Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

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.

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

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

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

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.

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

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.

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

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 he

http://www.ameristat.org/Content/Nav...Population_Bul
letin2/57.4_USPopulationFINAL.pdf

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

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

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

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

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

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.

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

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 he

http://www.ameristat.org/Content/Nav...Population_Bul
letin2/57.4_USPopulationFINAL.pdf

Sorry. That URL is too long. :-)

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

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

"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