Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

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?

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

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

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

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

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

"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.

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

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......

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

"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

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

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

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

"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

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

"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

Tell your senators to defeat the Bush-Cheney energy bill
 

"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