wrote:
<snip>
>Your really should check
> out MicroPlanet Gravity. It's free and has some pretty damn good
> features and rule making capabilities.

Did you know that Gravity is still maintained, despite the fact that
Microplanet stopped supporting it? Look at http://gravity.tbates.org/
for some fresh updates.

--
Cheers, Herman

Wolfgang

January 30th, 2004, 12:56 PM

"Warren" > wrote in message
...
> wrote...
> > Great term Warren, I'll remember it. Since I've been in the habit
of
> > kill filing muskie's new addresses as soon as he posts
sometj=hing, I
> > might have missed this from long ago.
>
> Actually, I see very little of Ken and none of Muskie no matter what
> name he uses. I created these rules with my news reader so that any
> posts that are cross posted to more than two groups are ignored and
> threads with OT in the subject that have Forty as the author are
> marked as ignored. Works freaking great. Thankfully Ken is kind
> enough to put OT in his subject line so I don't have to plonk him
> completely. With these two rules and one person in the "Bozo Bin,"
> ROFF has become much more enjoyable for me. Your really should
check
> out MicroPlanet Gravity. It's free and has some pretty damn good
> features and rule making capabilities.

Peekaboo, I see you! :)

Wolfgang
who remains unconvinced that keeping your eyes tightly closed while
eating boogers is an effective method for convincing a room full of
observers that you don't eat boogers.

gary

January 30th, 2004, 03:04 PM

Don't like the pressure on our natural resourse? Then write and demand
immigratiion reform. Not Bushes either.
"Thomas Gnauck" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
>
> President Bush and his Senate allies have vowed to pass their pro-polluter
> energy bill into law over the next few weeks. If they succeed, this
> shameless package of corporate welfare will cost us $50 billion over the
> next decade and prolong our dangerous reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear
> power. That's why it is so important for you to contact your own senators
> right away and tell them to block this attack on our pocketbooks, our
> environment, and our health.
>
> Put your fingers to work:
>
> http://www.savebiogems.org/takeaction.asp?src=RR0401
>
> it takes 2 seconds to fill out
>
> you never know, it might actually change some views.
>
>
>
> fish on
>
> t.
>
>
>
>

January 30th, 2004, 03:54 PM

gary wrote [sic]:
>
> Don't like the pressure on our natural resourse? Then write and demand
> immigratiion reform. Not Bushes either.

Thanks, Gary, but I've already written and demanded that troglodyte
racist ****heads not be allowed to fish, hunt, pick their noses,
defecate, or breathe anywhere near any of our natural resources.

I figure that should leave LOTS of room for the rest of us.

JR

Ken Fortenberry

January 30th, 2004, 04:05 PM

JR wrote:
> gary wrote [sic]:
>
>>Don't like the pressure on our natural resourse? Then write and demand
>>immigratiion reform. Not Bushes either.
>
> Thanks, Gary, but I've already written and demanded that troglodyte
> racist ****heads not be allowed to fish, hunt, pick their noses,
> defecate, or breathe anywhere near any of our natural resources.
>
> I figure that should leave LOTS of room for the rest of us.

Wouldn't it be pretty to think so, but I'm afraid there are more racist
scum like gary than you'd imagine. They don't crawl out from under their
rocks very often, but still they lie buried in the filth of the American
psyche festering and oozing in the pus of their hate-filled ignorance.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Tim J.

January 30th, 2004, 04:12 PM

"Wolfgang" wrote...
> "Warren" wrote...
> > wrote...
> > > Great term Warren, I'll remember it. Since I've been in the habit
> of
> > > kill filing muskie's new addresses as soon as he posts
> sometj=hing, I
> > > might have missed this from long ago.
> >
> > Actually, I see very little of Ken and none of Muskie no matter what
> > name he uses. I created these rules with my news reader so that any
> > posts that are cross posted to more than two groups are ignored and
> > threads with OT in the subject that have Forty as the author are
> > marked as ignored. Works freaking great. Thankfully Ken is kind
> > enough to put OT in his subject line so I don't have to plonk him
> > completely. With these two rules and one person in the "Bozo Bin,"
> > ROFF has become much more enjoyable for me. Your really should
> check
> > out MicroPlanet Gravity. It's free and has some pretty damn good
> > features and rule making capabilities.
>
> Peekaboo, I see you! :)
>
> Wolfgang
> who remains unconvinced that keeping your eyes tightly closed while
> eating boogers is an effective method for convincing a room full of
> observers that you don't eat boogers.

I really don't have anything to add, but I thought Warren should read this.
:)))
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

bones

January 30th, 2004, 04:45 PM

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:05:58 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

>JR wrote:
>> gary wrote [sic]:
>>
>>>Don't like the pressure on our natural resourse? Then write and demand
>>>immigratiion reform. Not Bushes either.
>>
>> Thanks, Gary, but I've already written and demanded that troglodyte
>> racist ****heads not be allowed to fish, hunt, pick their noses,
>> defecate, or breathe anywhere near any of our natural resources.
>>
>> I figure that should leave LOTS of room for the rest of us.
>
>Wouldn't it be pretty to think so, but I'm afraid there are more racist
>scum like gary than you'd imagine. They don't crawl out from under their
>rocks very often, but still they lie buried in the filth of the American
>psyche festering and oozing in the pus of their hate-filled ignorance.

how is asking for immgration reform racist?

Scott Seidman

January 30th, 2004, 04:53 PM

bones > wrote in news:2e2l10ll45ul0tc3m0d957hf0thsu2ti12@
4ax.com:

> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:05:58 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> > wrote:
>
>>JR wrote:
>>> gary wrote [sic]:
>>>
>>>>Don't like the pressure on our natural resourse? Then write and demand
>>>>immigratiion reform. Not Bushes either.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Gary, but I've already written and demanded that troglodyte
>>> racist ****heads not be allowed to fish, hunt, pick their noses,
>>> defecate, or breathe anywhere near any of our natural resources.
>>>
>>> I figure that should leave LOTS of room for the rest of us.
>>
>>Wouldn't it be pretty to think so, but I'm afraid there are more racist
>>scum like gary than you'd imagine. They don't crawl out from under their
>>rocks very often, but still they lie buried in the filth of the American
>>psyche festering and oozing in the pus of their hate-filled ignorance.
>
>
> how is asking for immgration reform racist?

Asking for immigration reform is not, in itself, racists. Linking it to
natural resource use, though, is an interesting link.

The more problems a person tends to blame on "them", the more questionable
the motivation

Scott

January 30th, 2004, 05:10 PM

Scott Seidman wrote:
> bones > wrote in news:2e2l10ll45ul0tc3m0d957hf0thsu2ti12@
> 4ax.com:
>
> Asking for immigration reform is not, in itself, racists. Linking it to
> natural resource use, though, is an interesting link.

It's a natural and appropriate link. Natural resource use is directly
related to population growth. Immigration (legal and illegal) is the
major source of population growth in the US.

> The more problems a person tends to blame on "them", the more questionable
> the motivation

My opinion, FWIW, is that our population (meaning the US, in this case)
is large enough. In fact, it's too large already. If that makes me a
racist in anyone's opinion, **** them.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Ken Fortenberry

January 30th, 2004, 05:21 PM

bones wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:05:58 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> > wrote:
>
>
>>JR wrote:
>>
>>>gary wrote [sic]:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don't like the pressure on our natural resourse? Then write and demand
>>>>immigratiion reform. Not Bushes either.
>>>
>>>Thanks, Gary, but I've already written and demanded that troglodyte
>>>racist ****heads not be allowed to fish, hunt, pick their noses,
>>>defecate, or breathe anywhere near any of our natural resources.
>>>
>>>I figure that should leave LOTS of room for the rest of us.
>>
>>Wouldn't it be pretty to think so, but I'm afraid there are more racist
>>scum like gary than you'd imagine. They don't crawl out from under their
>>rocks very often, but still they lie buried in the filth of the American
>>psyche festering and oozing in the pus of their hate-filled ignorance.
>
>
>
> how is asking for immgration reform racist?

"Immigration Reform" on the face of it, is no more racist than
"State's Rights" but both are codewords for a racist agenda and
I don't make a distinction between those who espouse a racist
agenda and racists.

When you conflate "Immigration Reform" with overpopulation, you're
a racist. Period, end of paragraph.

There's gonna be a hell of fight in the Sierra Club over this.
If you're a member of the Sierra Club, and not a racist or a
misguided fool pursuing a racist agenda, please, PLEASE vote
in the April elections.

--
Ken Fortenberry

bones

January 30th, 2004, 05:30 PM

On 30 Jan 2004 16:53:54 GMT, Scott Seidman
> wrote:

>bones > wrote in news:2e2l10ll45ul0tc3m0d957hf0thsu2ti12@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:05:58 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>JR wrote:
>>>> gary wrote [sic]:
>>>>
>>>>>Don't like the pressure on our natural resourse? Then write and demand
>>>>>immigratiion reform. Not Bushes either.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Gary, but I've already written and demanded that troglodyte
>>>> racist ****heads not be allowed to fish, hunt, pick their noses,
>>>> defecate, or breathe anywhere near any of our natural resources.
>>>>
>>>> I figure that should leave LOTS of room for the rest of us.
>>>
>>>Wouldn't it be pretty to think so, but I'm afraid there are more racist
>>>scum like gary than you'd imagine. They don't crawl out from under their
>>>rocks very often, but still they lie buried in the filth of the American
>>>psyche festering and oozing in the pus of their hate-filled ignorance.
>>
>>
>> how is asking for immgration reform racist?
>
>Asking for immigration reform is not, in itself, racists. Linking it to
>natural resource use, though, is an interesting link.
>
>The more problems a person tends to blame on "them", the more questionable
>the motivation
>
>Scott

Of what "race" are "them"?

bones

January 30th, 2004, 05:33 PM

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:10:24 -0700, rw
> wrote:

>
>It's a natural and appropriate link. Natural resource use is directly
>related to population growth. Immigration (legal and illegal) is the
>major source of population growth in the US.

The third rail for the Sierra Club......

Scott Seidman

January 30th, 2004, 05:39 PM

bones > wrote in
:

> On 30 Jan 2004 16:53:54 GMT, Scott Seidman
> > wrote:
>
>>bones > wrote in news:2e2l10ll45ul0tc3m0d957hf0thsu2ti12@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:05:58 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>JR wrote:
>>>>> gary wrote [sic]:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't like the pressure on our natural resourse? Then write and
>>>>>>demand immigratiion reform. Not Bushes either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Gary, but I've already written and demanded that
>>>>> troglodyte racist ****heads not be allowed to fish, hunt, pick
>>>>> their noses, defecate, or breathe anywhere near any of our natural
>>>>> resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> I figure that should leave LOTS of room for the rest of us.
>>>>
>>>>Wouldn't it be pretty to think so, but I'm afraid there are more
>>>>racist scum like gary than you'd imagine. They don't crawl out from
>>>>under their rocks very often, but still they lie buried in the filth
>>>>of the American psyche festering and oozing in the pus of their
>>>>hate-filled ignorance.
>>>
>>>
>>> how is asking for immgration reform racist?
>>
>>Asking for immigration reform is not, in itself, racists. Linking it
>>to natural resource use, though, is an interesting link.
>>
>>The more problems a person tends to blame on "them", the more
>>questionable the motivation
>>
>>Scott
>
>
> Of what "race" are "them"?
>

Pick your favorite. It makes little difference, so long as "them" is not
"us". It's just too easy to pass the buck, and blame your situation on
others.

Scott

Scott Seidman

January 30th, 2004, 05:40 PM

rw > wrote in
:

> Scott Seidman wrote:
>> bones > wrote in news:2e2l10ll45ul0tc3m0d957hf0thsu2ti12@
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>> Asking for immigration reform is not, in itself, racists. Linking it
>> to natural resource use, though, is an interesting link.
>
> It's a natural and appropriate link. Natural resource use is directly
> related to population growth. Immigration (legal and illegal) is the
> major source of population growth in the US.
>
>> The more problems a person tends to blame on "them", the more
>> questionable the motivation
>
> My opinion, FWIW, is that our population (meaning the US, in this
> case) is large enough. In fact, it's too large already. If that makes
> me a racist in anyone's opinion, **** them.
>

Census bureau estimates show that the natural increase (births-deaths)
exceeds the net migration by more than 50%, at least between 2000 and 2001.
Immigration is certainly a major player, but not --the-- major player.
Given the current birth rates, the US tops the list of developed nations at
2.1 births per woman.

In addition, I'm not sure that Natural resource use is directly related to
population growth in the US in this global economy. Think about how much
of our forests get exported. You might be able to better link natural
resource use and world population, but it might not make that much of a
difference where the people are actually located. I might be able to float
the argument that its the rich people and corporations in the world that
use much of the resources, and that poor illegals contribute more to food
production than food and resource consumption.

I think population growth is a problem as well. I have no kids. How many
do you have?

Scott

bones

January 30th, 2004, 05:47 PM

On 30 Jan 2004 17:39:21 GMT, Scott Seidman
> wrote:

>bones > wrote in
:
>
>> On 30 Jan 2004 16:53:54 GMT, Scott Seidman
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>bones > wrote in news:2e2l10ll45ul0tc3m0d957hf0thsu2ti12@
>>>4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:05:58 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>JR wrote:
>>>>>> gary wrote [sic]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Don't like the pressure on our natural resourse? Then write and
>>>>>>>demand immigratiion reform. Not Bushes either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, Gary, but I've already written and demanded that
>>>>>> troglodyte racist ****heads not be allowed to fish, hunt, pick
>>>>>> their noses, defecate, or breathe anywhere near any of our natural
>>>>>> resources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I figure that should leave LOTS of room for the rest of us.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wouldn't it be pretty to think so, but I'm afraid there are more
>>>>>racist scum like gary than you'd imagine. They don't crawl out from
>>>>>under their rocks very often, but still they lie buried in the filth
>>>>>of the American psyche festering and oozing in the pus of their
>>>>>hate-filled ignorance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> how is asking for immgration reform racist?
>>>
>>>Asking for immigration reform is not, in itself, racists. Linking it
>>>to natural resource use, though, is an interesting link.
>>>
>>>The more problems a person tends to blame on "them", the more
>>>questionable the motivation
>>>
>>>Scott
>>
>>
>> Of what "race" are "them"?
>>
>
>Pick your favorite. It makes little difference, so long as "them" is not
>"us". It's just too easy to pass the buck, and blame your situation on
>others.
>
>Scott

OK........ all illegal immagrants... how is that racist ?

January 30th, 2004, 05:53 PM

rw wrote:
>
> Scott Seidman wrote:
> >
> > Asking for immigration reform is not, in itself, racists. Linking it to
> > natural resource use, though, is an interesting link.
>
> It's a natural and appropriate link. Natural resource use is directly
> related to population growth. Immigration (legal and illegal) is the
> major source of population growth in the US.

Waste and selfishness are directly related to natural resource use too,
and immigration is not the only source (or even the only "major" source)
of population growth.

What's not racist is: "Don't like pressure on natural resources?
Combating ignorance, waste, corporate greed, government policies that
discourage conservation, and population growth is the answer."

"Don't like pressure on natural resources? Write and demand immigration
reform!" is code, pure and simple. It means exactly the same thing as:

"Don't like crowded classrooms? Demand immigration reform!"

"Don't like people using government services but not paying their
taxes? Demand immigration reform!"

"Don't like crime and drugs? Demand immigration reform!"

It's disingenuous BS spewn by those racists who haven't got the balls to
speak what's really on their minds.

JR

steve sullivan

January 30th, 2004, 05:58 PM

In article >, JR > wrote:

> gary wrote [sic]:
> >
> > Don't like the pressure on our natural resourse? Then write and demand
> > immigratiion reform. Not Bushes either.
>
>
> Thanks, Gary, but I've already written and demanded that troglodyte
> racist ****heads not be allowed to fish, hunt, pick their noses,
> defecate, or breathe anywhere near any of our natural resources.
>
> I figure that should leave LOTS of room for the rest of us.

Please explain how immigration reform is racist? If you are from mexico
and have a green card and are working legally, great. If you are from
England and working illegally, you should be sent back to England. I
never understand how Mexican oranizations are for illegal immigrants to
flagrantly disregard the law.

Do you see people against Mexican's who have legally followed the law
and have a green card working here? I havent. It all about those who
break the law.

--
"Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor
security." T. Jefferson
"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security
ultimately will lose both" - Abraham Lincoln

January 30th, 2004, 06:19 PM

steve sullivan wrote:
>
> Do you see people against Mexican's who have legally followed the law
> and have a green card working here? I havent. It all about those who
> break the law.

Friend, if you believe there aren't millions of people "against"
Mexicans with legal green cards, and even against legal immigrants who
are now U.S. citizens, then your grasp on reality is as shaky as your
understanding of the use of the apostrophe.

JR

January 30th, 2004, 06:30 PM

Scott Seidman wrote:
>
> Census bureau estimates show that the natural increase (births-deaths)
> exceeds the net migration by more than 50%, at least between 2000 and 2001.
> Immigration is certainly a major player, but not --the-- major player.
> Given the current birth rates, the US tops the list of developed nations at
> 2.1 births per woman.

U.S. fertility is slightly less than replacement level and has not
exceeded replacement level since 1972. In fact, immigration is BY FAR
the most important factor in US population growth.

This web site presents what I think is a fair and responsible overview
of the problem:

http://www.susps.org/overview/immigration.html

>
> In addition, I'm not sure that Natural resource use is directly related to
> population growth in the US in this global economy. Think about how much
> of our forests get exported. You might be able to better link natural
> resource use and world population, but it might not make that much of a
> difference where the people are actually located. I might be able to float
> the argument that its the rich people and corporations in the world that
> use much of the resources, and that poor illegals contribute more to food
> production than food and resource consumption.

Just because I'm concerned about population growth in the US, that
doesn't mean I think that world-wide population growth isn't a problem.

> I think population growth is a problem as well. I have no kids. How many
> do you have?

I have two children. Does that make me less qualified than you to have
an opinion?

Clearly, immigration is a hot-button issue. Some racists use
"immigration reform" as a code word for a racist agenda. That doesn't
mean that everyone who is concerned about immigration policy a racist.
It seems like even the mention of immigration as a problem has become an
offense to political correctness. That sucks.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Thomas Gnauck

January 30th, 2004, 06:38 PM

Wow is there nothing you guys won't bite on?

I posted the link as a little penence for driving my F250 diesel the
whopping 1.3 miles to my place of work.
like it or not everybody plays on both sides of the energy debate

I guess I can take comfort in the fact that you guys are stuck inside typing
and not out clogging a river somewhere

gone fishin'
t.

January 30th, 2004, 07:05 PM

rw wrote:
>
> This web site presents what I think is a fair and responsible overview
> of the problem:
>
> http://www.susps.org/overview/immigration.html

A fair and responsible (and impartial) overview of the *situation* is
more likely to be had--and less likely to be based on skewed
"statistics"--from a group that hasn't already decided that the
situation, whatever it is, is a *problem* to be labeled (as in their
graphic on the site you posted) "Our lost future".

JR
(who nevertheless admires the fair and responsible color scheme of said
graphic)

January 30th, 2004, 07:12 PM

rw wrote:
>
> I have two children. Does that make me less qualified than you to have
> an opinion?

Heavens no. But like being a Californian muttering "I got mine" all the
way to the Idaho idyll, it's got a certain trout-in-the-milk quality to
it.

JR

Willi

January 30th, 2004, 07:13 PM

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

> "Immigration Reform" on the face of it, is no more racist than
> "State's Rights" but both are codewords for a racist agenda and
> I don't make a distinction between those who espouse a racist
> agenda and racists.
>
> When you conflate "Immigration Reform" with overpopulation, you're
> a racist. Period, end of paragraph.

That's an illogical statement. Although racists can and do make
statements linking immigration to our population growth, it's illogical
to assume the converse - that someone linking immigration to population
growth is a racist.

Willi

Ken Fortenberry

January 30th, 2004, 07:18 PM

rw wrote:
> ...
> This web site presents what I think is a fair and responsible overview
> of the problem:
>
> http://www.susps.org/overview/immigration.html
> ...

Nobody within twenty miles of a clue has cited the thoroughly discredited
Paul Ehrlich for years now. Your "fair and responsible overview" is crap.
Try here instead:

http://www.overpopulation.com/

--
Ken Fortenberry

January 30th, 2004, 07:25 PM

JR wrote:
> rw wrote:
>
>>I have two children. Does that make me less qualified than you to have
>>an opinion?
>
>
> Heavens no. But like being a Californian muttering "I got mine" all the
> way to the Idaho idyll, it's got a certain trout-in-the-milk quality to
> it.

When someone resorts to ad hominem arguments and cries of "racism,"
that's a pretty good indication that they have nothing meaningful to say.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Ken Fortenberry

January 30th, 2004, 07:27 PM

Willi wrote:

>
>
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>
>
>> "Immigration Reform" on the face of it, is no more racist than
>> "State's Rights" but both are codewords for a racist agenda and
>> I don't make a distinction between those who espouse a racist
>> agenda and racists.
>>
>> When you conflate "Immigration Reform" with overpopulation, you're
>> a racist. Period, end of paragraph.
>
>
>
> That's an illogical statement. Although racists can and do make
> statements linking immigration to our population growth, it's illogical
> to assume the converse - that someone linking immigration to population
> growth is a racist.

Don't change the argument. "Overpopulation" does not equal "population growth".
If all those icky brown people stay on their side of an imaginary and totally
arbitrary line, the world will be neither more nor less "overpopulated". And
anybody who tells you different is a racist.

--
Ken Fortenberry

January 30th, 2004, 07:31 PM

JR wrote:

> rw wrote:
>
>>This web site presents what I think is a fair and responsible overview
>>of the problem:
>>
>>http://www.susps.org/overview/immigration.html
>
>
> A fair and responsible (and impartial) overview of the *situation* is
> more likely to be had--and less likely to be based on skewed
> "statistics"--from a group that hasn't already decided that the
> situation, whatever it is, is a *problem* to be labeled (as in their
> graphic on the site you posted) "Our lost future".
>
> JR
> (who nevertheless admires the fair and responsible color scheme of said
> graphic)

I never said the web site was impartial. They have a position and they
are trying, responsibly IMO, to support it. What statistics that they
use are skewed? Are they "skewed" merely because they don't support your
position? A mere assertion on your part carries considerably less weight
than what appears to me to be a well researched and documented position
by the SUSPS.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

January 30th, 2004, 07:34 PM

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

> Try here instead:
>
> http://www.overpopulation.com/

I did. I saw absolutely nothing about immigration and its affect on US
population growth.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Scott Seidman

January 30th, 2004, 07:36 PM

rw > wrote in news:401ab0fb$0$165
:

> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>
>> Try here instead:
>>
>> http://www.overpopulation.com/
>
> I did. I saw absolutely nothing about immigration and its affect on US
> population growth.
>

Then try here:

http://www.ameristat.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/AboutPRB/Population_Bul
letin2/57.4_USPopulationFINAL.pdf

Willi

January 30th, 2004, 07:37 PM

rw wrote:

> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>
>> Try here instead:
>>
>> http://www.overpopulation.com/
>
>
> I did. I saw absolutely nothing about immigration and its affect on US
> population growth.
>

This is the only statement on the site that I could find that addressed
this issue:

"The United States seems likely to maintain its middle road and continued

world dominance. Unlike Europe, the U.S. total fertility rate hovers above

2.1 and it continues to accept more immigrants than any other nation.

As a a result, the U.S. population will likely increase by another 100

million people in the 21st century."

Maybe Ken interprets that differently than I do?

Willi

Scott Seidman

January 30th, 2004, 07:38 PM

rw > wrote in news:401ab05f$0$165
:

> A mere assertion on your part carries considerably less weight
> than what appears to me to be a well researched and documented position
> by the SUSPS.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
>

A graph that is almost 2/3 extrapolated data is hardly ever found in a well
researched document.

Keep in mind that if this graph actually displayed the descendants of
immigrants in red, it would be all red.

Scott

January 30th, 2004, 08:22 PM

Scott Seidman wrote:
> rw > wrote in news:401ab05f$0$165
> :
>
>
>>A mere assertion on your part carries considerably less weight
>>than what appears to me to be a well researched and documented position
>>by the SUSPS.
>>
>>--
>>Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
>>
>
>
> A graph that is almost 2/3 extrapolated data is hardly ever found in a well
> researched document.

Maybe you could explain how it's possible to project population growth
up to 2050 without extrapolation.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

January 30th, 2004, 08:23 PM

Scott Seidman wrote:

> rw > wrote in news:401ab0fb$0$165
> :
>
>
>>Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Try here instead:
>>>
>>>http://www.overpopulation.com/
>>
>>I did. I saw absolutely nothing about immigration and its affect on US
>>population growth.
>>
>
>
> Then try here:
>
> http://www.ameristat.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/AboutPRB/Population_Bul
> letin2/57.4_USPopulationFINAL.pdf

Sorry. That URL is too long. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Bob Weinberger

January 30th, 2004, 08:43 PM

"Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> rw > wrote in
> :
<SNIP>
> In addition, I'm not sure that Natural resource use is directly related to
> population growth in the US in this global economy. Think about how much
> of our forests get exported. You might be able to better link natural
> resource use and world population, but it might not make that much of a
> difference where the people are actually located.
<SNIP>

> Scott

Actually we are importing 30-40% of the wood products we use, while
exporting less than 8.25% of the wood we harvest, despite the fact that
total growth of wood in our forests exceeds our total current usage.

--
Bob Weinberger
Forest Management Consulting

January 30th, 2004, 08:49 PM

Bob Weinberger wrote:
> "Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
> . 1.4...
>
>>rw > wrote in
:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>In addition, I'm not sure that Natural resource use is directly related to
>>population growth in the US in this global economy. Think about how much
>>of our forests get exported. You might be able to better link natural
>>resource use and world population, but it might not make that much of a
>>difference where the people are actually located.
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>Scott
>
>
> Actually we are importing 30-40% of the wood products we use, while
> exporting less than 8.25% of the wood we harvest, despite the fact that
> total growth of wood in our forests exceeds our total current usage.

Scott?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Scott Seidman

January 30th, 2004, 08:50 PM

"Bob Weinberger" > wrote in
:

>
> "Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
> . 1.4...
>> rw > wrote in
>> :
> <SNIP>
>> In addition, I'm not sure that Natural resource use is directly
>> related to population growth in the US in this global economy. Think
>> about how much of our forests get exported. You might be able to
>> better link natural resource use and world population, but it might
>> not make that much of a difference where the people are actually
>> located.
> <SNIP>
>
>> Scott
>
> Actually we are importing 30-40% of the wood products we use, while
> exporting less than 8.25% of the wood we harvest, despite the fact
> that total growth of wood in our forests exceeds our total current
> usage.
>
>
> --
> Bob Weinberger
> Forest Management Consulting
>
>
>
>

I stand corrected!

Just out of curiosity, how much of that exported wood is raw lumber, vs
processed lumber (like furniture or some such)? I assume most of the
imports are processed.

Scott

Scott Seidman

January 30th, 2004, 08:52 PM

rw > wrote in
:

> Bob Weinberger wrote:
>> "Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
>> . 1.4...
>>
>>>rw > wrote in
:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>In addition, I'm not sure that Natural resource use is directly
>>>related to population growth in the US in this global economy. Think
>>>about how much of our forests get exported. You might be able to
>>>better link natural resource use and world population, but it might
>>>not make that much of a difference where the people are actually
>>>located.
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>>Scott
>>
>>
>> Actually we are importing 30-40% of the wood products we use, while
>> exporting less than 8.25% of the wood we harvest, despite the fact
>> that total growth of wood in our forests exceeds our total current
>> usage.
>
> Scott?
>

Must be all them illegals.

Scott Seidman

January 30th, 2004, 08:57 PM

David Snedeker

January 30th, 2004, 09:20 PM

"steve sullivan" > wrote in message
...
>
> Please explain how immigration reform is racist? If you are from mexico
> and have a green card and are working legally, great.

Its not. In all deference to friends who disagree . . . . the fact that they
jump to the race card right away, in my experience co-insides with ignorance
of the issue. Its right up there with the bull**** that immigrants don't
cost the society. Anyone who has worked in a few social service/jobs,
welfare or human resource development programs knows better. This whole
area is a blind spot for libs, just like some of the asinine blind spots in
the "conservative" mentality. Interestingly many right-wingers of the
"pro-oligarchy" mode also favor PRO-SLAVE-IMMIGRATION POLICIES.

One thing I've noticed with my lib friends . . . for all their quickness in
jumping to the race card on these issues: if we are in a minority-heavy
situation, they often get weird, stop looking service people in the eye, get
freaky about the food, and persnickety about "service", or even talking to
people. Then afterward they get all preachy. Not all of them, but its
occurred enough for me to notice, particularly in Latino environments and
inner city Afro-American environments. And Im talking here about libs who
were often in social policy or employment situations. Sorry libs, but just
blabbing some outdated 1970ish crap doesn't cut it. Its just a different
side of the same crap from the Right.

Like a lot of things, immigration issues and immigration reform are a lot
more nuanced than simple-minded ideological thinking and slogan shouting can
deal with. Having now probably offended everyone I remain . . .

Dave
Ideology Sucks.

January 30th, 2004, 09:22 PM

Scott Seidman wrote:
>
> Also, shows we have room for some more people.

I see. Whether we net-export a lot of wood products (your original
assertion, unfounded though it was, based on nothing more substantial
than some vague, anecdotal belief) or net-import a lot of wood products
(the actual fact, according to ROFF-resident forrestor Bob Weinberger),
your answer is the same: continued high levels of immigration. It's kind
of like the Republicans and tax cuts -- they're good for what ails ya,
whatever it might be.

I'd like to see a stable population that can use sustainable levels of
resources. I'd like to see this worldwide. Unfortunately, I don't have a
worldwide vote.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Bob Weinberger

January 30th, 2004, 09:42 PM

"Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Bob Weinberger" > wrote in
> :

> > Actually we are importing 30-40% of the wood products we use, while
> > exporting less than 8.25% of the wood we harvest, despite the fact
> > that total growth of wood in our forests exceeds our total current
> > usage.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Bob Weinberger
> > Forest Management Consulting
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I stand corrected!
>
> Just out of curiosity, how much of that exported wood is raw lumber, vs
> processed lumber (like furniture or some such)? I assume most of the
> imports are processed.
>
> Scott

While the majority of what we export is in raw logs and pulp chips, and the
majority of what we import is in at least partially finished products
(mostly sawn lumber for construction or further processing), the specific
ratios/mixes are quite complex, and getting a definitive answer to your
question would take more effort than I'm willing to give - unless of course
you are willing to fund me to undertake such a project.

--
Bob Weinberger
Forest Management Consulting

Scott Seidman

January 30th, 2004, 09:44 PM

"David Snedeker" > wrote in news:bvehqs$fot$0@
216.39.135.226:

> "steve sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Please explain how immigration reform is racist? If you are from mexico
>> and have a green card and are working legally, great.
>
> Its not. In all deference to friends who disagree . . . .

Again, I don't think anyone here is saying that immigration reform is
racist--I haven't seen anyone doing that, anyway. We're (or at least,
I'm) saying that blaming overpopulation and increasing human impact on
immigration policy is not right.

There are many things with higher environmental impact than immigration,
like energy policy, or destructive mining practices, for example. Of
course, one could use environmental impact arguments to advance the cause
of immigration reform. We're seeing that here, and that's the source of my
criticism.

If I had meant to say that immigration reform is racist, I would have said
so. I did not.

Scott

Scott Seidman

January 30th, 2004, 10:00 PM

rw > wrote in news:401aca69$0$159
:

> Scott Seidman wrote:
>>
>> Also, shows we have room for some more people.
>
> I see. Whether we net-export a lot of wood products (your original
> assertion, unfounded though it was, based on nothing more substantial
> than some vague, anecdotal belief) or net-import a lot of wood products
> (the actual fact, according to ROFF-resident forrestor Bob Weinberger),
> your answer is the same: continued high levels of immigration. It's
kind
> of like the Republicans and tax cuts -- they're good for what ails ya,
> whatever it might be.
>
> I'd like to see a stable population that can use sustainable levels of
> resources. I'd like to see this worldwide. Unfortunately, I don't have
a
> worldwide vote.
>

Do I need to put a smiley at the end of every damn joke I make?

My original argument still hasn't been countered. I don't believe that
immigration is a major input to environmental impact and natural resource
use. Water wars and range wars have been going on in the west since the
west was settled. Apparently, trees are growing out of our ears. We
have enough iron, salt, bauxite, copper, aluminum, etc., whether its
naturally present or imported. Of course, we could use more oil, coal,
natural gas, but you can hardly blame that on immigration, rather than
flawed energy policy. Point to the resource that is being eaten up in a
major way by immigrants (with the possible exception of below-living-wage
jobs), in a manner more substantial than major energy policy and
destructive mining practice, and I'll consider changing my opinion that
arguing for immigration reform from a natural resource standpoint is
racist.

FWIW, I frown on illegal immigration, I believe that the argument that
"citizens don't want to do that kind of work" would fall apart under
living wage legislation (and yes, we would pay more for food), and I
consider the current arrangement to be little better than indentured
servitude. Legal immigration is what's made our country what it is
today. It's why you are here, it's why I am here.

Scott

steve sullivan

January 30th, 2004, 10:12 PM

In article >,
Ken Fortenberry > wrote:

> Don't change the argument. "Overpopulation" does not equal "population
> growth".
> If all those icky brown people stay on their side of an imaginary and totally
> arbitrary line, the world will be neither more nor less "overpopulated". And
> anybody who tells you different is a racist.

Immigration reform is not about keeping Mexicans out of the US. It is
about keeping those who come illegally out. I am all for People of all
colors getting a green card and coming here, or becoming a citizen.

Which countrys allow unlimited immigration for any reason? Can I just
sneak into Germany without any papers and be legal? Can I decide to
live and work in Mexico without having any papers?

--
"Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor
security." T. Jefferson
"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security
ultimately will lose both" - Abraham Lincoln

January 30th, 2004, 10:17 PM

Scott Seidman wrote:
>
> Again, I don't think anyone here is saying that immigration reform is
> racist--I haven't seen anyone doing that, anyway.

When Bones asked, "Of what 'race' are 'them', you replied:

"Pick your favorite. It makes little difference, so long as 'them' is
not 'us'. It's just too easy to pass the buck, and blame your situation
on others."

For you to claim that you're not taking the side of "immigration reform
equals racist" is disingenuous.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

steve sullivan

January 30th, 2004, 10:18 PM

In article >, JR > wrote:

> steve sullivan wrote:
> >
> > Do you see people against Mexican's who have legally followed the law
> > and have a green card working here? I havent. It all about those who
> > break the law.
>
> Friend, if you believe there aren't millions of people "against"
> Mexicans with legal green cards, and even against legal immigrants who
> are now U.S. citizens, then your grasp on reality is as shaky as your
> understanding of the use of the apostrophe.

Sure I believe there are millions of people against Mexicans. I also
believe there are millions of people against blacks, againt chinese,
against jews, etc etc.

But wanting to deport illegal aliens does not make one a racist. That
is about following the rules.

--
"Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor
security." T. Jefferson
"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security
ultimately will lose both" - Abraham Lincoln

January 30th, 2004, 11:35 PM

Scott Seidman wrote:
>
> Point to the resource that is being eaten up in a
> major way by immigrants (with the possible exception of below-living-wage
> jobs), in a manner more substantial than major energy policy and
> destructive mining practice, and I'll consider changing my opinion that
> arguing for immigration reform from a natural resource standpoint is
> racist.

It's a simple exercise in logic:

current immigration rate => population growth

population growth => growth in demand for resources

Therefore,

current immigration rate => growth in demand for resources

That's not to say that there aren't other factors besides population
growth that can affect demand for resources, or that there aren't other
ways besides restricting immigration to deal with the problem. It seems
undeniable to me, however, that the current rate of immigration will
lead to a much higher population in the not-so-distant future.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Scott Seidman

January 30th, 2004, 11:40 PM

rw > wrote in
:

> Scott Seidman wrote:
>>
>> Again, I don't think anyone here is saying that immigration reform
>> is racist--I haven't seen anyone doing that, anyway.
>
> When Bones asked, "Of what 'race' are 'them', you replied:
>
> "Pick your favorite. It makes little difference, so long as 'them' is
> not 'us'. It's just too easy to pass the buck, and blame your
> situation on others."
>
> For you to claim that you're not taking the side of "immigration
> reform equals racist" is disingenuous.
>

OK, let's start again, In response to Ken, bones asked:

>>>
>>> how is asking for immgration reform racist?
>>

I answered:

>>Asking for immigration reform is not, in itself, racists (sic).
>>Linking it to natural resource use, though, is an interesting link.
>>
>>The more problems a person tends to blame on "them", the more
>>questionable the motivation
>>
>>Scott
>

Bones:
>
> Of what "race" are "them"?
>

me:
Pick your favorite. It makes little difference, so long as "them" is
not "us". It's just too easy to pass the buck, and blame your situation
on others.

Scott

Its a thread, and every one of my replies should be read in the context
of that thread. Passing the buck, of course, refers to the blame of
"them"-- the immigrants-- for the destruction or overuse of natural
resources. I've been pretty consistant here.

I've said almost nothing about immigration reform, or my thoughts on it.
The only thing I've said about it is that it isn't right to blame the
destruction or overuse of natural resources on immigration policy. To
do so, I feel, makes no more sense than "My car breaks down often
because of the damn illegal immigrants", or "those damn illegal
immigrants are keeping the best caviar for themselves". Do those last
hypothetical statements seem a little paranoid or misguided to you?
Well, that's what linking resource depletion and immigration sounds like
to me. I'd try to simplify this further for you, but I can only type
ASCII on the usenet--crayons just aren't available.

You, however, have vouched for this link between immigration and
resources:
>>It's a natural and appropriate link. Natural resource use is directly
>>related to population growth. Immigration (legal and illegal) is the
>>major source of population growth in the US.

Personally, I think it takes big brass balls to say this when people of
means are driving around city streets in 15 mpg heavy SUV's they feel
compelled to replace every three years (what do you drive, by the way,
and how old is it?). Extravagance and poor energy policy eat a whole
bunch more resources than immigration, legal or otherwise. Conservation
can protect our resources oodles better than immigration policy. This
is why I don't think the link you refer to is natural or appropriate.

I've asked you to back up your statement by telling me which of our
natural resources are in jeopardy largely because of immigration. You
seem to want to duck this direct question by insisting that I believe
that immigration reform is tantamount to racism. I believe no such
thing. I can understand people who have trouble with current policy.
Immigration certainly changes the flavor, language, and culture of the
United States. In many ways, I like our culture the way it is, but to a
large extent our culture has changed constantly during the 350 or so
years since British began colonizing North America, and it will continue
to do so. The US isn't the only place in the world dramatic changes
like this are happening, either. Like it or not, the country is
globalizing. The whole world is becoming a melting pot, and countries
with histories far longer than our own handful of centuries are changing
dramatically. I'm sure those countries have their share of people
whining about it too. Times change because of globalization, no doubt
about it, but I think I can accept that change. Would I think this way
if I were living in a region more highly impacted by immigration policy?
Who knows. I like to think I would.

Frankly, though, I'd rather be accused of associating immigration reform
with racism than the belief that immigration is largely responsible for
natural resource depletion.

Scott

Scott Seidman

January 30th, 2004, 11:47 PM

rw > wrote in
:

> Scott Seidman wrote:
>>
>> Point to the resource that is being eaten up in a
>> major way by immigrants (with the possible exception of
>> below-living-wage jobs), in a manner more substantial than major
>> energy policy and destructive mining practice, and I'll consider
>> changing my opinion that arguing for immigration reform from a
>> natural resource standpoint is racist.
>
> It's a simple exercise in logic:
>
> current immigration rate => population growth
>
> population growth => growth in demand for resources
>
> Therefore,
>
> current immigration rate => growth in demand for resources
>
> That's not to say that there aren't other factors besides population
> growth that can affect demand for resources, or that there aren't
> other ways besides restricting immigration to deal with the problem.
> It seems undeniable to me, however, that the current rate of
> immigration will lead to a much higher population in the
> not-so-distant future.
>

Your logic is a little stiff.

Of course increased population increases demand on natural resources. It
just doesn't increase the demand anywhere near as much as simple
extravagance, wasteful energy policy, poor conservation efforts, and
downright greed. Targeting immigration to combat resource depletion is
like treating leprosy with acne cream. There are those who would target
immigration to combat resource depletion, and I suggest that the deep
motives behind that action might just be racist.

Scott

Willi

January 30th, 2004, 11:56 PM

Scott Seidman wrote:

> My original argument still hasn't been countered. I don't believe that
> immigration is a major input to environmental impact and natural resource
> use. Water wars and range wars have been going on in the west since the
> west was settled. Apparently, trees are growing out of our ears. We
> have enough iron, salt, bauxite, copper, aluminum, etc., whether its
> naturally present or imported. Of course, we could use more oil, coal,
> natural gas, but you can hardly blame that on immigration, rather than
> flawed energy policy. Point to the resource that is being eaten up in a
> major way by immigrants (with the possible exception of below-living-wage
> jobs), in a manner more substantial than major energy policy and
> destructive mining practice, and I'll consider changing my opinion that
> arguing for immigration reform from a natural resource standpoint is
> racist.

I agree that in terms of environmental and natural resource usage,
overall in the US the impact is minimal today. However, all things
remaining the same, a growing population does put more demands on
environment and results in greater natural resource usage. Personally,
I'm for negative population growth and part of the reason is to reduce
the impact on the environment and our natural resources. I'm for very
limited immigration. I very well may be misguided, ignorant or wrong,
but I sincerely don't understand how that is racist.

>
> FWIW, I frown on illegal immigration, I believe that the argument that
> "citizens don't want to do that kind of work" would fall apart under
> living wage legislation (and yes, we would pay more for food), and I
> consider the current arrangement to be little better than indentured
> servitude.

I agree with that. Why is it that it seems the "free market system" that
is proposed as THE answer by many, applies to the business world but not
to the worker. If someone can't find Americans to do a specific job, it
seems to me all that means is that the workers aren't being offered
enough money.

Legal immigration is what's made our country what it is
> today. It's why you are here, it's why I am here.

Yeah, that sounds good, but the implication from that statement is that
we should have no immigration regulations or they should at least be as
generous as when our ancestors came into the Country. There are few
people that are going to say that we should totally open our borders to
whoever wishes to come.

Willi

Willi

January 30th, 2004, 11:57 PM

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

>> That's an illogical statement. Although racists can and do make
>> statements linking immigration to our population growth, it's illogical
>> to assume the converse - that someone linking immigration to population
>> growth is a racist.
>
>
> Don't change the argument. "Overpopulation" does not equal "population
> growth".
> If all those icky brown people stay on their side of an imaginary and
> totally
> arbitrary line, the world will be neither more nor less "overpopulated".
> And
> anybody who tells you different is a racist.
>

Who in the hell made such a statement? The person that would make such a
statement may be a racist but he sure as hell would be stupid. Obviously
the world population would stay the same, but not the populations of the
countries involved.

Willi

Wayne Harrison

January 31st, 2004, 12:24 AM

"Willi" > wrote

Personally,
> I'm for negative population growth and part of the reason is to reduce
> the impact on the environment and our natural resources. I'm for very
> limited immigration. I very well may be misguided, ignorant or wrong,
> but I sincerely don't understand how that is racist.

i desperately attempt to avoid posting to political/religious threads,
but i must say that your viewpoint, above, is the only rational position to
take, if one hopes to maintain any marginal resemblance to our present
environment.

yfitons
wayno

January 31st, 2004, 12:45 AM

Scott Seidman wrote:
>
> destruction or overuse of natural resources on immigration policy. To
> do so, I feel, makes no more sense than "My car breaks down often
> because of the damn illegal immigrants", or "those damn illegal
> immigrants are keeping the best caviar for themselves". Do those last
> hypothetical statements seem a little paranoid or misguided to you?

Absolutely.

> Well, that's what linking resource depletion and immigration sounds like
> to me.

Bizarre. I guess it will do no good, therefore, to try to reason with
you any more. EOT for me -- and this time I really mean it. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Ken Fortenberry

January 31st, 2004, 12:53 AM

Willi wrote:
>
> Who in the hell made such a statement? The person that would make such a
> statement may be a racist but he sure as hell would be stupid. Obviously
> the world population would stay the same, but not the populations of the
> countries involved.

gary wrote:

> Don't like the pressure on our natural resourse? Then write and demand
> immigratiion reform. Not Bushes either.

That answer your question ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

bones

January 31st, 2004, 01:19 AM

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:53:50 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

>Willi wrote:
>>
>> Who in the hell made such a statement? The person that would make such a
>> statement may be a racist but he sure as hell would be stupid. Obviously
>> the world population would stay the same, but not the populations of the
>> countries involved.
>
>gary wrote:
>
> > Don't like the pressure on our natural resourse? Then write and demand
> > immigratiion reform. Not Bushes either.
>
>
>That answer your question ?

If the "reform" stated, say, no more Hispanic people are to be let
into the country, then I could see, and agree ,that the statement is
racist. But to equate the call for any reform as racist is no more
than an attempt, not unlike the Sierra Club I may add, to stop all
discussion. The fact that those who may ask for this dialogue are
labeled by you as "fruitcakes" and racists attests to the reality
that you have no viable argument to even defend your assertion.

So again I ask: how is calling for reform racist?

Willi

January 31st, 2004, 01:30 AM

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

> Willi wrote:
>
>>
>> Who in the hell made such a statement? The person that would make such a
>> statement may be a racist but he sure as hell would be stupid. Obviously
>> the world population would stay the same, but not the populations of the
>> countries involved.
>
>
> gary wrote:
>
> > Don't like the pressure on our natural resourse? Then write and demand
> > immigratiion reform. Not Bushes either.
>
>
> That answer your question ?
>

No, he said nothing about world over population being caused by immigration.

Did you forget what you said?

"Don't change the argument. "Overpopulation" does not equal "population
growth".
If all those icky brown people stay on their side of an imaginary and
totally
arbitrary line, the world will be neither more nor less "overpopulated". And
anybody who tells you different is a racist."

Willi

Ken Fortenberry

January 31st, 2004, 01:59 AM

bones wrote:
>
> If the "reform" stated, say, no more Hispanic people are to be let
> into the country, then I could see, and agree ,that the statement is
> racist. But to equate the call for any reform as racist is no more
> than an attempt, not unlike the Sierra Club I may add, to stop all
> discussion.

I don't equate the call for "any reform" as racist. I equate the
call for "Immigration Reform" based on "overpopulation" as racist.
And it is racist, and you know it's racist, and that's why you're
trying to defend your racist code words here.

Give it up.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Wolfgang

January 31st, 2004, 02:41 AM

"Tim J." > wrote in message
...

> I really don't have anything to add, but I thought Warren should read
this.
> :)))

And, as he hasn't typed anything in response, one almost has to wonder where
his fingers have been for the past ten hours or so. :)

Wolfgang
who, in a like situation, is not at all sure that he could resist the
temptation to respond to something that he hadn't seen.

bones

January 31st, 2004, 03:02 AM

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:59:05 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

>bones wrote:
>>
>> If the "reform" stated, say, no more Hispanic people are to be let
>> into the country, then I could see, and agree ,that the statement is
>> racist. But to equate the call for any reform as racist is no more
>> than an attempt, not unlike the Sierra Club I may add, to stop all
>> discussion.
>
>I don't equate the call for "any reform" as racist. I equate the
>call for "Immigration Reform" based on "overpopulation" as racist.
>And it is racist, and you know it's racist, and that's why you're
>trying to defend your racist code words here.
>
>Give it up.

nothing more than a dodge. which is "code" for you can't answer my
question. Please quote my use of the word "overpopulation" in this
thread......

Wolfgang

January 31st, 2004, 03:04 AM

"Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
. 1.4...

> Your logic is a little stiff.

A natural and inevitable consequence of stupidity.

> Of course increased population increases demand on natural resources. It
> just doesn't increase the demand anywhere near as much as simple
> extravagance, wasteful energy policy, poor conservation efforts, and
> downright greed. Targeting immigration to combat resource depletion is
> like treating leprosy with acne cream. There are those who would target
> immigration to combat resource depletion, and I suggest that the deep
> motives behind that action might just be racist.

There ain't no maybe about it. It is a sad but undeniable fact that ROFF
is, like the larger society which it mirrors with surprising fidelity,
riddled with racists, misogynists, bigots, and sundry other unsavory
individuals of every stripe. That they manage to masquerade more or less
successfully as something else much of the time is less a testament to their
own prowess as liars than to the eager suspension of disbelief on the part
of their audience.

Wolfgang

Ken Fortenberry

January 31st, 2004, 03:16 AM

bones wrote:
>
> nothing more than a dodge. which is "code" for you can't answer my
> question. Please quote my use of the word "overpopulation" in this
> thread......

Did you have a question ? No Harry, you don't have any questions, all
you have is cutesy code words designed to dance the semantic fandango
around a racist agenda. **** you and all your racist code words, your
incredulous posturing fools no one here, except perhaps yourself.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Tim J.

January 31st, 2004, 03:31 AM

"Wolfgang" wrote...
> "Tim J." wrote...
>
> > I really don't have anything to add, but I thought Warren should read
> this.
> > :)))
>
> And, as he hasn't typed anything in response, one almost has to wonder where
> his fingers have been for the past ten hours or so. :)
>
> Wolfgang
> who, in a like situation, is not at all sure that he could resist the
> temptation to respond to something that he hadn't seen.

Then again, it's quite possible there are two entries in his bozo bin. . .
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Wolfgang

January 31st, 2004, 04:05 AM

"Willi" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree that in terms of environmental and natural resource usage,
> overall in the US the impact is minimal today. However, all things
> remaining the same, a growing population does put more demands on
> environment and results in greater natural resource usage.

Well, all things do not necessarily remain the same. A growing population
may or may not put greater demands on resources. It depends on what that
population is doing, and how they do it. If, for example, population
growth results from an increase in the number of individuals living at or
near a subsistence level while the ostentatious superconsumers are
declining, the net resource use can actually decline. Things aren't always
as simple as they appear at a glance.

> Personally,
> I'm for negative population growth and part of the reason is to reduce
> the impact on the environment and our natural resources.

Me too.

> I'm for very limited immigration.

At a glance, that position might appear to follow naturally from your last
assertion above. It doesn't. For one thing, "very limited" could mean just
about anything. And, of course, immigration may or may not play a
significant role in population growth......or decline. It is instructive, I
think, to bear in mind that without successive massive waves of immigrants
(most of whom were unwelcome, at least, among large segments of the "native"
population at the time) America (and not a few other places in the so-called
Western Hemisphere as well) would be a vastly different place than it is
today, and the arguments against their inclusion haven't changed in any
substantive way for the past couple of centuries.

> I very well may be misguided, ignorant or wrong,
> but I sincerely don't understand how that is racist.

Well, it is if it comes from a racist and it isn't if it doesn't. The trick
is learning to identify racists.......and it isn't much of a trick. They
have an uncanny knack for making themselves easy to spot. For example,
anyone who uses the term "politically correct" (or any variation thereof) as
an epithet has pretty much hoisted the Jooly Roger in your face.

> > FWIW, I frown on illegal immigration, I believe that the argument that
> > "citizens don't want to do that kind of work" would fall apart under
> > living wage legislation (and yes, we would pay more for food), and I
> > consider the current arrangement to be little better than indentured
> > servitude.
>
>
> I agree with that. Why is it that it seems the "free market system" that
> is proposed as THE answer by many, applies to the business world but not
> to the worker.

One is forced either to assume that this is a rhetorical question or simply
abandon all hope for humanity.

> If someone can't find Americans to do a specific job, it
> seems to me all that means is that the workers aren't being offered
> enough money.

Mmmm.......more or less true. Who was it that said something to the effect
of, the vast maority of people work all their lives and never get anything
for it but money?

> Legal immigration is what's made our country what it is
> > today. It's why you are here, it's why I am here.
>
>
> Yeah, that sounds good, but the implication from that statement is that
> we should have no immigration regulations or they should at least be as
> generous as when our ancestors came into the Country.

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. What it DOES do is suggest that
reactionary opposition to immigration, which is to say the rampant and
blatant racism underlying nearly all "reform" movements, is ill advised.
The reminder that immigration is what built the most powerful nation in the
history of the world is nothing more than an invitation to do what the
majority finds most repugnant......to THINK.

> There are few
> people that are going to say that we should totally open our borders to
> whoever wishes to come.

Very few. And of those few, most, as is also true of their opponents, are
fools.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

January 31st, 2004, 04:11 AM

"Bob Weinberger" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> While the majority of what we export is in raw logs and pulp chips, and
the
> majority of what we import is in at least partially finished products
> (mostly sawn lumber for construction or further processing), the specific
> ratios/mixes are quite complex, and getting a definitive answer to your
> question would take more effort than I'm willing to give - unless of
course
> you are willing to fund me to undertake such a project.

What would it cost to get you to address Scott's original point which, since
no one seems inclined to read it, I will state he apparently tried to
illustrate with an invitation to consider U.S. forest exports?

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

January 31st, 2004, 04:19 AM

"steve sullivan" > wrote in message
...

> ...Which countrys allow unlimited immigration for any reason?...

None. And, as I understand the word "none" this would necessarily mean that
the U.S. does not allow unlimited immigration for any reason. Now, exactly
how would you like to change this.......and why?

Wolfgang

bones

January 31st, 2004, 04:40 AM

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:16:44 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> wrote:

>bones wrote:
>>
>> nothing more than a dodge. which is "code" for you can't answer my
>> question. Please quote my use of the word "overpopulation" in this
>> thread......
>
>Did you have a question ? No Harry, you don't have any questions, all
>you have is cutesy code words designed to dance the semantic fandango
>around a racist agenda. **** you and all your racist code words, your
>incredulous posturing fools no one here, except perhaps yourself.

and once again it boils down to you telling people to ****
off...projecting peoples "code words" to fit you preconceptions must
make you one lonely Son of Bitch.
No code words in that statement Ken, no matter how desperately you may
need them to be there.

Wolfgang

January 31st, 2004, 04:50 AM

"Tim J." > wrote in message
news:mkFSb.145185$Rc4.1170713@attbi_s54...
>
> "Wolfgang" wrote...
> > "Tim J." wrote...
> >
> > > I really don't have anything to add, but I thought Warren should read
> > this.
> > > :)))
> >
> > And, as he hasn't typed anything in response, one almost has to wonder
where
> > his fingers have been for the past ten hours or so. :)
> >
> > Wolfgang
> > who, in a like situation, is not at all sure that he could resist the
> > temptation to respond to something that he hadn't seen.
>
> Then again, it's quite possible there are two entries in his bozo bin. . .

Well, if you're referring to my evil twin Skippy, yeah, even I ****canned
that ******* a long time ago......um.....or did you have someone else in
mind? :)

Meanwhile, which you do think is inherently more amusing, someone who
pretends he doesn't read something and cannot refrain from responding
anyway.....or someone who pretends he doesn't read something and finds
himself in the excruciatingly untenable position of being unable to respond
for fear of tipping his hand.....and taking yet another beating? In either
case, I think you'll agree, one is hard pressed to understand why the simple
expedient of keeping their eyes open and NOT eating boogers never occurred
to them and, of course, one must be grateful that it hasn't and in all
likelihood it never will unless they read this......or even if they do, for
that matter. Hee, hee, hee.

Wolfgang

[email protected]

January 31st, 2004, 05:40 AM

On 30 Jan 2004 21:20:28 GMT, "David Snedeker"
> wrote:

(greatly snipped)

> they often get weird, stop looking service people in the eye, get
>freaky about the food, and persnickety about "service", or even talking to
>people.

Hey, I've been that lib. It's a bummer to realize it, too. I still
can't figure if it was fear, unfamiliarity, or finding the shoe on the
other foot. Probably a combination, as it's not always the case.
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Bob Weinberger

January 31st, 2004, 06:53 AM

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Weinberger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > While the majority of what we export is in raw logs and pulp chips, and
> the
> > majority of what we import is in at least partially finished products
> > (mostly sawn lumber for construction or further processing), the
specific
> > ratios/mixes are quite complex, and getting a definitive answer to your
> > question would take more effort than I'm willing to give - unless of
> course
> > you are willing to fund me to undertake such a project.
>
> What would it cost to get you to address Scott's original point which,
since
> no one seems inclined to read it, I will state he apparently tried to
> illustrate with an invitation to consider U.S. forest exports?
>
> Wolfgang
>

I'm not sure I understand your specific question. I thought that I had
already responded to his original point -

"In addition, I'm not sure that Natural resource use is directly related to
population growth in the US in this global economy. Think about how much
of our forests get exported. You might be able to better link natural
resource use and world population, but it might not make that much of a
difference where the people are actually located."

Which I took to be based on a belief on his part that that we are net
exporters of forest wood.

His subsequent response of "I stand corrected!" to my response of:
" Actually we are importing 30-40% of the wood products we use, while
exporting less than 8.25% of the wood we harvest, despite the fact that
total growth of wood in our forests exceeds our total current usage."
seemed to validate my interpretation re: his original point.

(BTW those figures are *relatively*easily derived from various publications
of the USDA and the Commerce Department)

To provide a more definitive answer to his query, "Just out of curiosity,
how much of that exported wood is raw lumber, vs
processed lumber (like furniture or some such)? I assume most of the
imports are processed.", than the one I gave above would take at least a
week ( more likely several weeks) of intensive digging and verifying of
sources. To my knowledge no agency attempts to keep accurate data on global
wood trade at that detailed a level. While my rates are significantly
below those of most lawyers, 40-100+ billable hours would represent a
substantial sum.

--
Bob Weinberger
Forest Management Consulting

>

Warren

January 31st, 2004, 07:26 AM

wrote...
> Then again, it's quite possible there are two entries in his bozo bin. . .

No, just one.
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt (at) yahoo to reply via email)
For Conclave Info:
http://www.geocities.com/troutbum_mt3/MadisonConclave.html

Wolfgang

January 31st, 2004, 01:34 PM

"Warren" > wrote in message
...
> wrote...
> > Then again, it's quite possible there are two entries in his bozo bin. .
..
>
> No, just one.

And THAT is a damning testament, if ever there was one.

Ya'll should be ashamed of yourselves. :)

Wolfgang

Ken Fortenberry

January 31st, 2004, 01:39 PM

Wolfgang wrote:
> "Warren" wrote:
wrote...
>>
>>>Then again, it's quite possible there are two entries in his bozo bin. .
>
>
>>No, just one.
>
>
> And THAT is a damning testament, if ever there was one.
>
> Ya'll should be ashamed of yourselves. :)

I'm kinda, sorta, half-assed in the Californicator Cowboy's bozo bin,
so I suppose I have a little less to be ashamed of than some. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Wolfgang

January 31st, 2004, 01:40 PM

"Bob Weinberger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Weinberger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > While the majority of what we export is in raw logs and pulp chips,
and
> > the
> > > majority of what we import is in at least partially finished products
> > > (mostly sawn lumber for construction or further processing), the
> specific
> > > ratios/mixes are quite complex, and getting a definitive answer to
your
> > > question would take more effort than I'm willing to give - unless of
> > course
> > > you are willing to fund me to undertake such a project.
> >
> > What would it cost to get you to address Scott's original point which,
> since
> > no one seems inclined to read it, I will state he apparently tried to
> > illustrate with an invitation to consider U.S. forest exports?
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
>
> I'm not sure I understand your specific question. I thought that I had
> already responded to his original point -
>
> "In addition, I'm not sure that Natural resource use is directly related
to
> population growth in the US in this global economy. Think about how much
> of our forests get exported. You might be able to better link natural
> resource use and world population, but it might not make that much of a
> difference where the people are actually located."
>
> Which I took to be based on a belief on his part that that we are net
> exporters of forest wood.
>
> His subsequent response of "I stand corrected!" to my response of:
> " Actually we are importing 30-40% of the wood products we use, while
> exporting less than 8.25% of the wood we harvest, despite the fact that
> total growth of wood in our forests exceeds our total current usage."
> seemed to validate my interpretation re: his original point.
>
> (BTW those figures are *relatively*easily derived from various
publications
> of the USDA and the Commerce Department)
>
> To provide a more definitive answer to his query, "Just out of curiosity,
> how much of that exported wood is raw lumber, vs
> processed lumber (like furniture or some such)? I assume most of the
> imports are processed.", than the one I gave above would take at least a
> week ( more likely several weeks) of intensive digging and verifying of
> sources. To my knowledge no agency attempts to keep accurate data on
global
> wood trade at that detailed a level. While my rates are significantly
> below those of most lawyers, 40-100+ billable hours would represent a
> substantial sum.
>
>
> --
> Bob Weinberger
> Forest Management Consulting

Yeah, that's what I thought. And so we see once again, boys and girls, that
there is no one in this world so easily led astray as an expert.....or a
ROFFian....but then, to borrow a phrase from Mr. Clemens, I repeat myself.

Wolfgang

Tim J.

January 31st, 2004, 02:24 PM

"Wolfgang" wrote...
> "Warren" wrote...
> > Tim J. wrote...
> > > Then again, it's quite possible there are two entries in his bozo bin. .
> >
> > No, just one.
>
> And THAT is a damning testament, if ever there was one.
>
> Ya'll should be ashamed of yourselves. :)
>
> Wolfgang

To honor Warren's commitment to this endeavor, I will no longer respond to any
of your posts. At very least, I will snip all of the contents.

Oops! I'll get the hang of this soon enough. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Bob Weinberger

January 31st, 2004, 07:08 PM

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...

> Yeah, that's what I thought. And so we see once again, boys and girls,
that
> there is no one in this world so easily led astray as an expert.....or a
> ROFFian....but then, to borrow a phrase from Mr. Clemens, I repeat myself.
>
> Wolfgang

Well on further thought and reflection, I think I understand the nature of
your question.

I don't believe that I was lead astray, though that's not a difficult task
for someone to accomplish. I never strayed from my agenda of simply
pointing out that, whatever the merits of his point "You might be able to
better link natural resource use and world population, but it might not make
that much of a difference where the people are actually located." , he had
chosen a poor example to use to illustrate it, since the example was based
on an incorrect assumption. I think that the point he states is valid.
However, I certainly don't consider myself an expert on the specific impacts
of global population on resource use, and I try to avoid answering
questions - especially in a public forum - that I don't have good data or at
least a good logical basis to answer. An honest consultant will be as ready
to point out those questions which he considers himself no more qualified to
answer than most anyone else, as he is to answer those questions on which he
has expertise.

I tend to think that our immigration policy has many problems, not the least
of which is the vulnerability of illegal aliens to exploitation, and that
our policy needs to be reformed. However, I am clueless as to what type of
reform would solve many of the existing problems without creating new
problems and/or exacerbating some of the existing ones, so I try to avoid
direct entry into such debates.

--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

Wayne Knight

February 1st, 2004, 01:24 AM

"steve sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, JR > wrote:
>

>
> Do you see people against Mexican's who have legally followed the law
> and have a green card working here? I havent.

You haven't been in SW Kansas lately have you?

David Snedeker

February 1st, 2004, 04:57 AM

> wrote in message
...
> On 30 Jan 2004 21:20:28 GMT, "David Snedeker"
> > wrote:
>
> (greatly snipped)
>
> > they often get weird, stop looking service people in the eye, get
> >freaky about the food, and persnickety about "service", or even talking
to
> >people.
>
> Hey, I've been that lib. It's a bummer to realize it, too. I still
> can't figure if it was fear, unfamiliarity, or finding the shoe on the
> other foot. Probably a combination, as it's not always the case.
> --

I think its a normal and honest reaction. I just can't stand the
defensive/denial preachy stuff that somesuchfolk seem to feel is necessary
afterward to compensate for a feeling that they do not want to acknowledge.

That feeling should be a reminder that difference is real, and openness to
real difference mostly needs to be conscious. By real difference I mean
situations in which whatever the "You" is, is not in control, numerically,
power-wise etc.. Situations where the difference is not merely racial or
linguistic. That feeling that probably creeps out of our primordial nose
curl when we accidentally stepped into a strange camp clearing, instantly
smelled that it weren't aunties rabbits cooking and gripped our spear just a
little tighter till we could see that their word for food did not sound like
the name of our tribe. A big dollop of hyperbole here but I do mean
something primordial.

University and high-end employment environments are full of people who kid
themselves into thinking that their professional associations with
co-workers or students of a different race etc, BUT the SAME CLASS, somehow
characterizes and gives them a special understanding that extends to the
rest of the group. Most often I think real differences are trivialized in
that process.

I think race and language are both basic differences and amplifiers of
difference. But education, economic, geo/historic and cultural differences,
in my opinion, make those basic differences even harder to bridge. And the
difficulty in bridging those differences is at the heart of some of our
country's big failings. I think the individual has a better chance of
overcoming difference if we recognize it.

Dave