Rolling Blackouts (was: Population Growth Myths)
Jym Dyer
=v= Reality check here: Rolling blackouts are not caused by
immigrants, they're caused by corporate greed, thanks to a
situation set up by none other than Enron.
<_Jym_>
P.S.: Way too many newsgroups up there; I've adjusted the
followups accordingly. Also, if anyone is cross-posting to
alt.politics.greens _et_al_ because you think it's a forum
for discussion of random "green" issues, it is not. It is
specifically about the Green movement and parties, which is
why it's a.p.greens instead of a.p.green -- it's not some
sort of talk.environment, so please don't use it as such.
Zino
"Jym Dyer" <j...@econet.org> wrote in message
news:Jym.wzvgd...@econet.org...
> > You pay taxes in the form of rolling blackouts, ...
>
> =v= Reality check here: Rolling blackouts are not caused by
> immigrants, they're caused by corporate greed, thanks to a
> situation set up by none other than Enron.
> <_Jym_>
Well, my friend, if you have proof of this, we would all appreciate seeing
it. So far, all we've seen is unfounded accusations and bluster. Are you the
one who is finally going to prove this charge? It appears to me that this
was set up by vote hungry politicians who were willing to drive the power
companies out of business in their lust for more votes. The whole Western
portion of the nation suffered because these egomaniacal politicians tried
to suspend reality.
Fred Elbel
> > You pay taxes in the form of rolling blackouts, ...
>
> =v= Reality check here: Rolling blackouts are not caused by
> immigrants, they're caused by corporate greed, thanks to a
> situation set up by none other than Enron.
> <_Jym_>
Woops - incorrect postulate.
Increased energy demands, as well as increased food, water,
transportation and housing demands are caused by more people.
The Census Bureau says that U.S. population will double in the
lifetimes of children born today.
Yet native-born Americans reached replacement level fertility in 1970.
90% of America's population growth will be caused by our high levels
of mass immigration.
www.NumbersUSA.com provides a very readable presentation of these
facts.
Charles Lynch
Fred Elbel wrote:
And as usual Freddie, blinded by the light, ignores the discussion
altogether and spouts his bad numbers....
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> On 11 Feb 2002 09:51:15 -0800, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>
> > > You pay taxes in the form of rolling blackouts, ...
> >
> > =v= Reality check here: Rolling blackouts are not caused by
> > immigrants, they're caused by corporate greed, thanks to a
> > situation set up by none other than Enron.
> > <_Jym_>
>
> Woops - incorrect postulate.
>
> Increased energy demands, as well as increased food, water,
> transportation and housing demands are caused by more people.
>
> The Census Bureau says that U.S. population will double in the
> lifetimes of children born today.
>
> Yet native-born Americans reached replacement level fertility in 1970.
No. We began a studied move in that direction in about 1975, achieved Zero
Population Growth among native-born populations in about 1992, and began to
decline in native-born numbers in about 1995.
>
> 90% of America's population growth will be caused by our high levels
> of mass immigration.
Already, almost all of the US's population growth is due to immigration,
mostly due to illegal immigration.
>
> www.NumbersUSA.com provides a very readable presentation of these
> facts.
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/
John Reece
>
> =v= Reality check here: Rolling blackouts are not caused by
> immigrants, they're caused by corporate greed, thanks to a
> situation set up by none other than Enron.
It's difficult to manipulate a market unless there's
an incipient supply/demand crunch.
If it wasn't for the immigration free-for-all of the last
30 years there would only be around 25M electricity
consumers in California instead of 34M. That certainly
affects aggregate electricity demand.
Enron's 1998 report also cited population growth as a reason
for investing in a Portland utility, so I assume population
growth was one of their decision factors, if not the
Sierra Club's.
Don't forget one of the cardinal rules of systems engineering:
the performance of a multi-user system deteriorates in
a nonlinear fashion as user demand approaches system capacity.
That certainly happened last year.
BTW, I own a ton of Astropower stock. I'd be THRILLED and
retired before 50 if enough people bought solar panels to
meet the electricity demands of CA's project population growth.
It's not likely to happen, so I'm keeping my
day job.
John Reece
Elaine Richards
John Reece <re...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote in message news:<Jym.wzvgd...@econet.org>...
>> > You pay taxes in the form of rolling blackouts, ...
>>
>> =v= Reality check here: Rolling blackouts are not caused by
>> immigrants, they're caused by corporate greed, thanks to a
>> situation set up by none other than Enron.
>
>It's difficult to manipulate a market unless there's
>an incipient supply/demand crunch.
>
>If it wasn't for the immigration free-for-all of the last
>30 years there would only be around 25M electricity
>consumers in California instead of 34M. That certainly
>affects aggregate electricity demand.
Do you really think all the new people in CA are furriners? I
moved to CA in 1980 and I was born in the same country as the
locals.
Also, the spike in power use had a lot to do with the influx of
people hoping to cash in on the 1999 Gold Rush. I'd like to add
that many of them are going back to the places in the U.S. that they
came from, to the extent that renting a U-Haul outbound from San
Jose costs twice as much as inbound to San Jose.
Chris Clarke
wrote:
> In article <69d61859.02030...@posting.google.com>,
> John Reece <re...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote in message
> >news:<Jym.wzvgd...@econet.org>...
> >> > You pay taxes in the form of rolling blackouts, ...
> >>
> >> =v= Reality check here: Rolling blackouts are not caused by
> >> immigrants, they're caused by corporate greed, thanks to a
> >> situation set up by none other than Enron.
> >
> >It's difficult to manipulate a market unless there's
> >an incipient supply/demand crunch.
> >
> >If it wasn't for the immigration free-for-all of the last
> >30 years there would only be around 25M electricity
> >consumers in California instead of 34M. That certainly
> >affects aggregate electricity demand.
>
>
> Do you really think all the new people in CA are furriners? I
> moved to CA in 1980 and I was born in the same country as the
> locals.
>
> Also, the spike in power use had a lot to do with the influx of
> people hoping to cash in on the 1999 Gold Rush.
Actually, there wasn't a particular spike in power demand associated
with the rolling blackouts.
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/E-CwealthClub.pdf
--
Chris Clarke | Editor, Faultline Magazine
www.faultline.org | California Environmental News and Information
stvfrmco
"Elaine Richards" <e...@idiom.com> wrote in message
news:a5okd0$2ukj$1...@idiom.com...
Is that where all these illegal aliens are coming from that we see in
Colorado?
Tiny Human Ferret
You know what's really a trip? In the last few weeks, I've seen this huge
influx of people to the Maryland suburbs, mostly in pretty nice
new-or-nearly-new cars, with California tags. They're _all_ evidently
"hispanic".
for what it's worth, we're having our third-dryest winter on record, on top
of five of the last six years being record drought. The reservoirs are
almost empty and the water table is down almost out of reach. And all of
these people keep coming and coming and coming...
stvfrmco
"Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
news:3C80E201...@earthops.net...
The government is expecting Canada to be the source of water for the U.S. in
the coming decades so that growth on the Eastern Seaboard can continue
unabated. I hope Canada isn't duped by its membership in the W.T.O. or
NAFTA into ruining its own wetlands and rivers so that Washington can
celebrate diversity and Californicate the entire U.S. It is tragic that
what remains of the forests and farmland in your part of the nation will be
forever destroyed so some illegal alien or other migrant can come to our
country. The government policy on immigration is destroying our way of
life, standard of living, and environment at a rate that is shocking and
tragic in its scope and stupidity. "Power corrupts and absolute power
corrupts absolutely."
Fred Elbel
> Do you really think all the new people in CA are furriners?
California's population growth is driven by mass immigration. In
fact, native-born population growth is negative 1.6%, due to out
migration of natives.
That information was not published by the California Dept of Finance.
The following report excerpt provides the information you are looking
for. Clearly California's population growth is immigration-driven.
Data are presented in two tables in order to fit posting width, but
the original report showed it as a single table.
Immigration's share of California population growth during the 1990s
(July 1, 1990 - July 1, 2000)*
R.A. Schneider
Source Total Native-born Native
(percent) (number)
(see Note 1) (Notes 2-4)
------------- ------------------------ ----- ----------------
Births 5,589,458 55% 3,074,202
- Deaths -2,212,967 75% -1,659,725
= Natural
Increase 3,376,491 42% 1,414,477
Net Immigration 2,419,238 0% 0
- Net Domestic
Migration -1,967,729 75% -1,475,797
= Net Migration 451,509 -327% -1,475,797
Total Growth 3,828,000 -1.6% -61,320
Source Foreign-born Foreign
(percent) (number)
(see Note 1) (Notes 2-4)
------------- ------------------ ----------------
Births 45% 2,515,256
- Deaths 25% -553,242
= Natural
Increase 58% 1,962,014
Net Immigration 100% 2,419,238
- Net Domestic
Migration 25% -491,932
= Net Migration 427% 1,927,306
Total Growth 101.6% 3,889,320
*Immigration is defined as immigrants plus the natural increase of
immigrants
Sources of Data:
1. Total numbers for births, deaths, net immigration, and net
domestic migration for July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999 are from State of
California, Department of Finance, "Revised Historical County
Population Estimates and Components of Change, July 1, 1990-1999,"
Sacramento, Calif. June 2001
http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/E-6text.htm
Data for July 1, 1999 to July 1, 2000 are from State of California,
Department of Finance, "E-2 County Population Estimates and Components
of Change, 1999-2000, with Historical Estimates, 1990-1999,"
Sacramento, California, May 2001.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/e-2text.htm
2. Native-born women account for 55% of California births. State of
California, Department of Health Services, Birth Records. "Percent of
Births with Selected Demographic Characteristics, By Race/Ethnicity of
Mother, California, 1990-2000."
http://www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/OHIR/vssdata/2000data/00Ch2Excel/2-10-2000kbEd.xls
3. Immigrants account for 25% of California's population. State of
California, Department of Finance, "California Current Population
Survey Report: March 2000 Data." Sacramento, California, March 2001.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/drupubs.htm
4. Immigrants are assumed to account for 25% of California deaths and
25% of net domestic out-migrants. No published figures are available
for these categories. The assumption is made that immigrants
contribute to these categories in the same proportion as their
representation in the California population (i.e., 25%). This is a
conservative assumption (i.e., immigrants are likely to contribute
fewer than 25% of deaths and domestic out-migrants, and therefore
contribute more to the state's population growth) because (1) the age
structure of California immigrants is younger than that of natives, so
they are not as heavily concentrated in the age classes with the
highest death rates; and (2) out-migrants from California were
disproportionately white during the early 1990s, a period that
contributed more than 50% of the net domestic outflows from
California, while immigrants were disproportionately Hispanic and
Asian. (See "Migration Between California and Other States:
1985-1994," Hans P. Johnson, California Research Bureau, California
State Library, and Richard Lovelady, California Department of Finance,
Demographic Research Unit, October 1995.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/repndat.htm
Charles Lynch
John Reece wrote:
> Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote in message news:<Jym.wzvgd...@econet.org>...
> > > You pay taxes in the form of rolling blackouts, ...
> >
> > =v= Reality check here: Rolling blackouts are not caused by
> > immigrants, they're caused by corporate greed, thanks to a
> > situation set up by none other than Enron.
>
> It's difficult to manipulate a market unless there's
> an incipient supply/demand crunch.
Generally these have been caused by
1) Poor to non-existent planning
2) Incredibly moronic utility leaders and politicians
3) In the case of California, efforts by existing utilities (such as PG&E) to
prevent new power plant construction to keep prices high. Gee, it worked.
>
>
> If it wasn't for the immigration free-for-all of the last
> 30 years there would only be around 25M electricity
> consumers in California instead of 34M. That certainly
> affects aggregate electricity demand.
>
> Enron's 1998 report also cited population growth as a reason
> for investing in a Portland utility, so I assume population
> growth was one of their decision factors, if not the
> Sierra Club's.
>
> Don't forget one of the cardinal rules of systems engineering:
> the performance of a multi-user system deteriorates in
> a nonlinear fashion as user demand approaches system capacity.
> That certainly happened last year.
>
> BTW, I own a ton of Astropower stock. I'd be THRILLED and
> retired before 50 if enough people bought solar panels to
> meet the electricity demands of CA's project population growth.
> It's not likely to happen, so I'm keeping my
> day job.
Instead of bashing immigrants, you might work to teach folks about the joys
of solar panels...
Charles Lynch
>
>
> John Reece
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
But didn't you think global warming was going to be a good thing (grin)???
Charles Lynch
PS (I don't recall your position on the matter, if ever stated, it's a joke...)
Charles Lynch
Hi-lighting and boldness added by me (grin). The anti-immigrant folks
perceive
immigrants as threatening the above. "Our way of life".
Now what the heck does
that mean? A world where this country can overconsume while others
live in poverty?
Something cultural (like, they all speak other languages!), or what?
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
Fred Elbel wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2002 11:22:08 -0800, e...@idiom.com (Elaine Richards) wrote:
> > Do you really think all the new people in CA are furriners?
Fred don't live in California, he just tries to tell us what to do (grin).
And as usual, he dumps his numbers out indicating that there is lots of migration
to CA.
Yep, there is.
And, not only that, they tend to inter-marry and make friends with the natives.
Which is why the Republicans here became an endangered species when they let THEIR
anti-immigrant folks take over.
And why the Sierra Club in CA would be an endangered species if Fred and his buddies
ever
take over.
But they don't care about that. Too blinded by their anti-immigration bigotry.
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret
<CHOMP>
Posting in HTML sucks.
Tiny Human Ferret
No. Not in the least.
>
> Charles Lynch
>
> PS (I don't recall your position on the matter, if ever stated, it's a joke...)
It isn't remotely a joking matter.
Please see http://www.earthops.net/klaatu/earth.html
That might give you some idea of what my positions are.
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Of course, if you go up a directory, there is all of the good old bigoted stuff.
Funny, you want to "be kind to your neighbors" as long as they aren't from a
different country. Nerd blindness at it's best!
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret
Really? Please list all of the bigoted pages at http://www.earthops.net/
List them, now. Put up or shut up.
The plain fact is that there are too many people globally, and too many
people in the US. In 1990 the US had finally reached a growth rate which
would lead to a very gradual and planned decline in population, which would
take a lot of load off of the environment, certainly it would remove a lot
of incentive to "Pave the Bay". Rather than endless Urban Sprawl devouring
arable or forest lands, or planting massive population centers in the middle
of deserts and requiring massive engineering projects to divert water
resource, we would have a rather steady-state situation in city sizes, with
economic growth and upwards-mobility opportunities in the process of
reclaiming "brownfields" in city centers, promoting revitalization and
re-inhabitation of city centers, with the suburbs also eventually becoming
rebuilt, probably with a lot more attention to urban/suburban greenbelts
with habitation densification and an increase in semi-natural habitat.
However, starting in the mid 1990s, the country was overrun to the extent
that it experienced a completely unprecedented 15-percent increase of
population over not just one decade, but mostly over the last six years of
that decade, with all of that growth being the _direct result of excess
immigration, much of that being illegal overrunnings of the borders and
ports.
And YOU and your ilk are responsible for the ecological calamities that will
result as all of these people get on their financial feet and demand their
own McMansions in formerly pristine or agricultural lands. When their very
large families mature and want _their_ McMansions, there won't be any
pristine lands left, not much air to breathe nor water to drink, but they'll
have their McMansions, won't they. Much good may it do them.
YOU and your ilk are responsible, you fool who shouts "racist bigotry" every
single time you see the least objection to your insane policy of Open
Borders.
When the rivers die, YOU will be to blame. When the wildlife ranges all
migrate north due to global climate change -- in net effects caused almost
_exclusively_ by the extremely high energy uses in the US and Canada and
some of Europe -- YOU and your ilk will be to blame.
But you're too busy laughing to yourself about how easy it was to get the
environmentalists to back down because they were afraid of YOU calling them
"bigots". I bet you're in the business of tearing down forests and putting
up McMansions. I bet you're laughing all of the way to the bank.
Well, not that I'm bigoted, other than towards Trout for which I like to
fish, but I really don't care what you call me, because I know you for what
you are: a goddamned selfish ogre chortling over how, with a mere word, you
were able to stop the environmental movement dead in its tracks.
> Funny, you want to "be kind to your neighbors" as long as they aren't from a
> different country. Nerd blindness at it's best!
Don't ever misrepresent me like this, fool. Or you will get more and worse,
and it just plain won't stop coming.
I don't have any problem with neighbors from other countries _provided_ that
they came here legally, and are law-abiding while they remain.
Now, what were you saying before you took your foot out of your mouth and
started telling lies about my website?
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Sure, you talk about "Mexico's Quiet Invasion". Dude, people who move here from
Mexico are not "invading". And why not talk about "Canada's Quiet Invasion". Looks
like bigotry to me.
You talk about "Chinese Dog Slaughtering Practices", why not talk about "Americans Cow
Slaughtering Practices"? You are certainly don't seem to be advocating any action to
stop
any of the practices, it comes across as a general attack on Chinese (most of whom never
eat dogs). Hey, you could do something on "Americans Dog Fighting Practices". Looks
like bigotry to me.
You have links to FoundingFatherOrg (or whatever it is), which includes attacks on the
"Black is beautiful" as a statement. You list this as "some political points of view".
If you
think this is funny, or not yours, why not say so? Some of the viewpoints look pretty
bigoted to me!
And then there is stuff like this (copied from your "War" pages).
"In other cities, in Houston, in Minneapolis, in the Carolinas, expatriate communities
began to feel the heat
of the gangster way of life. It was vigorously proselytized unto their youth by other
youths, lean young
men with beautiful-and-available addicted girls, fast cars, faster knives and silent
deadly feet. When the
older men (who remembered what had become of their homelands at the hands of such men)
began to
organize resistances within their communities, they were contacted by other such older
men, who quite
often killed them silently and effectively as if long accustomed to such a workaday
dispatching of men.
The Latins from South- and Central-America found that far from having left behind the
barbarities of
unwanted wars, the pervayors of those wars had left the Latin lands to come north,
bringing with them
the weapons and the ways that had left so many a mother crying desolate over her lifeless
sons and
daughters. Some merely shrugged in their expressive Latin way. It was to be expected, was
it not? There
was far more money here in the land of the gringos than in the south, where all
legitimate profits were
quickly eaten up with the graft to the filth on the one hand and the payments to
racketeers on the other
hand. Much too dangerous for a businessman in the south, no? To be caught between the
rurales and
their graft and the federales and their greater graft was to be caught in a crossfire;
and to be caught
between both and the racketeers was a much worse thing. This was, after all, why so many
had come
north to look for work, they all came for the abundant American dollar. Why should the
criminals not
come to rake up some of the money that fell everywhere in this strange land of the
anglos? In any case,
the American police and intelligence services were utterly inadequate to the task of
penetrating the
alliances formed between the four-million and more illegal aliens, many of whom had
acquired extensive
counterintelligence or insurgency experience in their wartorn homelands."
Gee, am I the only one who ever reads your stuff?? There is a very clear anti-Latino
slant to all of this,
and I call it bigotry.
Is that enough?
So, why don't you promote an Anti-McMansion movement?? Oh, I forgot,
YOU want YOUR McMansion!! It is just others who shouldn't have them Sheesh.
>
>
> YOU and your ilk are responsible, you fool who shouts "racist bigotry" every
> single time you see the least objection to your insane policy of Open
> Borders.
"Least objection"? If that was true, I would be hoarse!!
>
>
> When the rivers die, YOU will be to blame. When the wildlife ranges all
> migrate north due to global climate change -- in net effects caused almost
> _exclusively_ by the extremely high energy uses in the US and Canada and
> some of Europe -- YOU and your ilk will be to blame.
Ah, you have a scapegoat!! Since you don't have to do anything, you can go
out and consume and pollute with a clear conscience, it is all *my* fault.
>
>
> But you're too busy laughing to yourself about how easy it was to get the
> environmentalists to back down because they were afraid of YOU calling them
> "bigots". I bet you're in the business of tearing down forests and putting
> up McMansions. I bet you're laughing all of the way to the bank.
Nope. Actually, I am trying to get the environmental movement to reach out and
expand. The Sierra Club seems to get it these days, despite the Freddies of this
world. You, I don't have much hope for.
>
>
> Well, not that I'm bigoted, other than towards Trout for which I like to
> fish, but I really don't care what you call me, because I know you for what
> you are: a goddamned selfish ogre chortling over how, with a mere word, you
> were able to stop the environmental movement dead in its tracks.
Ah, to have such power!! Hmm, okay, no more war!!! (did it work??)
>
>
> > Funny, you want to "be kind to your neighbors" as long as they aren't from a
> > different country. Nerd blindness at it's best!
>
> Don't ever misrepresent me like this, fool. Or you will get more and worse,
> and it just plain won't stop coming.
?????? Or you will get more and worse,
and it just plain won't stop coming.??????? So, what kind of threat is this? More
illogical postings, I presume?
>
>
> I don't have any problem with neighbors from other countries _provided_ that
> they came here legally, and are law-abiding while they remain.
>
> Now, what were you saying before you took your foot out of your mouth and
> started telling lies about my website?
Look at your site again. See my remarks above. BTW, a lot of your links are dead.
Hey, at least you had a visitor!!
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
> > Charles Lynch wrote:
> > >
> > > Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
<snips a lot>
> > > > > But didn't you think global warming was going to be a good thing (grin)???
> > > >
> > > > No. Not in the least.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Charles Lynch
> > > > >
> > > > > PS (I don't recall your position on the matter, if ever stated, it's a joke...)
> > > >
> > > > It isn't remotely a joking matter.
> > > >
> > > > Please see http://www.earthops.net/klaatu/earth.html
> > > >
> > > > That might give you some idea of what my positions are.
> > >
> > > Of course, if you go up a directory, there is all of the good old bigoted stuff.
> >
> > Really? Please list all of the bigoted pages at http://www.earthops.net/
>
> > List them, now. Put up or shut up.
>
> Sure, you talk about "Mexico's Quiet Invasion".
Actually, that is an article from _The Washington Post_.
> Dude, people who move here from
> Mexico are not "invading".
Invade: 1. To enter for conquest or plunder. 2. To infringe; encroach on;
as, to invade the rights of the people. 3. To spread over, or through, esp.
injudiciously. [Webster's Collegiate]
> And why not talk about "Canada's Quiet Invasion". Looks
> like bigotry to me.
No. Canadian illegal aliens are far outnumbered by Mexican illegal aliens.
Canadian illegal aliens are so far down the list they barely make the top
20.
>
> You talk about "Chinese Dog Slaughtering Practices", why
> not talk about "Americans Cow Slaughtering Practices"?
> You are certainly don't seem to be advocating any action to
> stop any of the practices, it comes across as a general
> attack on Chinese (most of whom never eat dogs).
That site was written by a Chinese in Hong Kong.
> Hey, you could do something on "Americans Dog Fighting Practices".
> Looks like bigotry to me.
That's your opinion. That site shows a Chinese sucking the blood right out
of the leg of a whimpering German Shepard dog.
And dog-fighting is outlawed in most US States, if not all of them.
>
> You have links to FoundingFatherOrg (or whatever it is),
> which includes attacks on the "Black is beautiful" as a statement.
> You list this as "some political points of view".
I certainly do. I do not claim them as my own. You, however, are attributing
to me what is done by others. By your specious and pathetic attempt at
logic, you would condemn the Southern Poverty Law Center as "racist and
bigoted" because they have a page which points to "hate sites" on the
InterNet.
Once again you do very little to support your own positions.
> If you
> think this is funny, or not yours, why not say so?
> Some of the viewpoints look pretty bigoted to me!
See above.
> And then there is stuff like this (copied from your "War" pages).
Do you mean http://www.earthops.net/thewar/ ?
> "In other cities, in Houston, in Minneapolis, in the
> Carolinas, expatriate communities began to feel the heat
> of the gangster way of life. It was vigorously proselytized
> unto their youth by other youths, lean young men with
> beautiful-and-available addicted girls, fast cars,
> faster knives and silent deadly feet. When the
> older men (who remembered what had become of their homelands
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> at the hands of such men) began to organize resistances
> within their communities, they were contacted by other such older
> men, who quite often killed them silently and effectively as
> if long accustomed to such a workaday dispatching of men.
Are you, by including this, actually atempting to fly in the face of what's
well known to every police agency in the country? ALL immigrant communities
-- in fact all communities, period -- have some degree of problem with gangs
and gangsters. However, many illegal-alien gangs -- see
http://www.earthops.net/klaatu/alien_gangs.html -- are exceptionally
vicious.
Here are some links to the sources.
http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?pg=q&sc=on&q=%2Basian+%2B%22home+invasions%22&kl=XX
First, from Australia:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/nca_ctte/ncaaoc/ncaaoc3.htm
From the US:
http://www.nagia.org/asian_youth_gangs1.htm
http://www.ipsn.org/asg08107.html
From Canada:
http://www.ncmonline.com/special-reports/2000-03-03/home.html
http://www.acjnet.org/docs/feardoj.html
See also http://earthops.net/immigration/asian-home-invasion1.txt
This isn't bigotry, it's called "reporting scary facts" or sometimes it's
just called "reporting the news".
> The Latins from South- and Central-America found that
> far from having left behind the barbarities of
> unwanted wars, the pervayors of those wars had left the
> Latin lands to come north, bringing with them
> the weapons and the ways that had left so many a mother
> crying desolate over her lifeless sons and
> daughters. Some merely shrugged in their expressive Latin way.
> It was to be expected, was it not? There
> was far more money here in the land of the gringos
> than in the south, where all legitimate profits were
> quickly eaten up with the graft to the filth on the one hand
> and the payments to racketeers on the other hand.
> Much too dangerous for a businessman in the south, no?
> To be caught between the rurales and their graft and the
> federales and their greater graft was to be caught in a crossfire;
> and to be caught between both and the racketeers was a
> much worse thing. This was, after all, why so many
> had come north to look for work, they all came for the
> abundant American dollar. Why should the criminals not
> come to rake up some of the money that fell everywhere
> in this strange land of the anglos? In any case,
> the American police and intelligence services were utterly
> inadequate to the task of penetrating the alliances formed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> between the four-million and more illegal aliens, many of whom had
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> acquired extensive counterintelligence or insurgency experience
> in their wartorn homelands."
>
> Gee, am I the only one who ever reads your stuff?? There is a very clear anti-Latino
> slant to all of this, and I call it bigotry.
>
> Is that enough?
It's enough to indicate that you have no reading comprehension skills, are
an outright liar of a propagandist, and probably are best classified as a
fool.
Let's see, I point out the fact that there are many very dangerous
illegal-alien gangs operating in most major US cities -- that is a _fact_
you know, and you call this bigotry. Okay, you're a fool but everyone knew
that.
And I guess you're suggesting that there was never a war in El Salvador? I
guess you're suggesting that there is not endemic corruption in Mexico,
sufficient as to make life almost impossible there for many people? Are you
suggesting the the US military never trained "Hit Squads" at the "School of
the Americas", said Hit Squads and Death Squads being trained for the
Centralamerican governments that the CIA wanted propped up against Communist
influences no matter the costs to the centralamerican citizens? This is all
very well documented and widely so, so widely as to be common knowledge,
especially this is well known within the Green and Liberal/Leftist
communities. It's even better known within the expatriate communities of
victims of these Death Squads and their guerilla-recruiter opposition.
And in case you didn't know, when the Death Squad CIA-trained butchers came
at risk of being brought to Justice for their monstrous crimes, the CIA
promptly maneuvered for them to not only get Green Cards, but also annual
payments in perpetuity, and relocated them to the US... where the expatriate
communities are terrified to find that the butchers they fled are not just
living among them again, but are living among them as rich men with the
protection of the US government.
So, you are not only a fool but an ignorant fool, else you are a willful
Revisionist.
Furthermore, your reading comprehension truly sucks. If you can't tell a
sympathetic piece when you see it -- a passage detailing the horrors from
which people fled, and which horrors pursued them.
Truly, this is astonishing.
I've been very active in the Montgomery County Maryland initiatives to limit
expansion outwards, and towards preservation of the Rural Heritage zones.
Briefly, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, nor to whom you
speak.
> Oh, I forgot,
> YOU want YOUR McMansion!!
See above. I loathe McMansions. My loathing of them drips as venom from
every sentence in the paragraphs quoted above. Again, your limited reading
comprehension skills are evident.
> It is just others who shouldn't have them Sheesh.
Once again, you're a fool who knows not whereof he speaks. I think they're a
goddamned abomination, a pox on the land, and the way that they build them
hereabouts, they built them in such a way and at such size and in such
locations, it's quite evident that in the futrue the developer-owners need
merely get in cahoots with the zoning board, change the zoning from
single-family to multiple-use and shazam, large detached dwellings occupying
1/5-acre on a 1/4-acre lots go from being exhorbitantly large single-family
homes into tolerably-sized high-density apartments housing six families in
three-rooms-and-a-bath with nothing more than the stroke of a pen and the
addition of six interior locking doors. In other words, instant ghetto, to
be filled with the poor who will stand on the edge of the permitted
expansion, and gaze outwards the the preserved rural heritage and begin
writing letters demanding the limits be expanded outwards, so that the
developer who owns that land can make a gajilliuon bucks and do the same
thing again another 20 years down the line.
Clearly, you don't understand the issues or you are willfully trying to
obscure them.
>
> >
> >
> > YOU and your ilk are responsible, you fool who shouts "racist bigotry" every
> > single time you see the least objection to your insane policy of Open
> > Borders.
>
> "Least objection"? If that was true, I would be hoarse!!
You are not only hoarse, but really rather shrill in your reflexive
mindlessness. Please go away.
>
> >
> >
> > When the rivers die, YOU will be to blame. When the wildlife ranges all
> > migrate north due to global climate change -- in net effects caused almost
> > _exclusively_ by the extremely high energy uses in the US and Canada and
> > some of Europe -- YOU and your ilk will be to blame.
>
> Ah, you have a scapegoat!! Since you don't have to do anything, you can go
> out and consume and pollute with a clear conscience, it is all *my* fault.
Absolutely not. I not only don't commute, but I spend about an hour a day
cleaning trash out of my yard. I don't pollute if I can avoid it and my
vehicles all pass very stringent emissions standards. My consumption of
anything other than InterNet is rather limited; I am not a wealthy person.
Again, you make bald-faced accusations where they are neither germane nor
correct. Not only are trolling but you're exceptionally lame trying to
spread the pro-immigration/anti-greenspace-preservation equivalent of Fear
Uncertainty and Doubt.
>
> >
> >
> > But you're too busy laughing to yourself about how easy it was to get the
> > environmentalists to back down because they were afraid of YOU calling them
> > "bigots". I bet you're in the business of tearing down forests and putting
> > up McMansions. I bet you're laughing all of the way to the bank.
>
> Nope. Actually, I am trying to get the environmental movement to reach out and
> expand. The Sierra Club seems to get it these days, despite the Freddies of this
> world. You, I don't have much hope for.
Ah, so the Sierra Club is finally recognizing once again that uncontrolled
population exploson in the US -- almost entirely due to immigration, in the
last decade -- is the single greatest factor destroying rural and forest
areas in the US? Good for them, they'd been being far too PC and wishy-washy
for me to support so long as they turned a blind eye to excessive
immigration's effects on destroying America's natural heritage.
>
> >
> >
> > Well, not that I'm bigoted, other than towards Trout for which I like to
> > fish, but I really don't care what you call me, because I know you for what
> > you are: a goddamned selfish ogre chortling over how, with a mere word, you
> > were able to stop the environmental movement dead in its tracks.
>
> Ah, to have such power!! Hmm, okay, no more war!!! (did it work??)
One moment of support for runaway illegal immigration into the US makes you
my opponent for so long as you hold that position. I find myself on the
horns of an immense dilemma anytime I hear people supporting Gaianist/Green
positions on the one hand, and supporting illegal immigration on the other
hand: since the two positions are mutually-exclusive on the face of it, I
consider such persons to be insane. The easiest problem to fix is the
illegal-immigration problem and in any case it must be dealt with before
conserving the environment becomes remotely possible in any meaningful way.
>
> >
> >
> > > Funny, you want to "be kind to your neighbors" as long as they aren't from a
> > > different country. Nerd blindness at it's best!
> >
> > Don't ever misrepresent me like this, fool. Or you will get more and worse,
> > and it just plain won't stop coming.
>
> ?????? Or you will get more and worse,
> and it just plain won't stop coming.??????? So, what kind of threat is this? More
> illogical postings, I presume?
I'm not the one being illogical here.
Tell me how it's possible to meaningfully preserve (and even reclaim)
natural or near-natural environment in the US when the population is
increasing at the greatest rate ever? Tell me how to do that when almost all
population increase in the last decade was due to immigration.
Give me a _logical_ answer.
>
> >
> >
> > I don't have any problem with neighbors from other countries _provided_ that
> > they came here legally, and are law-abiding while they remain.
> >
> > Now, what were you saying before you took your foot out of your mouth and
> > started telling lies about my website?
>
> Look at your site again. See my remarks above.
See my remarks above. You've been shot down in flames and are evidently not
sensible enough to have known that is what to expect when you fly an
ultralight above a heavy AA emplacement.
> BTW, a lot of your links are dead.
Some are. Too damned bad, the internet is a big place and sometimes things
go offline or move. Most of my links go someplace.
>
> Hey, at least you had a visitor!!
I get plenty of visitors. http://earthops.net/stats.html
Program started at Sun-17-Mar-2002 06:01.
Analysed requests from Tue-01-Jan-2002 00:02 to Sun-17-Mar-2002 05:57 (75.25
days).
(Figures in parentheses refer to the 7-day period ending 17-Mar-2002 06:01).
Successful requests: 349,673 (41,228)
Average successful requests per day: 4,647 (5,889)
Successful requests for pages: 107,525 (10,272)
Average successful requests for pages per day: 1,428 (1,467)
Failed requests: 45,168 (4,393)
Redirected requests: 1,751 (211)
Distinct files requested: 10,461 (8,174)
Distinct hosts served: 17,678 (1,919)
Data transferred: 19.334 Gbytes (2.579 Gbytes)
Average data transferred per day: 263.121 Mbytes (377.329 Mbytes)
Most popular page is http://earthops.org/rohypnol.html
John Reece
> Do you really think all the new people in CA are furriners? I
> moved to CA in 1980 and I was born in the same country as the
> locals.
According to Census 2000 about half of population growth is
due directly to foreign immigration - i.e., the number of
bodies actually arriving. Then there is the indirect
factor of immigrants having descendants that would have been
had someplace else.
Immigration/diversity advocates also love to emphasize the
huge role immigration plays in California's population growth
until someone raises the impact issue.
Nor does the Sierra Club's anti-ZPG crowd deny the role
immigration is playing in American/CA population growth,
they just deny we need to do anything about it or that
we can compensate for it by efforts in other areas. I.e.,
increasing environmental regulation faster than we increase
population and so forth.
> Also, the spike in power use had a lot to do with the influx of
> people hoping to cash in on the 1999 Gold Rush.
Actually it was also due to per capita consumption rising/waning due
to increased economic activity, followed by decreased economic
activity and increased conservation efforts, etc.
My problem is with the greenies who either refuse to understand that:
total environmental impact = individual impact * population size
believe it is significant globally but not nationally, or delusionally
believe that they can ignore the projected increases in the population
variable by doubling up efforts on reducing the individual one.
Historically, they've failed at that and I see no prospect of that
changing.
> I'd like to add
> that many of them are going back to the places in the U.S. that they
> came from, to the extent that renting a U-Haul outbound from San
> Jose costs twice as much as inbound to San Jose.
That was true for a brief period in the early 90's but CA population g
rowth has resumed at the rate of 1.7%/year, apparently to compound
forever,like interest. And that was during the last
year of recession.
John Reece
Paul Kekai Manansala
> John Reece wrote:
>
> > Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote in message news:<Jym.wzvgd...@econet.org>...
> > > > You pay taxes in the form of rolling blackouts, ...
> > >
> > > =v= Reality check here: Rolling blackouts are not caused by
> > > immigrants, they're caused by corporate greed, thanks to a
> > > situation set up by none other than Enron.
> >
> > It's difficult to manipulate a market unless there's
> > an incipient supply/demand crunch.
>
> Generally these have been caused by
>
> 1) Poor to non-existent planning
>
> 2) Incredibly moronic utility leaders and politicians
>
> 3) In the case of California, efforts by existing utilities (such as PG&E) to
> prevent new power plant construction to keep prices high. Gee, it worked.
>
>
People must move to establish public power as we have in Sacramento
with SMUD.
SMUD has a long tradition of promoting conservation and increased use
of renewables. Can one imagine a private utility like PG&E doing the
same? They make their profits on high energy costs and they basically
have no competition.
Price caps will not work because private industry has to make a
profit. If costs go over the ceiling, then the industry sinks and the
government has to step in.
Power is what makes modern civilization run and it rightfully belongs
to the the people.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> > Really? Please list all of the bigoted pages at http://www.earthops.net/
>
> > List them, now. Put up or shut up.
>
Me (grin) > Sure, you talk about "Mexico's Quiet Invasion".
Actually, that is an article from _The Washington Post_.
> Dude, people who move here from
> Mexico are not "invading".Invade: 1. To enter for conquest or plunder. 2. To infringe; encroach on;
as, to invade the rights of the people. 3. To spread over, or through, esp.
injudiciously. [Webster's Collegiate]
bigotry. And I suspect I am not the only one. You can ask around.
> And why not talk about "Canada's Quiet Invasion". Looks
> like bigotry to me.No. Canadian illegal aliens are far outnumbered by Mexican illegal aliens.
Canadian illegal aliens are so far down the list they barely make the top
20.
You missed the point. Deliberately? Canadians who come here
are white,
that I suspect is the real reason you don't object. And FWIW,
no one really
knows how many Canadians cross without papers (though I did have an
arguement with an INS agent who was raving about illegal Canadians
stealing
all of the American jobs). They blend into white areas easier.
>
> You talk about "Chinese Dog Slaughtering Practices", why
> not talk about "Americans Cow Slaughtering Practices"?
> You are certainly don't seem to be advocating any action to
> stop any of the practices, it comes across as a general
> attack on Chinese (most of whom never eat dogs).That site was written by a Chinese in Hong Kong.
But why do you list that, and not sites that talk about brutality
towards
animals in YOUR country?
> Hey, you could do something on "Americans Dog Fighting Practices".
> Looks like bigotry to me.That's your opinion. That site shows a Chinese sucking the blood right out
of the leg of a whimpering German Shepard dog.
And why not show American scientists torturing monkees for fun and profit
(okay
for profit only)?
Looks like bigotry to me.
Dog fighting (and cock fighting) are fairly common. And are legal inAnd dog-fighting is outlawed in most US States, if not all of them.
some states. Again, you could spend time looking at brutality towards
dogs here.
>
> You have links to FoundingFatherOrg (or whatever it is),
> which includes attacks on the "Black is beautiful" as a statement.
> You list this as "some political points of view".I certainly do. I do not claim them as my own. You, however, are attributing
to me what is done by others. By your specious and pathetic attempt at
logic, you would condemn the Southern Poverty Law Center as "racist and
bigoted" because they have a page which points to "hate sites" on the
InterNet.
So, do you disagree with these sentiments? You don't make it clear.
The Southern
Poverty Law Center makes it's attitudes towards such sentiments clear.
Once again you do very little to support your own positions.> If you
> think this is funny, or not yours, why not say so?
> Some of the viewpoints look pretty bigoted to me!See above.
Sorry, you don't really respond. Not in any meaningful way.
> And then there is stuff like this (copied from your "War" pages).
Do you mean http://www.earthops.net/thewar/ ?
> "In other cities, in Houston, in Minneapolis, in the
> Carolinas, expatriate communities began to feel the heat
> of the gangster way of life. It was vigorously proselytized
> unto their youth by other youths, lean young men with
> beautiful-and-available addicted girls, fast cars,
> faster knives and silent deadly feet. When the
> older men (who remembered what had become of their homelands
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> at the hands of such men) began to organize resistances
> within their communities, they were contacted by other such older
> men, who quite often killed them silently and effectively as
> if long accustomed to such a workaday dispatching of men.Are you, by including this, actually atempting to fly in the face of what's
well known to every police agency in the country? ALL immigrant communities
-- in fact all communities, period -- have some degree of problem with gangs
and gangsters. However, many illegal-alien gangs -- see
http://www.earthops.net/klaatu/alien_gangs.html -- are exceptionally
vicious.
Ah, "in fact all communities, period". A moment of truth.
So, why not write about
the gang problems in "your" community and ethnic/racial group?
By consistently
attacking only minority and immigrant communities, you appear to be
bigoted.
Here are some links to the sources.
http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?pg=q&sc=on&q=%2Basian+%2B%22home+invasions%22&kl=XX
First, from Australia:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/nca_ctte/ncaaoc/ncaaoc3.htm
From the US:
http://www.nagia.org/asian_youth_gangs1.htm
http://www.ipsn.org/asg08107.html
From Canada:
http://www.ncmonline.com/special-reports/2000-03-03/home.html
http://www.acjnet.org/docs/feardoj.html
See also http://earthops.net/immigration/asian-home-invasion1.txt
This isn't bigotry, it's called "reporting scary facts" or sometimes it's
just called "reporting the news".
Why not talk about gangs like the Aryan Nation? Hells Angels?
And others.
Again, by ignoring them and focusing solely on gangs composed of "others",
you open yourself to the suspicion of bigotry. Or you could
explain.
Ah, thanks for acknowledging the accurateness of my reading of you.
I assume by your name calling that you have no real refutation.
Let's see, I point out the fact that there are many very dangerous
illegal-alien gangs operating in most major US cities -- that is a _fact_
you know, and you call this bigotry. Okay, you're a fool but everyone knew
that.
And gangs like the Aryan Nation and Nazi gangs, Hells Angels, skin heads?
Gee, they are dangerous, but don't seem to bother you.
And I guess you're suggesting that there was never a war in El Salvador? I
guess you're suggesting that there is not endemic corruption in Mexico,
sufficient as to make life almost impossible there for many people? Are you
suggesting the the US military never trained "Hit Squads" at the "School of
the Americas", said Hit Squads and Death Squads being trained for the
Centralamerican governments that the CIA wanted propped up against Communist
influences no matter the costs to the centralamerican citizens? This is all
very well documented and widely so, so widely as to be common knowledge,
especially this is well known within the Green and Liberal/Leftist
communities. It's even better known within the expatriate communities of
victims of these Death Squads and their guerilla-recruiter opposition.
Nope. I agree with those comments, merely point out
that attacking immigrants and
people of color and not attacking white folks doing the same thing
makes you a .......
And in case you didn't know, when the Death Squad CIA-trained butchers came
at risk of being brought to Justice for their monstrous crimes, the CIA
promptly maneuvered for them to not only get Green Cards, but also annual
payments in perpetuity, and relocated them to the US... where the expatriate
communities are terrified to find that the butchers they fled are not just
living among them again, but are living among them as rich men with the
protection of the US government.
Yep, see Vietnam, Shah of Iran, etc. Certainly I know this.
You could also talk
about ex-Nazi's, but admittedly that was a while ago.
So, you are not only a fool but an ignorant fool, else you are a willful
Revisionist.Furthermore, your reading comprehension truly sucks. If you can't tell a
sympathetic piece when you see it -- a passage detailing the horrors from
which people fled, and which horrors pursued them.Truly, this is astonishing.
Or could it be that your writing skills aren't what you think? If
the sympathy was
there, I totally miss it. You should be astonished.
Naw, you don't get satire. But seriously, when you write an
anti-McMansion article
that blames it all on immigrants, I mean get real. It's as if
your anti-immgiration bias is
so great it leaks over into everything you do.
> It is just others who shouldn't have them Sheesh.
Once again, you're a fool who knows not whereof he speaks. I think they're a
goddamned abomination, a pox on the land, and the way that they build them
hereabouts, they built them in such a way and at such size and in such
locations, it's quite evident that in the futrue the developer-owners need
merely get in cahoots with the zoning board, change the zoning from
single-family to multiple-use and shazam, large detached dwellings occupying
1/5-acre on a 1/4-acre lots go from being exhorbitantly large single-family
homes into tolerably-sized high-density apartments housing six families in
three-rooms-and-a-bath with nothing more than the stroke of a pen and the
addition of six interior locking doors. In other words, instant ghetto, to
be filled with the poor who will stand on the edge of the permitted
expansion, and gaze outwards the the preserved rural heritage and begin
writing letters demanding the limits be expanded outwards, so that the
developer who owns that land can make a gajilliuon bucks and do the same
thing again another 20 years down the line.
So, you are not for more density? And you would, I presume,
send the poor
elsewhere. Nimbyism at it's worst!
Clearly, you don't understand the issues or you are willfully trying to
obscure them.>
> >
> >
> > YOU and your ilk are responsible, you fool who shouts "racist bigotry" every
> > single time you see the least objection to your insane policy of Open
> > Borders.
>
> "Least objection"? If that was true, I would be hoarse!!You are not only hoarse, but really rather shrill in your reflexive
mindlessness. Please go away.>
> >
> >
> > When the rivers die, YOU will be to blame. When the wildlife ranges all
> > migrate north due to global climate change -- in net effects caused almost
> > _exclusively_ by the extremely high energy uses in the US and Canada and
> > some of Europe -- YOU and your ilk will be to blame.
>
> Ah, you have a scapegoat!! Since you don't have to do anything, you can go
> out and consume and pollute with a clear conscience, it is all *my* fault.Absolutely not. I not only don't commute, but I spend about an hour a day
cleaning trash out of my yard. I don't pollute if I can avoid it and my
vehicles all pass very stringent emissions standards. My consumption of
anything other than InterNet is rather limited; I am not a wealthy person.
"Vehicle(s)" (parentheses added for emphasis). You own multiple car/trucks
and think you consumption is limited. Sigh.
Again, you make bald-faced accusations where they are neither germane nor
correct. Not only are trolling but you're exceptionally lame trying to
spread the pro-immigration/anti-greenspace-preservation equivalent of Fear
Uncertainty and Doubt.
It is possible to be pro-immigrant and pro-greenspace. Which, of
course, your
prejudices prevent you from even considering.
>
> >
> >
> > But you're too busy laughing to yourself about how easy it was to get the
> > environmentalists to back down because they were afraid of YOU calling them
> > "bigots". I bet you're in the business of tearing down forests and putting
> > up McMansions. I bet you're laughing all of the way to the bank.
>
> Nope. Actually, I am trying to get the environmental movement to reach out and
> expand. The Sierra Club seems to get it these days, despite the Freddies of this
> world. You, I don't have much hope for.Ah, so the Sierra Club is finally recognizing once again that uncontrolled
population exploson in the US -- almost entirely due to immigration, in the
last decade -- is the single greatest factor destroying rural and forest
areas in the US? Good for them, they'd been being far too PC and wishy-washy
for me to support so long as they turned a blind eye to excessive
immigration's effects on destroying America's natural heritage.
ROFLMAO.... no, expanding to you and Pat Buchaanan wasn't what I
meant.
>
> >
> >
> > Well, not that I'm bigoted, other than towards Trout for which I like to
> > fish, but I really don't care what you call me, because I know you for what
> > you are: a goddamned selfish ogre chortling over how, with a mere word, you
> > were able to stop the environmental movement dead in its tracks.
>
> Ah, to have such power!! Hmm, okay, no more war!!! (did it work??)One moment of support for runaway illegal immigration into the US makes you
my opponent for so long as you hold that position. I find myself on the
horns of an immense dilemma anytime I hear people supporting Gaianist/Green
positions on the one hand, and supporting illegal immigration on the other
hand: since the two positions are mutually-exclusive on the face of it, I
consider such persons to be insane. The easiest problem to fix is the
illegal-immigration problem and in any case it must be dealt with before
conserving the environment becomes remotely possible in any meaningful way.
ROFLMAO.... so, you don't have to do anything to preserve the environment
as long
as one person can get across the border. The only thing you want
to preserver is your
consumption level.
>
> >
> >
> > > Funny, you want to "be kind to your neighbors" as long as they aren't from a
> > > different country. Nerd blindness at it's best!
> >
> > Don't ever misrepresent me like this, fool. Or you will get more and worse,
> > and it just plain won't stop coming.
>
> ?????? Or you will get more and worse,
> and it just plain won't stop coming.??????? So, what kind of threat is this? More
> illogical postings, I presume?I'm not the one being illogical here.
Tell me how it's possible to meaningfully preserve (and even reclaim)
natural or near-natural environment in the US when the population is
increasing at the greatest rate ever? Tell me how to do that when almost all
population increase in the last decade was due to immigration.
Sure. Start by working to change economic policy to give tax breaks
to those
who live in denser less land intensive manners (apartments).
Add tax disincentives
to sprawl. Tax incentives for mass transit. Disincentives
for multiple vehicle use.
Disincentives based on level of pollution. Tax credits for
non drivers.
Work to make corporations clean up their act, by, for instance, requiring
them
to build into the cost of everything they sell the environmentally
sound recycling
of it when it is obsolete. (they do this in Europe).
And on, and on.
Give me a _logical_ answer.
>
> >
> >
> > I don't have any problem with neighbors from other countries _provided_ that
> > they came here legally, and are law-abiding while they remain.
> >
> > Now, what were you saying before you took your foot out of your mouth and
> > started telling lies about my website?
>
> Look at your site again. See my remarks above.See my remarks above. You've been shot down in flames and are evidently not
sensible enough to have known that is what to expect when you fly an
ultralight above a heavy AA emplacement.> BTW, a lot of your links are dead.
Some are. Too damned bad, the internet is a big place and sometimes things
go offline or move. Most of my links go someplace.
That was intended to be friendly information.
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
John Reece wrote:
> e...@idiom.com (Elaine Richards) wrote in message news:<a5okd0$2ukj$1...@idiom.com>...
>
> > Do you really think all the new people in CA are furriners? I
> > moved to CA in 1980 and I was born in the same country as the
> > locals.
>
> According to Census 2000 about half of population growth is
> due directly to foreign immigration - i.e., the number of
> bodies actually arriving. Then there is the indirect
> factor of immigrants having descendants that would have been
> had someplace else.
>
> Immigration/diversity advocates also love to emphasize the
> huge role immigration plays in California's population growth
> until someone raises the impact issue.
Nope, only in your imagination. What about the impact lack of
planning for growth and the "California Car Culture" has?
>
>
> Nor does the Sierra Club's anti-ZPG crowd deny the role
> immigration is playing in American/CA population growth,
> they just deny we need to do anything about it or that
> we can compensate for it by efforts in other areas. I.e.,
> increasing environmental regulation faster than we increase
> population and so forth.
>
And you oppose environmental regulation?
>
> > Also, the spike in power use had a lot to do with the influx of
> > people hoping to cash in on the 1999 Gold Rush.
>
> Actually it was also due to per capita consumption rising/waning due
> to increased economic activity, followed by decreased economic
> activity and increased conservation efforts, etc.
>
> My problem is with the greenies who either refuse to understand that:
>
> total environmental impact = individual impact * population size
>
> believe it is significant globally but not nationally, or delusionally
> believe that they can ignore the projected increases in the population
> variable by doubling up efforts on reducing the individual one.
> Historically, they've failed at that and I see no prospect of that
> changing.
Historically, folks like you oppose all efforts at planning for growth
(smart growth), then whine and complain when it happens anyway.
Sigh.
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret
>
Posting in HMTL sucks.
>
>
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
> >
> > > > Really? Please list all of the bigoted pages at
> > http://www.earthops.net/
> > >
> > > > List them, now. Put up or shut up.
> > >
> > Me (grin) > Sure, you talk about "Mexico's Quiet Invasion".
> >
> > Actually, that is an article from _The Washington Post_.
> >
> > > Dude, people who move here from
> > > Mexico are not "invading".
> >
> > Invade: 1. To enter for conquest or plunder. 2. To infringe; encroach on;
> > as, to invade the rights of the people. 3. To spread over, or through, esp.
> > injudiciously. [Webster's Collegiate]
>
> And I see your description of Mexican immigrants as invaders as a sign of
> bigotry. And I suspect I am not the only one. You can ask around.
I suspect that anyone who thinks that using words as they are defined in the
dictionary amounts to bigotry, is a complete idiot.
> > > And why not talk about "Canada's Quiet Invasion". Looks
> > > like bigotry to me.
> >
> > No. Canadian illegal aliens are far outnumbered by Mexican illegal aliens.
> > Canadian illegal aliens are so far down the list they barely make the
> > top 20.
>
> You missed the point. Deliberately? Canadians who come here are white,
> that I suspect is the real reason you don't object.
Where do I say that I don't object to illegal aliens just because they're
Canadian? I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth and then condemn me
for something I haven't said.
> And FWIW, no one really
> knows how many Canadians cross without papers (though I did have an
> arguement with an INS agent who was raving about illegal Canadians stealing
> all of the American jobs). They blend into white areas easier.
I find this worrisome. However, the INS believes that the number of Canadian
illegals is less than one tenth the number of Mexican illegals.
> > >
> > > You talk about "Chinese Dog Slaughtering Practices", why
> > > not talk about "Americans Cow Slaughtering Practices"?
> > > You are certainly don't seem to be advocating any action to
> > > stop any of the practices, it comes across as a general
> > > attack on Chinese (most of whom never eat dogs).
> >
> > That site was written by a Chinese in Hong Kong.
>
> But why do you list that, and not sites that talk about brutality towards
> animals in YOUR country?
The ASPCA does that. Try their website. Also, cruelty to animals is
prohibited by law in most US states.
> >
> > > Hey, you could do something on "Americans Dog Fighting Practices".
> > > Looks like bigotry to me.
> >
> > That's your opinion. That site shows a Chinese sucking the blood right
> > out of the leg of a whimpering German Shepard dog.
>
> And why not show American scientists torturing monkees for fun and profit
> (okay for profit only)?
>
> Looks like bigotry to me.
http://www.peta.org/ PETA covers animal rights, especially with respect to
US product-safety testing abuses.
And if you think that me being disgusted at the open vampirism of man's best
friend is bigotry, I can only suggest that you are in dire need of
professional counseling.
> >
> > And dog-fighting is outlawed in most US States, if not all of them.
> >
>
> Dog fighting (and cock fighting) are fairly common. And are legal in
> some states. Again, you could spend time looking at brutality towards
> dogs here.
I have. Oklahoma is IIRC the only state that permits either cockfighting or
dogfights.
But we're not here to discuss anything other than how ILLEGAL ALIENS are
flooding into the US, increasing the population and thus the strain on the
environment.
Please tell us why you support the destruction of the environment, an
unavoidable result of massive population growth mostly caused by both legal
and illegal immigration.
> > > You have links to FoundingFatherOrg (or whatever it is),
> > > which includes attacks on the "Black is beautiful" as a statement.
> > > You list this as "some political points of view".
> >
> > I certainly do. I do not claim them as my own. You, however, are
> > attributing
> > to me what is done by others. By your specious and pathetic attempt at
> > logic, you would condemn the Southern Poverty Law Center as "racist and
> > bigoted" because they have a page which points to "hate sites" on the
> > InterNet.
> >
>
> So, do you disagree with these sentiments? You don't make it clear. The
> Southern Poverty Law Center makes it's attitudes towards such sentiments clear.
I'm not in business to critique the political opinions expressed on people's
websites, except insofar as they might support massive illegal immigration
and consequent destruction of the environment.
<snips>
> > Do you mean http://www.earthops.net/thewar/ ?
> >
> > > "In other cities, in Houston, in Minneapolis, in the
> > > Carolinas, expatriate communities began to feel the heat
> > > of the gangster way of life. It was vigorously proselytized
> > > unto their youth by other youths, lean young men with
> > > beautiful-and-available addicted girls, fast cars,
> > > faster knives and silent deadly feet. When the
> > > older men (who remembered what had become of their homelands
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > at the hands of such men) began to organize resistances
> > > within their communities, they were contacted by other such older
> > > men, who quite often killed them silently and effectively as
> > > if long accustomed to such a workaday dispatching of men.
> >
> > Are you, by including this, actually atempting to fly in the face of
> > what's well known to every police agency in the country? ALL immigrant
> > communities -- in fact all communities, period -- have some degree of problem with
> > gangs and gangsters. However, many illegal-alien gangs -- see
> > http://www.earthops.net/klaatu/alien_gangs.html -- are exceptionally
> > vicious.
>
> Ah, "in fact all communities, period". A moment of truth. So, why not
> write about the gang problems in "your" community and ethnic/racial group? By
> consistently attacking only minority and immigrant communities, you appear to be
> bigoted.
Please point out where I attack only minority and immigrant communities.
Please point out all places where I fail to attack my own community _where
problems actually exist_.
There has been really very little US-born-of-US-born gangsterism in my
neighborhood. Almost none, in fact, since the late 1970s, outside of
skinheads, and most of those are associated with the Russian Immigrant
community.
> >
> > Here are some links to the sources.
> >
> > http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/qu
> > ry?pg=q&sc=on&q=%2Basian+%2B%22home+invasions%22&kl=XX
> >
> > First, from Australia:
> >
> > http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/nca_ctte/ncaaoc/ncaaoc3.htm
> >
> > From the US:
> >
> > http://www.nagia.org/asian_youth_gangs1.htm
> >
> > http://www.ipsn.org/asg08107.html
> >
> > From Canada:
> >
> > http://www.ncmonline.com/special-reports/2000-03-03/home.html
> >
> > http://www.acjnet.org/docs/feardoj.html
> >
> > See also http://earthops.net/immigration/asian-home-invasion1.txt
> >
> > This isn't bigotry, it's called "reporting scary facts" or sometimes
> > it's
> > just called "reporting the news".
>
> Why not talk about gangs like the Aryan Nation? Hells Angels? And
> others.
> Again, by ignoring them and focusing solely on gangs composed of "others",
> you open yourself to the suspicion of bigotry. Or you could explain.
Or you could be on very thin ice and reaching, reaching, reaching.
As for Aryan Nations, etc http://earthops.org/soveregnity.html
ah, thanks for acknowledging that you cannot read, or more likely, refuse to
admit the evidence plain on its face supports my contention more than it
supports yours.
the refutation is in the material itself and none other is needed.
>
>
> >
> > Let's see, I point out the fact that there are many very dangerous
> > illegal-alien gangs operating in most major US cities -- that is a
> > _fact_
> > you know, and you call this bigotry. Okay, you're a fool but everyone
> > knew that.
> >
>
> And gangs like the Aryan Nation and Nazi gangs, Hells Angels, skin heads?
>
> Gee, they are dangerous, but don't seem to bother you.
They aren't present in anything near the numbers as are the Mexican Mafia,
the 18th Street Gang, or the Mara Salvatruca MS-13.
and as noted elsewhere, at least in the Washington DC area, most Skins seem
to be associated with the Russian Immigrant or the YACS Balkan gangster
communities.
>
>
> >
> > And I guess you're suggesting that there was never a war in El Salvador?
> > I
> > guess you're suggesting that there is not endemic corruption in Mexico,
> > sufficient as to make life almost impossible there for many people? Are
> > you
> > suggesting the the US military never trained "Hit Squads" at the "School
> > of
> > the Americas", said Hit Squads and Death Squads being trained for the
> > Centralamerican governments that the CIA wanted propped up against
> > Communist
> > influences no matter the costs to the centralamerican citizens? This is
> > all
> > very well documented and widely so, so widely as to be common knowledge,
> >
> > especially this is well known within the Green and Liberal/Leftist
> > communities. It's even better known within the expatriate communities of
> >
> > victims of these Death Squads and their guerilla-recruiter opposition.
>
> Nope. I agree with those comments, merely point out that attacking
> immigrants and
> people of color and not attacking white folks doing the same thing makes
> you a .......
You call the YACS non-white? You call Russian illegals non-white? You're
mind is awfully closed to be trying to call someone a bigot.
> >
> >
> > And in case you didn't know, when the Death Squad CIA-trained butchers
> > came
> > at risk of being brought to Justice for their monstrous crimes, the CIA
> > promptly maneuvered for them to not only get Green Cards, but also
> > annual
> > payments in perpetuity, and relocated them to the US... where the
> > expatriate
> > communities are terrified to find that the butchers they fled are not
> > just
> > living among them again, but are living among them as rich men with the
> > protection of the US government.
> >
>
> Yep, see Vietnam, Shah of Iran, etc. Certainly I know this. You could
> also talk
> about ex-Nazi's, but admittedly that was a while ago.
And I certainly did talk about YACS (Yugoslav, Albanian, Croatian, Serb) and
Russian gangsters, not to mention their freakin multi-generation "sleepers",
but you decided to ignore that, didn't you, because it doesn't support your
bogus contention.
>
>
> >
> > So, you are not only a fool but an ignorant fool, else you are a willful
> >
> > Revisionist.
> >
> > Furthermore, your reading comprehension truly sucks. If you can't tell a
> >
> > sympathetic piece when you see it -- a passage detailing the horrors
> > from
> > which people fled, and which horrors pursued them.
> >
> > Truly, this is astonishing.
> >
>
> Or could it be that your writing skills aren't what you think? If the
> sympathy was there, I totally miss it. You should be astonished.
I am. English isn't your native language, is it.
<snips>
> > addition of six interior locking doors. In other words, instant ghetto,
> > to
> > be filled with the poor who will stand on the edge of the permitted
> > expansion, and gaze outwards the the preserved rural heritage and begin
> > writing letters demanding the limits be expanded outwards, so that the
> > developer who owns that land can make a gajilliuon bucks and do the same
> >
> > thing again another 20 years down the line.
>
> So, you are not for more density? And you would, I presume, send the poor
> elsewhere. Nimbyism at it's worst!
Idiot, I argue relentlessly in favor of population reduction through
widespread curtailment of reproduction, and you accuse me of wanting to send
poor people elsewhere!
When I want to try to preserve some of the natural environment in preserves
outside of town, this isn't a case of NIMBY -- _I live in the areas that are
getting densified_, not out in the pristine farmlands!
Idiot! I want no more poor illegal immigrants flooding into the country and
turning neighborhoods such as mine into instant barrios.
<snips>
> > Absolutely not. I not only don't commute, but I spend about an hour a day
> > cleaning trash out of my yard. I don't pollute if I can avoid it and my
> > vehicles all pass very stringent emissions standards. My consumption of
> > anything other than InterNet is rather limited; I am not a wealthy
> > person.
>
> "Vehicle(s)" (parentheses added for emphasis). You own multiple
> car/trucks and think you consumption is limited. Sigh.
Idiot, when I can only drive one at a time and the other is garaged as a
reserve, my consumption is limited! Neither is less than 10 years old, so
it's not as if they are dynamiting forested mountainsides to get the ore to
build them. I am recycling, dunce!
>
> >
> >
> > Again, you make bald-faced accusations where they are neither germane
> > nor
> > correct. Not only are trolling but you're exceptionally lame trying to
> > spread the pro-immigration/anti-greenspace-preservation equivalent of
> > Fear
> > Uncertainty and Doubt.
>
> It is possible to be pro-immigrant and pro-greenspace.
It's categorically impossible. You cannot support Massive Immigration at any
level over population-maintenance/no-growth levels, or you are explicitly
supporting either intolerable densification of urban areas, or increased
Sprawl.
> Which, of course,
> your prejudices prevent you from even considering.
which, irregardless of prejuice or lack thereof, cannot be considered other
than to be noted to be mutually exclusive.
<rest snipped as it's irrelevant bickering trolled off topic>
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Charles Lynch wrote, in HTML:
>Posting in HMTL sucks.
Why?
>
>
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
> >
> > > > Really? Please list all of the bigoted pages at
> > http://www.earthops.net/
> > >
> > > > List them, now. Put up or shut up.
> > >
> > Me (grin) > Sure, you talk about "Mexico's Quiet Invasion".
> >
> > Actually, that is an article from _The Washington Post_.
> >
> > > Dude, people who move here from
> > > Mexico are not "invading".
> >
> > Invade: 1. To enter for conquest or plunder. 2. To infringe; encroach on;
> > as, to invade the rights of the people. 3. To spread over, or through, esp.
> > injudiciously. [Webster's Collegiate]
>
> And I see your description of Mexican immigrants as invaders as a sign of
> bigotry. And I suspect I am not the only one. You can ask around.I suspect that anyone who thinks that using words as they are defined in the
dictionary amounts to bigotry, is a complete idiot.
That's it?? The great rebuttal? You can't explain why you consider
Mexicans "invaders"
nor defend your use of the term? (Your response amounts to "Mexicans
are defined as
Invaders, therefore they are Invaders." It's called a tautology.).
> > > And why not talk about "Canada's Quiet Invasion". Looks
> > > like bigotry to me.
> >
> > No. Canadian illegal aliens are far outnumbered by Mexican illegal aliens.
> > Canadian illegal aliens are so far down the list they barely make the
> > top 20.
>
> You missed the point. Deliberately? Canadians who come here are white,
> that I suspect is the real reason you don't object.Where do I say that I don't object to illegal aliens just because they're
Canadian? I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth and then condemn me
for something I haven't said.
You did indicate that Canadian "illegal aliens" don't concern you
much.
> > >
> > > You talk about "Chinese Dog Slaughtering Practices", why
> > > not talk about "Americans Cow Slaughtering Practices"?
> > > You are certainly don't seem to be advocating any action to
> > > stop any of the practices, it comes across as a general
> > > attack on Chinese (most of whom never eat dogs).
> >
> > That site was written by a Chinese in Hong Kong.
>
> But why do you list that, and not sites that talk about brutality towards
> animals in YOUR country?The ASPCA does that. Try their website. Also, cruelty to animals is
prohibited by law in most US states.
Veal doesn't count as cruelty? Again, why pick on other folks when
there
is plenty of cruelty right here.
> >
> > > Hey, you could do something on "Americans Dog Fighting Practices".
> > > Looks like bigotry to me.
> >
> > That's your opinion. That site shows a Chinese sucking the blood right
> > out of the leg of a whimpering German Shepard dog.
>
> And why not show American scientists torturing monkees for fun and profit
> (okay for profit only)?
>
> Looks like bigotry to me.http://www.peta.org/ PETA covers animal rights, especially with respect to
US product-safety testing abuses.And if you think that me being disgusted at the open vampirism of man's best
friend is bigotry, I can only suggest that you are in dire need of
professional counseling.
Nope. Nice try, though. You know I am suggesting that your
selective choice
of who's cruelty you object to is bigotry.
> >
> > And dog-fighting is outlawed in most US States, if not all of them.
> >
>
> Dog fighting (and cock fighting) are fairly common. And are legal in
> some states. Again, you could spend time looking at brutality towards
> dogs here.I have. Oklahoma is IIRC the only state that permits either cockfighting or
dogfights.
While outlawed, it is damn common.
But we're not here to discuss anything other than how ILLEGAL ALIENS are
flooding into the US, increasing the population and thus the strain on the
environment.
Actually, we were discussing why your web site only attacks non-white folks.
But, I will help you out. "ILLEGAL ALIENS" are NOT
flooding into the US, increasing the population and thus the strain
on the
environment.
See, problem solved!
Please tell us why you support the destruction of the environment, an
unavoidable result of massive population growth mostly caused by both legal
and illegal immigration.
I don't. If the environment is destroyed, it will be because folks
like you can't get
a handle on your (and corporate America's) consumption practices.
> > > You have links to FoundingFatherOrg (or whatever it is),
> > > which includes attacks on the "Black is beautiful" as a statement.
> > > You list this as "some political points of view".
> >
> > I certainly do. I do not claim them as my own. You, however, are
> > attributing
> > to me what is done by others. By your specious and pathetic attempt at
> > logic, you would condemn the Southern Poverty Law Center as "racist and
> > bigoted" because they have a page which points to "hate sites" on the
> > InterNet.
> >
>
> So, do you disagree with these sentiments? You don't make it clear. The
> Southern Poverty Law Center makes it's attitudes towards such sentiments clear.I'm not in business to critique the political opinions expressed on people's
websites, except insofar as they might support massive illegal immigration
and consequent destruction of the environment.
But you do get to choose to whom you link. And you could, if you
chose, explain
why. I won't hold my breath.
You never talk about the Aryan Brotherhood, or Hells Angels. Both
white,
nativist gangs.
> >
> > Here are some links to the sources.
> >
> > http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/qu
> > ry?pg=q&sc=on&q=%2Basian+%2B%22home+invasions%22&kl=XX
> >
> > First, from Australia:
> >
> > http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/nca_ctte/ncaaoc/ncaaoc3.htm
> >
> > From the US:
> >
> > http://www.nagia.org/asian_youth_gangs1.htm
> >
> > http://www.ipsn.org/asg08107.html
> >
> > From Canada:
> >
> > http://www.ncmonline.com/special-reports/2000-03-03/home.html
> >
> > http://www.acjnet.org/docs/feardoj.html
> >
> > See also http://earthops.net/immigration/asian-home-invasion1.txt
> >
> > This isn't bigotry, it's called "reporting scary facts" or sometimes
> > it's
> > just called "reporting the news".
>
> Why not talk about gangs like the Aryan Nation? Hells Angels? And
> others.
> Again, by ignoring them and focusing solely on gangs composed of "others",
> you open yourself to the suspicion of bigotry. Or you could explain.Or you could be on very thin ice and reaching, reaching, reaching.
As for Aryan Nations, etc http://earthops.org/soveregnity.html
Sorry, said the "This server either can't find the document
you requested, or you are not permitted to access this document or script
directly."
ROFLMAO.... let the material stand for itself, indeed.
>
>
> >
> > Let's see, I point out the fact that there are many very dangerous
> > illegal-alien gangs operating in most major US cities -- that is a
> > _fact_
> > you know, and you call this bigotry. Okay, you're a fool but everyone
> > knew that.
> >
>
> And gangs like the Aryan Nation and Nazi gangs, Hells Angels, skin heads?
>
> Gee, they are dangerous, but don't seem to bother you.They aren't present in anything near the numbers as are the Mexican Mafia,
the 18th Street Gang, or the Mara Salvatruca MS-13.and as noted elsewhere, at least in the Washington DC area, most Skins seem
to be associated with the Russian Immigrant or the YACS Balkan gangster
communities.
And the regular Mafia? Isn't the biggest nastiest gang in the DC
area the Republican Party?
Again, your selectiveness seems telling to me.
>
>
> >
> > And I guess you're suggesting that there was never a war in El Salvador?
> > I
> > guess you're suggesting that there is not endemic corruption in Mexico,
> > sufficient as to make life almost impossible there for many people? Are
> > you
> > suggesting the the US military never trained "Hit Squads" at the "School
> > of
> > the Americas", said Hit Squads and Death Squads being trained for the
> > Centralamerican governments that the CIA wanted propped up against
> > Communist
> > influences no matter the costs to the centralamerican citizens? This is
> > all
> > very well documented and widely so, so widely as to be common knowledge,
> >
> > especially this is well known within the Green and Liberal/Leftist
> > communities. It's even better known within the expatriate communities of
> >
> > victims of these Death Squads and their guerilla-recruiter opposition.
>
> Nope. I agree with those comments, merely point out that attacking
> immigrants and
> people of color and not attacking white folks doing the same thing makes
> you a .......You call the YACS non-white? You call Russian illegals non-white? You're
mind is awfully closed to be trying to call someone a bigot.
I said "immigrants and people of color". I was including white immigrants,
but will
acknowledge I should have said "not attacking white native born folks"
for clarity.
> >
> >
> > And in case you didn't know, when the Death Squad CIA-trained butchers
> > came
> > at risk of being brought to Justice for their monstrous crimes, the CIA
> > promptly maneuvered for them to not only get Green Cards, but also
> > annual
> > payments in perpetuity, and relocated them to the US... where the
> > expatriate
> > communities are terrified to find that the butchers they fled are not
> > just
> > living among them again, but are living among them as rich men with the
> > protection of the US government.
> >
>
> Yep, see Vietnam, Shah of Iran, etc. Certainly I know this. You could
> also talk
> about ex-Nazi's, but admittedly that was a while ago.And I certainly did talk about YACS (Yugoslav, Albanian, Croatian, Serb) and
Russian gangsters, not to mention their freakin multi-generation "sleepers",
but you decided to ignore that, didn't you, because it doesn't support your
bogus contention.
I have always said "immigrants and". But note that you spend more
time attacking
people of color than anyone else. At least on some of your pages.
See the animal
rights stuff, etc.
YOU create appearances by how you put your site together, and
by the language
and examples you chose.
>
>
> >
> > So, you are not only a fool but an ignorant fool, else you are a willful
> >
> > Revisionist.
> >
> > Furthermore, your reading comprehension truly sucks. If you can't tell a
> >
> > sympathetic piece when you see it -- a passage detailing the horrors
> > from
> > which people fled, and which horrors pursued them.
> >
> > Truly, this is astonishing.
> >
>
> Or could it be that your writing skills aren't what you think? If the
> sympathy was there, I totally miss it. You should be astonished.I am. English isn't your native language, is it.
ROFLMAO... You got me there. It's Sothren.
<snips>
> > addition of six interior locking doors. In other words, instant ghetto,
> > to
> > be filled with the poor who will stand on the edge of the permitted
> > expansion, and gaze outwards the the preserved rural heritage and begin
> > writing letters demanding the limits be expanded outwards, so that the
> > developer who owns that land can make a gajilliuon bucks and do the same
> >
> > thing again another 20 years down the line.
>
> So, you are not for more density? And you would, I presume, send the poor
> elsewhere. Nimbyism at it's worst!Idiot, I argue relentlessly in favor of population reduction through
widespread curtailment of reproduction, and you accuse me of wanting to send
poor people elsewhere!
Isn't that what your anti-density talk amounts to? Everywhere in
the country when
people complain about density, they are talking about apartment buildings
as opposed
to single family housing. And you did too (in the parts you <snipped>).
And this is
precisely the form of housing occupied by the poor.
When I want to try to preserve some of the natural environment in preserves
outside of town, this isn't a case of NIMBY -- _I live in the areas that are
getting densified_, not out in the pristine farmlands!Idiot! I want no more poor illegal immigrants flooding into the country and
turning neighborhoods such as mine into instant barrios.
Barrios? Why that term in DC? Again, your choice of
language is your own.
And suggestive.
<snips>
> > Absolutely not. I not only don't commute, but I spend about an hour a day
> > cleaning trash out of my yard. I don't pollute if I can avoid it and my
> > vehicles all pass very stringent emissions standards. My consumption of
> > anything other than InterNet is rather limited; I am not a wealthy
> > person.
>
> "Vehicle(s)" (parentheses added for emphasis). You own multiple
> car/trucks and think you consumption is limited. Sigh.Idiot, when I can only drive one at a time and the other is garaged as a
reserve, my consumption is limited! Neither is less than 10 years old, so
it's not as if they are dynamiting forested mountainsides to get the ore to
build them. I am recycling, dunce!
ROFLMAO.... and the ore originally came from? You take the bus how
often?
>
> >
> >
> > Again, you make bald-faced accusations where they are neither germane
> > nor
> > correct. Not only are trolling but you're exceptionally lame trying to
> > spread the pro-immigration/anti-greenspace-preservation equivalent of
> > Fear
> > Uncertainty and Doubt.
>
> It is possible to be pro-immigrant and pro-greenspace.It's categorically impossible. You cannot support Massive Immigration at any
level over population-maintenance/no-growth levels, or you are explicitly
supporting either intolerable densification of urban areas, or increased
Sprawl.
Who decides what is "intolerable densification" of urban areas?
> Which, of course,
> your prejudices prevent you from even considering.which, irregardless of prejuice or lack thereof, cannot be considered other
than to be noted to be mutually exclusive.
???? not quite comprehensible.
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret
>
>
>
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
> > Charles Lynch wrote, in HTML:
> > >
> >
> > Posting in HMTL sucks.
>
> Why?
Try looking at a multi-part/MIME posting using an non-MIME newsreader, such
as the popular 'tin' or 'slrn'. The volume of posting is roughly doubled at
a minimum, with most of it being gibberish. And readers outside of the US
generally pay by the minute for internet access, and thus you are selfishly
doubling their cost of reading UseNet.
<snips>
> > > > > Dude, people who move here from
> > > > > Mexico are not "invading".
> > > >
> > > > Invade: 1. To enter for conquest or plunder. 2. To infringe; encroach on;
> > > > as, to invade the rights of the people. 3. To spread over, or through, esp.
> > > > injudiciously. [Webster's Collegiate]
> > >
> > > And I see your description of Mexican immigrants as invaders as a sign of
> > > bigotry. And I suspect I am not the only one. You can ask around.
> >
> > I suspect that anyone who thinks that using words as they are defined in the
> > dictionary amounts to bigotry, is a complete idiot.
>
> That's it?? The great rebuttal? You can't explain why you consider
> Mexicans "invaders"
> nor defend your use of the term? (Your response amounts to "Mexicans are
> defined as
> Invaders, therefore they are Invaders." It's called a tautology.).
I said no such thing. I call it as I see it: Again, the definition.
Invade: 1. To enter for conquest or plunder. 2. To infringe; encroach on;
as, to invade the rights of the people. 3. To spread over, or through, esp.
injudiciously. [Webster's Collegiate]
Mexican nationals and citizens, as well as the citizens or nationals of a
great many other countries, are in fact spreading over the nations,
especially injudiciously with respect to their numbers. They are in fact
invading the rights of the Soverenign Nation, to wit, the United States of
America. They have, in fact, infringed, and encroached upon the US and
infringe and encroach upon our cities and countryside.
Thus, since Mexican (and other nations') illegal aliens behave in a way that
matches the definition of invading, to call them Invaders is doing nothing
more than calling them what they are. Invaders.
>
>
> >
> >
> > > > > And why not talk about "Canada's Quiet Invasion". Looks
> > > > > like bigotry to me.
> > > >
> > > > No. Canadian illegal aliens are far outnumbered by Mexican illegal aliens.
> > > > Canadian illegal aliens are so far down the list they barely make the
> > > > top 20.
> > >
> > > You missed the point. Deliberately? Canadians who come here are white,
> > > that I suspect is the real reason you don't object.
> >
> > Where do I say that I don't object to illegal aliens just because they're
> > Canadian? I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth and then
> > condemn me for something I haven't said.
>
> You did indicate that Canadian "illegal aliens" don't concern you much.
They don't. And they don't concern me as much because, numerically, that are
nowhere near being the greatest part of the problem.
<snips>
> > > Dog fighting (and cock fighting) are fairly common. And are legal in
> > > some states. Again, you could spend time looking at brutality towards
> >
> > > dogs here.
> >
> > I have. Oklahoma is IIRC the only state that permits either cockfighting
> > or
> > dogfights.
> >
>
> While outlawed, it is damn common.
Are are the ILLEGAL ALIENS overrunning the borders in the millions.
Are you thus suggesting that we tolerate an illegal invasion by millions of
unwanted foreigners, _because some hicks are attending cockfights_?
Are you quite MAD?
>
>
> >
> > But we're not here to discuss anything other than how ILLEGAL ALIENS are
> >
> > flooding into the US, increasing the population and thus the strain on
> > the
> > environment.
>
> Actually, we were discussing why your web site only attacks non-white
> folks.
But it doesn't. Show me where I attack non-whites for being non-white!
You can't! because this is nothing but your race-obsessed paranoia, and your
total lack of any substantive input. Face it. You support the country being
overrun by dangerous foreigbn nationals who enter without inspection or who
overstay their visas.
>
> But, I will help you out. "ILLEGAL ALIENS" are NOT
> flooding into the US, increasing the population and thus the strain on the
> environment.
>
> See, problem solved!
There are millions of illegal aliens. They were entering at the rate of --
this is according to the estimates of the (broken) INS -- about a million a
year from Mexico alone.
>
> >
> >
> > Please tell us why you support the destruction of the environment, an
> > unavoidable result of massive population growth mostly caused by both
> > legal
> > and illegal immigration.
>
> I don't. If the environment is destroyed, it will be because folks like
> you can't get
> a handle on your (and corporate America's) consumption practices.
Please attempt to support this assertion.
<snips>
> > There has been really very little US-born-of-US-born gangsterism in my
> > neighborhood. Almost none, in fact, since the late 1970s, outside of
> > skinheads, and most of those are associated with the Russian Immigrant
> > community.
>
> You never talk about the Aryan Brotherhood, or Hells Angels. Both white,
> nativist gangs.
Well, to be direct about it, I loathe white separatists, and revile
neo-nazis.
I equally revile and loathe your sort of sap, whose "bleeding heart" demands
that the US open its borders to all sorts of potential terrorists, and the
sole US source of aggregate population increase.
<snips>
> > As for Aryan Nations, etc http://earthops.org/soveregnity.html
>
> Sorry, said the "This server either can't find the document you
> requested, or you are not permitted to access this document or script
> directly."
Then you mistyped the URL.
From that page:
"Some of the ideas linked herein are, in my opinion,
almost reasonable, but often attached to mentation
which borders or occasionally surpasses extreme proactive paranoia.
Oddly enough, I think that much of that paranoia is justified,
but perhaps not for the reasons stated by those who espouse
these belief systems. Fortunately, these most-vocal members
of the militia and sovereignity movements are not really
that representative of the majority of the movements,
no matter that the liberal media would have you believe otherwise."
<snips>
> > and as noted elsewhere, at least in the Washington DC area, most Skins
> > seem
> > to be associated with the Russian Immigrant or the YACS Balkan gangster
> > communities.
> >
>
> And the regular Mafia? Isn't the biggest nastiest gang in the DC area the
> Republican Party?
No. The DC/MD/NoVA area is hardcore liberal Democrat, has been for 50 years.
> Again, your selectiveness seems telling to me.
Your ignorance is astounding, even for a blatant troll.
<snips>
> >
> > You call the YACS non-white? You call Russian illegals non-white? You're
> > mind is awfully closed to be trying to call someone a bigot.
>
> I said "immigrants and people of color". I was including white
> immigrants, but will
> acknowledge I should have said "not attacking white native born folks" for
> clarity.
Why should I attack my fellow citizens? Do you think that failure to attack
my fellow citizens means that I'm a bigot?
What kind of crack have you been smoking?
Clearly I've been attempting a sensible debate with an obsessive idiot who
has no interest in actual discussion of any issues of substance.
Face it, silly man, the nation is being flooded with immigrants, some who
are invited and come legally and I don't have a problem with legal
immigration. I have a big problem with illegal aliens, who simply shouldn't
be here, should not have been able to get in, who are a potential massive
security risk to the nation and who are assuredly increasing the drain on
resources, specifically on greenspace and on water.
Rusty
phone towers everywhere? The damn towers are ruining views and beautiful vistas. And
look who the market for the damn things is sometime! Watch a Verizon commercial you
will get my drift.
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> How are the cell phone corporations getting away with sticking those damn ugly cell
> phone towers everywhere? The damn towers are ruining views and beautiful vistas. And
> look who the market for the damn things is sometime! Watch a Verizon commercial you
> will get my drift.
Who, yuppies?
BTW -- in terms of strategic and tactical common sense, handing out secure
wireless communications (in the form of cellphones) to foreigners is just a
little bit insane, especially when there's a law prohibiting ownership of
devices capable of monitoring them... when there's no such prohibition of
foreigners monitoring, say, police or military communications.
As for how the companies are getting away with it, you want to address your
question to the Federal Communications Commission. As I recall, there was
one round of applications for antenna sites in the mid-1980s which finally
specified who could place which towers where, in the cities. Then in the
late 1980s, there was a round of applications for the "rural SMAs"
(statistical marketing areas) and by the mid 1990s, it was all a done deal.
They're apparently just now getting around to filling in the last gaps so
that there will be truly nationwide coverage.
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> Charles Lynch wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> >
> > > Charles Lynch wrote, in HTML:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Posting in HMTL sucks.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Try looking at a multi-part/MIME posting using an non-MIME newsreader, such
> as the popular 'tin' or 'slrn'. The volume of posting is roughly doubled at
> a minimum, with most of it being gibberish. And readers outside of the US
> generally pay by the minute for internet access, and thus you are selfishly
> doubling their cost of reading UseNet.
Fair enough. Though, I suspect you flatter yourself (and me, I guess) if you think
more than three or four people ever read either of our postings!
>
>
> <snips>
>
> > > > > > Dude, people who move here from
> > > > > > Mexico are not "invading".
> > > > >
> > > > > Invade: 1. To enter for conquest or plunder. 2. To infringe; encroach on;
> > > > > as, to invade the rights of the people. 3. To spread over, or through, esp.
> > > > > injudiciously. [Webster's Collegiate]
> > > >
> > > > And I see your description of Mexican immigrants as invaders as a sign of
> > > > bigotry. And I suspect I am not the only one. You can ask around.
> > >
> > > I suspect that anyone who thinks that using words as they are defined in the
> > > dictionary amounts to bigotry, is a complete idiot.
> >
> > That's it?? The great rebuttal? You can't explain why you consider
> > Mexicans "invaders"
> > nor defend your use of the term? (Your response amounts to "Mexicans are
> > defined as
> > Invaders, therefore they are Invaders." It's called a tautology.).
>
> I said no such thing. I call it as I see it: Again, the definition.
>
> Invade: 1. To enter for conquest or plunder. 2. To infringe; encroach on;
> as, to invade the rights of the people. 3. To spread over, or through, esp.
> injudiciously. [Webster's Collegiate]
>
> Mexican nationals and citizens, as well as the citizens or nationals of a
> great many other countries, are in fact spreading over the nations,
> especially injudiciously with respect to their numbers.
Ah, gee, and you wonder why I suspect you of bigotry? Why not pick
on the Canadians, the English or the Irish?
And why injudiciously? Again, your bias shows.
> They are in fact
> invading the rights of the Soverenign Nation, to wit, the United States of
> America.
?????? Which means what???? Sounds like a pretty slogan full of sound and
fury. "Rights of the Sovereign Nation"??? What the heck does that mean?
(Sorry, I don't belong to whatever cult talks like that. Guess, our "common
culture" isn't doing so well).
> They have, in fact, infringed, and encroached upon the US and
> infringe and encroach upon our cities and countryside.
What does "infringed and encroached" mean to you? Is this supposed to
be some weird legalistic argument?
>
>
> Thus, since Mexican (and other nations') illegal aliens behave in a way that
> matches the definition of invading, to call them Invaders is doing nothing
> more than calling them what they are. Invaders.
Only in your little cult world. How about tourists, are they invaders too? Don't
they do all of these things?
What about conservatives? Aren't they trying to spread all over the countryside?
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > And why not talk about "Canada's Quiet Invasion". Looks
> > > > > > like bigotry to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > No. Canadian illegal aliens are far outnumbered by Mexican illegal aliens.
> > > > > Canadian illegal aliens are so far down the list they barely make the
> > > > > top 20.
> > > >
> > > > You missed the point. Deliberately? Canadians who come here are white,
> > > > that I suspect is the real reason you don't object.
> > >
> > > Where do I say that I don't object to illegal aliens just because they're
> > > Canadian? I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth and then
> > > condemn me for something I haven't said.
> >
> > You did indicate that Canadian "illegal aliens" don't concern you much.
>
> They don't. And they don't concern me as much because, numerically, that are
> nowhere near being the greatest part of the problem.
And that is the same reasons all of your animal stuff points to non-white cites?
>
>
> <snips>
>
> > > > Dog fighting (and cock fighting) are fairly common. And are legal in
> > > > some states. Again, you could spend time looking at brutality towards
> > >
> > > > dogs here.
> > >
> > > I have. Oklahoma is IIRC the only state that permits either cockfighting
> > > or
> > > dogfights.
> > >
> >
> > While outlawed, it is damn common.
>
> Are are the ILLEGAL ALIENS overrunning the borders in the millions.
You mean the bug people from Altari Five? Oh wait, you mean the folks
who didn't get their papers processed!!
You sound like Chicken Little, not Tiny Ferret.
>
>
> Are you thus suggesting that we tolerate an illegal invasion by millions of
> unwanted foreigners, _because some hicks are attending cockfights_?
I don't seen any invasion. (And what would a legal invasion look like).
How about unwanted natives?
>
>
> Are you quite MAD?
Nope, but I picture you as frothing at the mouth. Need to keep my
rabies shots handy.
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > But we're not here to discuss anything other than how ILLEGAL ALIENS are
> > >
> > > flooding into the US, increasing the population and thus the strain on
> > > the
> > > environment.
> >
> > Actually, we were discussing why your web site only attacks non-white
> > folks.
>
> But it doesn't. Show me where I attack non-whites for being non-white!
>
> You can't! because this is nothing but your race-obsessed paranoia, and your
> total lack of any substantive input. Face it. You support the country being
> overrun by dangerous foreigbn nationals who enter without inspection or who
> overstay their visas.
>
You attack non-whites for doing the same thing that whites do. You focus on
the non-whites in your attacks.
>
> >
> > But, I will help you out. "ILLEGAL ALIENS" are NOT
> > flooding into the US, increasing the population and thus the strain on the
> > environment.
> >
> > See, problem solved!
>
> There are millions of illegal aliens. They were entering at the rate of --
> this is according to the estimates of the (broken) INS -- about a million a
> year from Mexico alone.
Before the moron white elderly voters of California passed Prop 187, there
were numbers of migrants who came and went to do seasonal jobs. Since
the border tightened, they come and stay. Who can blaim them? Ever
heard of unintended consequences?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please tell us why you support the destruction of the environment, an
> > > unavoidable result of massive population growth mostly caused by both
> > > legal
> > > and illegal immigration.
> >
> > I don't. If the environment is destroyed, it will be because folks like
> > you can't get
> > a handle on your (and corporate America's) consumption practices.
>
> Please attempt to support this assertion.
Sure. The United States consumes at a rate using roughly 80% of the worlds
resources for 6% (roughly) of the population. In the last decade, per-capita
consumption has gone up in the United States. Much of the decision making
that supports and leads to this is done by corporations (see recent vote in
Congress AGAINST high fuel efficiency standards, and U.S. corporate lobbying
against Kyoto treaty and so on and so on). These corporations and politicians
leading the charge against the environment are run by, composed of, and elected
by folks like you and me. People born here.
>
>
> <snips>
>
> > > There has been really very little US-born-of-US-born gangsterism in my
> > > neighborhood. Almost none, in fact, since the late 1970s, outside of
> > > skinheads, and most of those are associated with the Russian Immigrant
> > > community.
> >
> > You never talk about the Aryan Brotherhood, or Hells Angels. Both white,
> > nativist gangs.
>
> Well, to be direct about it, I loathe white separatists, and revile
> neo-nazis.
Gee, was that so hard to say?
>
>
> I equally revile and loathe your sort of sap, whose "bleeding heart" demands
> that the US open its borders to all sorts of potential terrorists, and the
> sole US source of aggregate population increase.
The general suspicion is that the anthrax terrorists were home grown. Can I say
Tim McVie?
>
>
> <snips>
>
> > > As for Aryan Nations, etc http://earthops.org/soveregnity.html
> >
> > Sorry, said the "This server either can't find the document you
> > requested, or you are not permitted to access this document or script
> > directly."
>
> Then you mistyped the URL.
No, I clicked on it (it's the HTML feature). Listen, you need to learn your
web stuff better, just did it again.
Got "
This server either can't find the document you requested, or you are not permitted to
access this document or script directly.
Maybe you misspelled something? Search our pages:"
>
>
> From that page:
>
> "Some of the ideas linked herein are, in my opinion,
> almost reasonable, but often attached to mentation
> which borders or occasionally surpasses extreme proactive paranoia.
> Oddly enough, I think that much of that paranoia is justified,
> but perhaps not for the reasons stated by those who espouse
> these belief systems. Fortunately, these most-vocal members
> of the militia and sovereignity movements are not really
> that representative of the majority of the movements,
> no matter that the liberal media would have you believe otherwise."
Guy, you are trying to tell me that you see good in the militia and sovereignity
movements (which are heavily tied to white supremacists), and then think that
I will believe you to be a tolerant non-prejudiced fellow?
Not gonna happen.
>
>
> <snips>
>
> > > and as noted elsewhere, at least in the Washington DC area, most Skins
> > > seem
> > > to be associated with the Russian Immigrant or the YACS Balkan gangster
> > > communities.
> > >
> >
> > And the regular Mafia? Isn't the biggest nastiest gang in the DC area the
> > Republican Party?
>
> No. The DC/MD/NoVA area is hardcore liberal Democrat, has been for 50 years.
Regular Mafia? Like duh, I was joking about the Republicans. And you are suggesting
that there are no non-immigrant skin heads around there? I grew up near there many
years ago, and oh how wrong you are!
>
>
> > Again, your selectiveness seems telling to me.
>
> Your ignorance is astounding, even for a blatant troll.
>
> <snips>
>
> > >
> > > You call the YACS non-white? You call Russian illegals non-white? You're
> > > mind is awfully closed to be trying to call someone a bigot.
> >
> > I said "immigrants and people of color". I was including white
> > immigrants, but will
> > acknowledge I should have said "not attacking white native born folks" for
> > clarity.
>
> Why should I attack my fellow citizens? Do you think that failure to attack
> my fellow citizens means that I'm a bigot?
I think that wearing blinders so that you ignore evil on the part of your fellow
citizens while raving about immigrants makes you a bigot, yes.
>
>
> What kind of crack have you been smoking?
>
> Clearly I've been attempting a sensible debate with an obsessive idiot who
> has no interest in actual discussion of any issues of substance.
>
> Face it, silly man, the nation is being flooded with immigrants, some who
> are invited and come legally and I don't have a problem with legal
> immigration. I have a big problem with illegal aliens, who simply shouldn't
> be here, should not have been able to get in, who are a potential massive
> security risk to the nation and who are assuredly increasing the drain on
> resources, specifically on greenspace and on water.
ROFLMAO.... and I thought the drain on greenspace and water was due
to suburban sprawl, which is largely the provence of the white middle class.
Note that undocumented immigrants from Mexico (or elsewhere) who
don't own a car and live in crowded conditions, actually consume very little.
As Pogo said "We have met the enemy and he is us". Look in a mirror.
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> > Charles Lynch wrote:
> > > Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> > > > Charles Lynch wrote, in HTML:
> > There are millions of illegal aliens. They were entering at the rate of --
> > this is according to the estimates of the (broken) INS -- about a million a
> > year from Mexico alone.
>
> Before the moron white elderly voters of California passed Prop 187, there
RACIST!
<snips>
Baster
wrote:
>Before the moron white elderly voters of California passed Prop 187, there
>were numbers of migrants who came and went to do seasonal jobs. Since
>the border tightened, they come and stay. Who can blaim them? Ever
>heard of unintended consequences?
I'm not elderly, and most voters aren't elderly.
It is very apparent who the moron is.
Your blip analysis why they came & left (seasonal workers are
miniscule), and why they come & stay, is one of those ignorant tidbits
that show you have no knowlege of the situation or people involved.
Tom Lehman
towers. For example, a 500' setback from a highway; although this is largely being ignored
in most sprawl areas.
I can't believe that people are not objecting to these damn ugly cell phone towers. They
really are a blight on the landscape.
I really think that people should get on Verizon and Motorola's case on this new form of
corporate ugliness. Heck, Motorola even moved their cell phone plant to China. Now we are
stuck with Chinese cell phones and ugly friggin' towers.
Tiny Human Ferret
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> > Charles Lynch wrote:
> > > Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> > > > Charles Lynch wrote, in HTML:
<CHOMP>
> > > > > > > Dude, people who move here from
> > > > > > > Mexico are not "invading".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Invade: 1. To enter for conquest or plunder. 2. To infringe; encroach on;
> > > > > > as, to invade the rights of the people. 3. To spread over, or through, esp.
> > > > > > injudiciously. [Webster's Collegiate]
> > > > >
> > > > > And I see your description of Mexican immigrants as invaders as a sign of
> > > > > bigotry. And I suspect I am not the only one. You can ask around.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that anyone who thinks that using words as they are defined in the
> > > > dictionary amounts to bigotry, is a complete idiot.
> > >
> > > That's it?? The great rebuttal? You can't explain why you consider
> > > Mexicans "invaders"
> > > nor defend your use of the term? (Your response amounts to "Mexicans are
> > > defined as
> > > Invaders, therefore they are Invaders." It's called a tautology.).
> >
> > I said no such thing. I call it as I see it: Again, the definition.
> >
> > Invade: 1. To enter for conquest or plunder. 2. To infringe; encroach on;
> > as, to invade the rights of the people. 3. To spread over, or through, esp.
> > injudiciously. [Webster's Collegiate]
> >
> > Mexican nationals and citizens, as well as the citizens or nationals of a
> > great many other countries, are in fact spreading over the nations,
> > especially injudiciously with respect to their numbers.
>
> Ah, gee, and you wonder why I suspect you of bigotry? Why not pick
> on the Canadians, the English or the Irish?
I have repeatedly stated that I oppose ALL Illegal Immigration, regardless
of the national origins of the illegal alien.
You appear to be the one making this all about Mexicans and exclusively
about Mexicans. However, since nearly 90 percent of illegal aliens either
are Mexican or enter the US illegally from Mexico by crossing the border
surreptitiously or entering on a day-tourist visa and never voluntarily
returning, I can understand the confusion generated in your simple mind.
> And why injudiciously? Again, your bias shows.
Do you understand the meaning of "injudicious"?
"1. Not judicious; wanting in sound judgment; undiscerning; indiscreet;
unwise; as, an injudicious adviser. 2. Not according to sound judgment or
discretion; unwise; as, an injudicious measure."
It's not sound judgement for illegal aliens to mob the US.
>
> > They are in fact
> > invading the rights of the Soverenign Nation, to wit, the United States of
> > America.
>
> ?????? Which means what???? Sounds like a pretty slogan full of sound and
> fury. "Rights of the Sovereign Nation"??? What the heck does that mean?
> (Sorry, I don't belong to whatever cult talks like that. Guess, our "common
> culture" isn't doing so well).
Then I'd have to say you're apparently about as unAmerican as they come.
"Sovereign state, a state which administers its own government, and is not
dependent upon, or subject to, another power.
Sovereignty Sov"er*eign*ty, n.; pl. Sovereignties. OE. soverainetee, OF.
sovrainet'e, F. souverainet'e. The quality or state of being sovereign, or
of being a sovereign; the exercise of, or right to exercise, supreme power;
dominion; sway; supremacy; independence; also, that which is sovereign; a
sovereign state; as, Italy was formerly divided into many sovereignties.
"Mister" Lynch, the concept of "sovereignity" is the basis of nationhood.
It's related to concepts such as "liberty" as well as "dominion" in that it
implies that a particular territory is governed and controlled by a
particular political body, be it an individual, a party, or a republican
assembly.
>
> > They have, in fact, infringed, and encroached upon the US and
> > infringe and encroach upon our cities and countryside.
>
> What does "infringed and encroached" mean to you? Is this supposed to
> be some weird legalistic argument?
Infringe In*fringe", v. t. imp. & p. p. Infringed; p. pr. & vb. n.
Infringing. L. infringere; pref. in- in + frangere to break. See Fraction,
and cf. Infract . 1. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to
fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law or contract. 2. To hinder; to
destroy; as, to infringe efficacy; to infringe delight or power. (Obs.)
Encroach En*croach", v. i. imp. & p. p. Encroached; p. pr. & vb. n.
Encroaching. OF. encrochier to perch, prop., to hook, fasten a hook (perh.
confused with acrochier, F. accrocher, to hook, get hold of, E. accroach);
pref. en- (L. in) + F. croc hook. See Crook, and cf. Accroach. 1. To enter
by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another; to
trespass; to intrude; to trench; -- commonly with on or upon; as, to
encroach on a neighbor; to encroach on the highway.
Syn: To intrude; trench; infringe; invade; trespass.
[Definitions are from dict.org -- Webster's, I believe.]
Since the illegal aliens crossing over from Mexico -- and to a much lesser
degree across the border with Canada -- do in fact intrude in a stealthy
manner, and neglect to fulfill their obligations to not enter without
inspection and permission, they are encroaching and infringing.
This argument is not at all weird, it's one of the bases of national and
international law, as well as jurisprudence and political science.
I am, frankly, appalled by your ignorance.
>
> >
> >
> > Thus, since Mexican (and other nations') illegal aliens behave in a way that
> > matches the definition of invading, to call them Invaders is doing nothing
> > more than calling them what they are. Invaders.
>
> Only in your little cult world. How about tourists, are they invaders too? Don't
> they do all of these things?
Tourists, pretty much by definition, go back home.
<snips>
> > > > > Dog fighting (and cock fighting) are fairly common. And are legal in
> > > > > some states. Again, you could spend time looking at brutality towards
> > > >
> > > > > dogs here.
> > > >
> > > > I have. Oklahoma is IIRC the only state that permits either cockfighting
> > > > or dogfights.
> > > >
> > >
> > > While outlawed, it is damn common.
> >
> > Are are the ILLEGAL ALIENS overrunning the borders in the millions.
>
> You mean the bug people from Altari Five? Oh wait, you mean the folks
> who didn't get their papers processed!!
>
> You sound like Chicken Little, not Tiny Ferret.
And you know what? On September 11 2001, for about 4000 people from all
around the world, it sure seemed that Chicken Licken was right, because as
you know, for them the sky _did_ fall... along with them, and the buildings
containing them. Did you think that was funny, "Mister" Lynch?
At present, even the badly-broken Immigration and Naturalization Service
"INS" states that there are no less than 7 millions, and possibly as many as
10 millions, of illegal aliens presently in the US, illegally, without
lawful permission and no right, etc etc. By INS estimates, no less than 1
million per year enter who are not apprehended and deported, in some years
the figure has been much higher than that. Many tons of contraband, and yes,
weapons, are brought into the US on these millions of feet trudging across
the border night after night.
It's almost inevitable that someone else will abuse the broken Border
Security systems and once again strike a deadly blow into the heart of
another of America's cities.
> > Are you thus suggesting that we tolerate an illegal invasion by millions of
> > unwanted foreigners, _because some hicks are attending cockfights_?
>
> I don't seen any invasion.
"there are none so blind as those who will not see."
<snips>
> > > Actually, we were discussing why your web site only attacks non-white
> > > folks.
> >
> > But it doesn't. Show me where I attack non-whites for being non-white!
> >
> > You can't! because this is nothing but your race-obsessed paranoia, and your
> > total lack of any substantive input. Face it. You support the country being
> > overrun by dangerous foreigbn nationals who enter without inspection or who
> > overstay their visas.
> >
>
> You attack non-whites for doing the same thing that whites do. You focus on
> the non-whites in your attacks.
Cites, please. Put up or shut up.
> > > But, I will help you out. "ILLEGAL ALIENS" are NOT
> > > flooding into the US, increasing the population and thus the strain on the
> > > environment.
> > >
> > > See, problem solved!
> >
> > There are millions of illegal aliens. They were entering at the rate of --
> > this is according to the estimates of the (broken) INS -- about a million a
> > year from Mexico alone.
>
> Before the moron white elderly voters of California passed Prop 187, there
> were numbers of migrants who came and went to do seasonal jobs. Since
> the border tightened, they come and stay. Who can blaim them? Ever
> heard of unintended consequences?
The number of migrants who come and go on a seasonal basis has changed very
little indeed, in fact there has been something of an increase in the
numbers of farm-worker visas issued. There's no shortage of visas nor of
farm workers. The people who are coming to stay are not the farm workers,
the farm workers can and do come and go as they please, more or less, and
generally it's a lot more profitable to them to do so, as they can earn in
the US, and spend it in Mexico where they get a lot more for their dollar.
> > > > Please tell us why you support the destruction of the environment, an
> > > > unavoidable result of massive population growth mostly caused by both
> > > > legal and illegal immigration.
> > >
> > > I don't. If the environment is destroyed, it will be because folks like
> > > you can't get
> > > a handle on your (and corporate America's) consumption practices.
> >
> > Please attempt to support this assertion.
>
> Sure. The United States consumes at a rate using roughly 80% of the worlds
> resources for 6% (roughly) of the population. In the last decade, per-capita
> consumption has gone up in the United States.
And efficiency has approximately tripled in aggregate. Note that America no
longer consumes 80 percent of the world's resources; increasingly, the
industrialization of the former Third World increases the percentage of
resources they consume, and if you wish to even pretend to honest and
concern for the environment, you will admit readily that the WTO and IMF
aren't concerned about the efficiency or cleanliness or
pollution-remediation capacities of this production and consumption, only
that the WTO and IMF investors make money.
Increasingly, American drive small efficient vehicles which are also among
the cleanest in the world in terms of emissions, and among the safest in the
world, as well. It's in these Developing Nations that SUV are practically
mandatory, because the whole country is one big off-road experience.
> Much of the decision making
> that supports and leads to this is done by corporations (see recent vote in
> Congress AGAINST high fuel efficiency standards, and U.S. corporate lobbying
> against Kyoto treaty and so on and so on). These corporations and politicians
> leading the charge against the environment are run by, composed of, and elected
> by folks like you and me. People born here.
See above, Americans are increasing their efficiency, organizing against
rampant environmental destruction, and the more bold the corporations get,
the more active becomes the resistance. Apparently you don't pay any
attention to the news, or have forgotten the violence of the protests
against the WTO in Seattle a few years ago. Because a few heartless and
scheming predators have risen to the top of the corporate ranks, this does
not in any way justify permitting an invasion of millions of illegal aliens
who demand an American _high consumption lifestyle compounded by their
inability or unwillingness to use resources efficiently_.
<snips>
> > I equally revile and loathe your sort of sap, whose "bleeding heart" demands
> > that the US open its borders to all sorts of potential terrorists, and the
> > sole US source of aggregate population increase.
>
> The general suspicion is that the anthrax terrorists were home grown. Can I say
> Tim McVie?
Sure, but it would help if you spelled it correctly. Yet, you appear to be
making the imputation that because Tim McVeigh was caucasian, that all
caucasians are terrorists. This is blatantly fallacious.
>
> >
> >
> > <snips>
> >
> > > > As for Aryan Nations, etc http://earthops.org/soveregnity.html
> > >
> > > Sorry, said the "This server either can't find the document you
> > > requested, or you are not permitted to access this document or script
> > > directly."
> >
> > Then you mistyped the URL.
>
> No, I clicked on it (it's the HTML feature). Listen, you need to learn your
> web stuff better, just did it again.
http://earthops.org/sovereignity.html loads up just fine. Or try
http://www.earthops.net/klaatu/sovereignity.html or try
http://media.earthops.net/klaatu/sovereignity.html
> Got "
> This server either can't find the document you requested, or you are not permitted to
> access this document or script directly.
>
> Maybe you misspelled something? Search our pages:"
Maybe you should have searched the pages. It might also help if you hit
"reload" on your browser.
>
> >
> >
> > From that page:
> >
> > "Some of the ideas linked herein are, in my opinion,
> > almost reasonable, but often attached to mentation
> > which borders or occasionally surpasses extreme proactive paranoia.
> > Oddly enough, I think that much of that paranoia is justified,
> > but perhaps not for the reasons stated by those who espouse
> > these belief systems. Fortunately, these most-vocal members
> > of the militia and sovereignity movements are not really
> > that representative of the majority of the movements,
> > no matter that the liberal media would have you believe otherwise."
>
> Guy, you are trying to tell me that you see good in the militia and sovereignity
> movements (which are heavily tied to white supremacists), and then think that
> I will believe you to be a tolerant non-prejudiced fellow?
>
> Not gonna happen.
Mister, I am gonna take you to school RIGHT NOW:
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/constitution.html
Article 1 Section 8, "Congress shall have Power ...
(11) To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
(12) To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
(13) To provide and maintain a Navy;
(14) To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;
(15) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
(16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the
United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the
Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;"
...
And from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311.
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention
to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the
United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
Further, from Amendments to the Constitution of the United States:
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billrights.html
"Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So, "Mister" Lynch, when you say:
> Guy, you are trying to tell me that you see good in the militia and sovereignity
> movements (which are heavily tied to white supremacists), and then think that
> I will believe you to be a tolerant non-prejudiced fellow?
all I can tell you is that (1) when I say I'm in the Militia, I am simply
repeating US Law -- of which you appear to be either woefully ignorant or
contemptuous -- (2) when I say I'm in a movement dedicated to preserving the
Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic, I
am both aware of what the Constitution _says_ and what the Constitution
_means_ and I'll be damned if I will, without my strongest possible
objections in this medium, let you sit there and call anyone a Racist simply
because they are both Patriots and Law-Abiding.
The Militia Movement in the mainstream is in NO WAY tied to
white-supremacists, since white-supremacy movements are commonly Criminal,
clearly are Racist, etc etc.
The genuine Sovereignity movement -- as opposed to the media-fabricated
public delusional concept of such -- is about one thing: every able-bodied
man and woman who can own an infantry long arm should, and should prepare to
be able to use it in the common defense of their Nation and their American
Way of Life, in accordance with 10 USC 311 and the US Constitution as
amended.
Now, I demand that you apologize to the vast majority of Americans that you
have just tarred as racists, as criminals, as revolutionaries, as "inbred
yokels agitating in the hinterlands".
Because you're so ignorant that you can't tell the difference between the
Legal Unorganized Militia and a bunch of Militant Radical Racists, I don't
expect you'll make that apology, but if you don't, you merely admit that you
find it perfectly satisfying to perpetrate and perpetuate a broadcast media
slander on the vast majority of American adults, simply because that slander
makes it convenient for you to argue in support of the Illegal Alien
Invasion.
<snip>
> > > > and as noted elsewhere, at least in the Washington DC area, most Skins
> > > > seem
> > > > to be associated with the Russian Immigrant or the YACS Balkan gangster
> > > > communities.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And the regular Mafia? Isn't the biggest nastiest gang in the DC area the
> > > Republican Party?
> >
> > No. The DC/MD/NoVA area is hardcore liberal Democrat, has been for 50 years.
>
> Regular Mafia? Like duh, I was joking about the Republicans. And you are suggesting
> that there are no non-immigrant skin heads around there? I grew up near there many
> years ago, and oh how wrong you are!
That was Many Years Ago, as you said. Try living in the Here and Now,
doddering fool.
>
> >
> >
> > > Again, your selectiveness seems telling to me.
> >
> > Your ignorance is astounding, even for a blatant troll.
<SNIP>
> > Face it, silly man, the nation is being flooded with immigrants, some who
> > are invited and come legally and I don't have a problem with legal
> > immigration. I have a big problem with illegal aliens, who simply shouldn't
> > be here, should not have been able to get in, who are a potential massive
> > security risk to the nation and who are assuredly increasing the drain on
> > resources, specifically on greenspace and on water.
>
> ROFLMAO.... and I thought the drain on greenspace and water was due
> to suburban sprawl, which is largely the provence of the white middle class.
> Note that undocumented immigrants from Mexico (or elsewhere) who
> don't own a car and live in crowded conditions, actually consume very little.
Note that ILLEGAL ALIENS come to the US, save somewhat from their meager
incomes, send most of their savings back to their homelands, and buy old
delapidated wrecks of cars, which are poorly maintained, often barely run,
commonly belch pollutants all over the place, are commonly driven uninsured
and are almost universally merely abandoned whenever they finally break down
for good. And often all usable parts are stripped, so not even salvage yards
will come to get the rusting hulks, which sit and rot and leach nasty
chemicals into the ground as they decay. But the illegal aliens don't mind,
it's not _their_ country! But because of them doing this, pretty damned soon
it's going to _look_ like their pathetic homelands, it will _smell_ like
their pathetic homelands, it will be as _toxic_ as their pathetic homelands,
and there will be no place left for them to go. But neither will there be
any place left for us.
Suburban sprawl is driven by a variety of factors. At present, since the
caucasian population is declining very rapidly because the caucasians
decided to massively curtail their reproduction, expansion of Sprawl is
primarily driven by upward mobility amongst non-whites. In particular,
specifically in the Washington DC area, whites are practically vanishing, as
one has a lot of dual-income/no-kids mostly-white Yuppies moving downtown
where they can be close to work and urban partying, and this has made
housing downtown nearly unaffordable, and the Yuppies like it like that.
Thus, the pattern seen through the 1990s when the District lost 1/6th of its
population due to fear of urban disintegration and infrastructural system
failures has been very slightly reversed, however, rather than the working
poor returning from where they had fled to the suburbs, it is the children
of the former suburbanites who are repopulating the District somewhat even
as the former HUD Housing Projects are levelled and converted into
"brownfields reclamation" projects.
In the suburbs, we increasingly see only those elements of the general
population which are most noted for having extremely large families, which
is to say, immigrants both legal and illegal, and the uneducated poor. This
is where densification is starting to happen, as aging suburbia and suburban
infrastructure and systems begin to need refurbishment or replacement. Older
houses are being subdivided or are getting additions, and pressures are
causing zoning regulations changes, and entire neighborhoods once zoned
"single-family dwelling, detached" are now being open-zoned, and we are
seeing houses built to the statutory limit of proximity to the sidewalks.
Where there used to be one house with a two-car garage with two adults and
2.2 children, we now see one house with no garage with eight adults and
fifteen children... and nine cars with on-street parking spaces only for
three. This is absolutely intolerable to most Americans and it's only
getting worse.
>
> As Pogo said "We have met the enemy and he is us". Look in a mirror.
You look in a mirror. You're the one supporting the insupportable and
condemning reformers.
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> Charles Lynch wrote:
> > Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> > > Charles Lynch wrote:
> > > > Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> > > > > Charles Lynch wrote, in HTML:
> <FOO BAR YADDA snip>
>
> > > There are millions of illegal aliens. They were entering at the rate of --
> > > this is according to the estimates of the (broken) INS -- about a million a
> > > year from Mexico alone.
> >
> > Before the moron white elderly voters of California passed Prop 187, there
>
> RACIST!
So, did you get off when you typed that? I should have said "moronic". FYI, I am
white, the best you could have done was to suggest that I am prejudiced against a
subset
of white folk.
Too bad you can't read very clearly. Prep schools?
Obviously I dislike people who voted for Prop 187. Acknowledged. It was foolish,
bigoted,
and overturned by the courts. Except for the last part, just like you.
Charles Lynch
>
>
> <snips>
>
> --
> Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
> Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/
P.S. I love the hypocrisy of "be kind to you neighbors, even though they be".
Maybe
ferret is a tv liberal?
Charles Lynch
Baster wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:26:33 GMT, Charles Lynch <ch...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Before the moron white elderly voters of California passed Prop 187, there
> >were numbers of migrants who came and went to do seasonal jobs. Since
> >the border tightened, they come and stay. Who can blaim them? Ever
> >heard of unintended consequences?
>
> I'm not elderly, and most voters aren't elderly.
Voters in California are whiter and more elderly than the state population.
Really, you can check out the numbers. While the population is running just
around 50% white, voters are over 70% white, and much older than the
population as a whole (which is one of the reasons that school bonds sometimes
have problems).
I never said "most voters", merely those who voted for Prop 187 tended to be
older and whiter than the electorate which is already older and whiter than
the population. This is fact.
>
>
> It is very apparent who the moron is.
>
> Your blip analysis why they came & left (seasonal workers are
> miniscule), and why they come & stay, is one of those ignorant tidbits
> that show you have no knowlege of the situation or people involved.
Gee, it's not my "blip analysis", but rather one shared by pretty much
every commentator I've heard. Except those on the far far far right.
Careful, don't fall off!
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
> > Charles Lynch wrote:
> > > Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> > > > Charles Lynch wrote:
> > > > > Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> > > > > > Charles Lynch wrote, in HTML:
> > <FOO BAR YADDA snip>
> >
> > > > There are millions of illegal aliens. They were entering at the rate of --
> > > > this is according to the estimates of the (broken) INS -- about a million a
> > > > year from Mexico alone.
> > >
> > > Before the moron white elderly voters of California passed Prop 187, there
> >
> > RACIST!
>
> So, did you get off when you typed that? I should have said "moronic". FYI, I am
> white, the best you could have done was to suggest that I am prejudiced against a
> subset
> of white folk.
>
> Too bad you can't read very clearly. Prep schools?
Too bad you need <sarcasm></sarcasm> XML metatags to incite your clearly
defective sarcasm-detector.
<snips>
>
> P.S. I love the hypocrisy of "be kind to you neighbors, even though they be".
> Maybe ferret is a tv liberal?
Maybe not.
so far as I know, there's no US law prohibiting people from being transgenic
chimerae.
There are US and international laws against unauthorized border crossings.
Dolt.
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
But you concentrate on that done by people of a different color than you. And you
use language that is suggestive of prejudice.
>
>
> You appear to be the one making this all about Mexicans and exclusively
> about Mexicans. However, since nearly 90 percent of illegal aliens either
> are Mexican or enter the US illegally from Mexico by crossing the border
> surreptitiously or entering on a day-tourist visa and never voluntarily
> returning, I can understand the confusion generated in your simple mind.
Gee, you just got lucky in your ability to attack Mexicans? So, you would
be willing to denounce some of the bigotry in the anti-immigrant movement,
sort of as a way of seperating yourself from all those prejudiced folks? Surely
you know who they are! Fire away. (not holding my breath).
>
>
> > And why injudiciously? Again, your bias shows.
>
> Do you understand the meaning of "injudicious"?
>
> "1. Not judicious; wanting in sound judgment; undiscerning; indiscreet;
> unwise; as, an injudicious adviser. 2. Not according to sound judgment or
> discretion; unwise; as, an injudicious measure."
>
> It's not sound judgement for illegal aliens to mob the US.
"Mob"??? Why mob, and what specifically do YOU mean by it?
And why isn't it of sound judgement to go from a place where you can't earn
a living to a place where you can? Just because YOU don't like it, hardly
qualifies it as "injudicious".
>
>
> >
> > > They are in fact
> > > invading the rights of the Soverenign Nation, to wit, the United States of
> > > America.
> >
> > ?????? Which means what???? Sounds like a pretty slogan full of sound and
> > fury. "Rights of the Sovereign Nation"??? What the heck does that mean?
> > (Sorry, I don't belong to whatever cult talks like that. Guess, our "common
> > culture" isn't doing so well).
>
> Then I'd have to say you're apparently about as unAmerican as they come.
ROFMAO... name calling. Hey, you're as unAmerican as they come, since America
was built by immigrants who came here without permission.
>
>
> "Sovereign state, a state which administers its own government, and is not
> dependent upon, or subject to, another power.
ALL independent nations are sovereign. And they are all subject to international
treaties and organizations they sign up for. Is that it? Some sort of weird U.N. thing?
>
>
> Sovereignty Sov"er*eign*ty, n.; pl. Sovereignties. OE. soverainetee, OF.
> sovrainet'e, F. souverainet'e. The quality or state of being sovereign, or
> of being a sovereign; the exercise of, or right to exercise, supreme power;
> dominion; sway; supremacy; independence; also, that which is sovereign; a
> sovereign state; as, Italy was formerly divided into many sovereignties.
>
> "Mister" Lynch, the concept of "sovereignity" is the basis of nationhood.
> It's related to concepts such as "liberty" as well as "dominion" in that it
> implies that a particular territory is governed and controlled by a
> particular political body, be it an individual, a party, or a republican
> assembly.
>
"Mister" Ferret. Based on your definition all nations are "sovereign" which
removes most of the meaning from it (see "tautology"). Again, so what?
I already knew we're a nation. What in the heck does that have to with
immigration of the price of bread?
>
> >
> > > They have, in fact, infringed, and encroached upon the US and
> > > infringe and encroach upon our cities and countryside.
> >
> > What does "infringed and encroached" mean to you? Is this supposed to
> > be some weird legalistic argument?
>
> Infringe In*fringe", v. t. imp. & p. p. Infringed; p. pr. & vb. n.
> Infringing. L. infringere; pref. in- in + frangere to break. See Fraction,
> and cf. Infract . 1. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to
> fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law or contract. 2. To hinder; to
> destroy; as, to infringe efficacy; to infringe delight or power. (Obs.)
So, by your arguement, they have "infringed" upon U.S. laws. Of course
using your definition, so have most Americans by jaywalking, speeding, littering,
cheating on taxes, etc.
So, what?
>
>
> Encroach En*croach", v. i. imp. & p. p. Encroached; p. pr. & vb. n.
> Encroaching. OF. encrochier to perch, prop., to hook, fasten a hook (perh.
> confused with acrochier, F. accrocher, to hook, get hold of, E. accroach);
> pref. en- (L. in) + F. croc hook. See Crook, and cf. Accroach. 1. To enter
> by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another; to
> trespass; to intrude; to trench; -- commonly with on or upon; as, to
> encroach on a neighbor; to encroach on the highway.
> Syn: To intrude; trench; infringe; invade; trespass.
>
So, you believe your rights or possessions are "encroached" upon? How and
which ones?
Or you're just saying that because you regard them as tresspassers, they are
therefore invaders? So, if your neighbor walks across your lawn, you would
have him charged with being an "invader"?
>
> [Definitions are from dict.org -- Webster's, I believe.]
>
> Since the illegal aliens crossing over from Mexico -- and to a much lesser
> degree across the border with Canada -- do in fact intrude in a stealthy
> manner, and neglect to fulfill their obligations to not enter without
> inspection and permission, they are encroaching and infringing.
Dude, your logic is circular. And therefore what you are saying is that
since they came here illegally, they came here illegally. Okay, but we
already knew that.
>
>
> This argument is not at all weird, it's one of the bases of national and
> international law, as well as jurisprudence and political science.
>
> I am, frankly, appalled by your ignorance.
>
As I am by yours. You should sign up for a logic class at a community college
near you.
It would be as if I said you are a bigot because I have defined bigot as "Tiny Human
Ferret".
This type of circular logic is meaningless and called a "tautology".
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thus, since Mexican (and other nations') illegal aliens behave in a way that
> > > matches the definition of invading, to call them Invaders is doing nothing
> > > more than calling them what they are. Invaders.
> >
> > Only in your little cult world. How about tourists, are they invaders too? Don't
> > they do all of these things?
>
> Tourists, pretty much by definition, go back home.
But, while they are here, aren't they "invaders" since they "encroach"?
>
>
> <snips>
>
> > > > > > Dog fighting (and cock fighting) are fairly common. And are legal in
> > > > > > some states. Again, you could spend time looking at brutality towards
> > > > >
> > > > > > dogs here.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have. Oklahoma is IIRC the only state that permits either cockfighting
> > > > > or dogfights.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > While outlawed, it is damn common.
> > >
> > > Are are the ILLEGAL ALIENS overrunning the borders in the millions.
> >
> > You mean the bug people from Altari Five? Oh wait, you mean the folks
> > who didn't get their papers processed!!
> >
> > You sound like Chicken Little, not Tiny Ferret.
>
> And you know what? On September 11 2001, for about 4000 people from all
> around the world, it sure seemed that Chicken Licken was right, because as
> you know, for them the sky _did_ fall... along with them, and the buildings
> containing them. Did you think that was funny, "Mister" Lynch?
Pathetic. The only thing lower than people who wrap themselves in the flag, are
people who use a tragedy like September 11, 2001 for personal benefit. Shame
on you. Shame, shame. For this, you should apologize.
Pathetic.
>
>
> At present, even the badly-broken Immigration and Naturalization Service
> "INS" states that there are no less than 7 millions, and possibly as many as
> 10 millions, of illegal aliens presently in the US, illegally, without
> lawful permission and no right, etc etc. By INS estimates, no less than 1
> million per year enter who are not apprehended and deported, in some years
> the figure has been much higher than that. Many tons of contraband, and yes,
> weapons, are brought into the US on these millions of feet trudging across
> the border night after night.
Why would anyone bring weapons here, since the gun shows are full of them?
Clearly, you feel like the world is out to get you.
>
>
> It's almost inevitable that someone else will abuse the broken Border
> Security systems and once again strike a deadly blow into the heart of
> another of America's cities.
Timothy McVeigh? How did the broken Border Systems relate to him?
>
>
> > > Are you thus suggesting that we tolerate an illegal invasion by millions of
> > > unwanted foreigners, _because some hicks are attending cockfights_?
> >
> > I don't seen any invasion.
>
> "there are none so blind as those who will not see."
>
> <snips>
>
> > > > Actually, we were discussing why your web site only attacks non-white
> > > > folks.
> > >
> > > But it doesn't. Show me where I attack non-whites for being non-white!
> > >
> > > You can't! because this is nothing but your race-obsessed paranoia, and your
> > > total lack of any substantive input. Face it. You support the country being
> > > overrun by dangerous foreigbn nationals who enter without inspection or who
> > > overstay their visas.
> > >
> >
> > You attack non-whites for doing the same thing that whites do. You focus on
> > the non-whites in your attacks.
>
> Cites, please. Put up or shut up.
Dude, I have cited the animal rights stuff again and again. Read the thread. You focus
on and link to abuse of animals by non-whites, and pooh pooh that by white folks.
>
>
> > > > But, I will help you out. "ILLEGAL ALIENS" are NOT
> > > > flooding into the US, increasing the population and thus the strain on the
> > > > environment.
> > > >
> > > > See, problem solved!
> > >
> > > There are millions of illegal aliens. They were entering at the rate of --
> > > this is according to the estimates of the (broken) INS -- about a million a
> > > year from Mexico alone.
> >
> > Before the moron white elderly voters of California passed Prop 187, there
> > were numbers of migrants who came and went to do seasonal jobs. Since
> > the border tightened, they come and stay. Who can blaim them? Ever
> > heard of unintended consequences?
>
> The number of migrants who come and go on a seasonal basis has changed very
> little indeed, in fact there has been something of an increase in the
> numbers of farm-worker visas issued. There's no shortage of visas nor of
> farm workers. The people who are coming to stay are not the farm workers,
> the farm workers can and do come and go as they please, more or less, and
> generally it's a lot more profitable to them to do so, as they can earn in
> the US, and spend it in Mexico where they get a lot more for their dollar.
Sheesh. Your INS (which you love so much) says that much of the seasonal
farm labor is undocumented. Also, lots of janitors, meat plant workers, etc.
And there is only a couple of very small "visa" programs for farm workers.
If you have any evidence of others, please tell the world.
>
>
> > > > > Please tell us why you support the destruction of the environment, an
> > > > > unavoidable result of massive population growth mostly caused by both
> > > > > legal and illegal immigration.
> > > >
> > > > I don't. If the environment is destroyed, it will be because folks like
> > > > you can't get
> > > > a handle on your (and corporate America's) consumption practices.
> > >
> > > Please attempt to support this assertion.
> >
> > Sure. The United States consumes at a rate using roughly 80% of the worlds
> > resources for 6% (roughly) of the population. In the last decade, per-capita
> > consumption has gone up in the United States.
>
> And efficiency has approximately tripled in aggregate. Note that America no
> longer consumes 80 percent of the world's resources; increasingly, the
> industrialization of the former Third World increases the percentage of
> resources they consume, and if you wish to even pretend to honest and
> concern for the environment, you will admit readily that the WTO and IMF
> aren't concerned about the efficiency or cleanliness or
> pollution-remediation capacities of this production and consumption, only
> that the WTO and IMF investors make money.
Sorry guy, I don't care about the WTO and IMF. The percentage of resources
consumed by the U.S. has remained remarkably constant over the years. What
we don't buy, we steal.
And BTW, industry in the Third World that exists solely to export to the industrial
nations, said industry consumes the resources for YOU. It is an act of incredible hubris
to claim that the resources that go into making Nikes for YOU should be charged to
the Indonesian and Chinese factory workers who can't even afford to buy the shoes they
make. What gall!!
>
>
> Increasingly, American drive small efficient vehicles which are also among
> the cleanest in the world in terms of emissions, and among the safest in the
> world, as well. It's in these Developing Nations that SUV are practically
> mandatory, because the whole country is one big off-road experience.
This statement is so far out of touch with reality.... Where do you come up with
this? Is this your idea of the "big lie", the one so outrageous that no one will
challenge it?
If this is true, then why do U.S. auto makers oppose CAF standards?
>
>
> > Much of the decision making
> > that supports and leads to this is done by corporations (see recent vote in
> > Congress AGAINST high fuel efficiency standards, and U.S. corporate lobbying
> > against Kyoto treaty and so on and so on). These corporations and politicians
> > leading the charge against the environment are run by, composed of, and elected
> > by folks like you and me. People born here.
>
> See above, Americans are increasing their efficiency, organizing against
> rampant environmental destruction, and the more bold the corporations get,
> the more active becomes the resistance. Apparently you don't pay any
> attention to the news, or have forgotten the violence of the protests
> against the WTO in Seattle a few years ago. Because a few heartless and
> scheming predators have risen to the top of the corporate ranks, this does
> not in any way justify permitting an invasion of millions of illegal aliens
> who demand an American _high consumption lifestyle compounded by their
> inability or unwillingness to use resources efficiently_.
>
ROFLMAO.... You have gone totally into lying mode, eh? Actually, you and you
alone do 90% percent of American consumption. See, in writing, it must be true...
Sheesh.
>
> <snips>
>
> > > I equally revile and loathe your sort of sap, whose "bleeding heart" demands
> > > that the US open its borders to all sorts of potential terrorists, and the
> > > sole US source of aggregate population increase.
> >
> > The general suspicion is that the anthrax terrorists were home grown. Can I say
> > Tim McVie?
>
> Sure, but it would help if you spelled it correctly. Yet, you appear to be
> making the imputation that because Tim McVeigh was caucasian, that all
> caucasians are terrorists. This is blatantly fallacious.
Lies and Distortions. I suggested that McVeigh was a native, not an immigrant. Can
you read "home grown"?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > <snips>
> > >
> > > > > As for Aryan Nations, etc http://earthops.org/soveregnity.html
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, said the "This server either can't find the document you
> > > > requested, or you are not permitted to access this document or script
> > > > directly."
> > >
> > > Then you mistyped the URL.
> >
> > No, I clicked on it (it's the HTML feature). Listen, you need to learn your
> > web stuff better, just did it again.
>
> http://earthops.org/sovereignity.html loads up just fine. Or try
> http://www.earthops.net/klaatu/sovereignity.html or try
> http://media.earthops.net/klaatu/sovereignity.html
>
> > Got "
> > This server either can't find the document you requested, or you are not permitted to
> > access this document or script directly.
> >
> > Maybe you misspelled something? Search our pages:"
>
> Maybe you should have searched the pages. It might also help if you hit
> "reload" on your browser.
Guy, one of the rules of good web design is that the Designer needs to get it right, then
test it to be sure it's working. I am NOT going to QA your site for you, I get paid for
stuff like that. Checking the link as you included it in your notes twice is enough for
me.
So, are you one of those folks who recognizes only the Constitution as originally written,
and
ignores all court decisions and laws made since then?
The ties of the Militia Movement to white supremacists groups have been documented
by the Southern Poverty Law Center (which tracks these things).
>
>
> The genuine Sovereignity movement -- as opposed to the media-fabricated
> public delusional concept of such -- is about one thing: every able-bodied
> man and woman who can own an infantry long arm should, and should prepare to
> be able to use it in the common defense of their Nation and their American
> Way of Life, in accordance with 10 USC 311 and the US Constitution as
> amended.
>
Sorry, my freedoms include the right not to bear arms. Like it or not.
>
> Now, I demand that you apologize to the vast majority of Americans that you
> have just tarred as racists, as criminals, as revolutionaries, as "inbred
> yokels agitating in the hinterlands".
ROFLMAO..... wow. Not that is really pathetic. I said none of the above.
Talk about misquoting. I said, and do say that the vast majority of Americans
neither belong to nor support the Militia Movement (which I thought was dead, frankly)
and which has been demonstrated by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to
have ties to white supremacist movements.
Attack what I DO say, not made up fantasy stuff from your mind.
>
>
> Because you're so ignorant that you can't tell the difference between the
> Legal Unorganized Militia and a bunch of Militant Radical Racists, I don't
> expect you'll make that apology, but if you don't, you merely admit that you
> find it perfectly satisfying to perpetrate and perpetuate a broadcast media
> slander on the vast majority of American adults, simply because that slander
> makes it convenient for you to argue in support of the Illegal Alien
> Invasion.
>
Frankly, I stand by my previous remarks (as I made them, not as you imagine them),
and also, I have never heard of the "Legal Unorganized Militia" nor that term until now.
Again, the vast majority of American adults do not support any "Militia Movement".
>
> <snip>
> > > > > and as noted elsewhere, at least in the Washington DC area, most Skins
> > > > > seem
> > > > > to be associated with the Russian Immigrant or the YACS Balkan gangster
> > > > > communities.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And the regular Mafia? Isn't the biggest nastiest gang in the DC area the
> > > > Republican Party?
> > >
> > > No. The DC/MD/NoVA area is hardcore liberal Democrat, has been for 50 years.
> >
> > Regular Mafia? Like duh, I was joking about the Republicans. And you are suggesting
> > that there are no non-immigrant skin heads around there? I grew up near there many
> > years ago, and oh how wrong you are!
>
> That was Many Years Ago, as you said. Try living in the Here and Now,
> doddering fool.
The so called "Regular Mafia" exist and are still active. You need a reality check.
>
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > > Face it, silly man, the nation is being flooded with immigrants, some who
> > > are invited and come legally and I don't have a problem with legal
> > > immigration. I have a big problem with illegal aliens, who simply shouldn't
> > > be here, should not have been able to get in, who are a potential massive
> > > security risk to the nation and who are assuredly increasing the drain on
> > > resources, specifically on greenspace and on water.
> >
> > ROFLMAO.... and I thought the drain on greenspace and water was due
> > to suburban sprawl, which is largely the provence of the white middle class.
> > Note that undocumented immigrants from Mexico (or elsewhere) who
> > don't own a car and live in crowded conditions, actually consume very little.
>
> Note that ILLEGAL ALIENS come to the US, save somewhat from their meager
> incomes, send most of their savings back to their homelands, and buy old
> delapidated wrecks of cars, which are poorly maintained, often barely run,
> commonly belch pollutants all over the place, are commonly driven uninsured
> and are almost universally merely abandoned whenever they finally break down
> for good. And often all usable parts are stripped, so not even salvage yards
> will come to get the rusting hulks, which sit and rot and leach nasty
> chemicals into the ground as they decay. But the illegal aliens don't mind,
> it's not _their_ country! But because of them doing this, pretty damned soon
> it's going to _look_ like their pathetic homelands, it will _smell_ like
> their pathetic homelands, it will be as _toxic_ as their pathetic homelands,
> and there will be no place left for them to go. But neither will there be
> any place left for us.
>
ROFLMAO..... gee, now tell me you don't engage in stereotyping!!!
If other folks homelands are toxic, you might consider the part American corporations
play in that.
So, as long as they stay out of YOUR neighborhood, you don't care?
>
> >
> > As Pogo said "We have met the enemy and he is us". Look in a mirror.
>
> You look in a mirror. You're the one supporting the insupportable and
> condemning reformers.
Reformer is not spelled "R-e-a-c-t-i-o-n-a-r-y", nor are they synonyms.
Charles Lynch
Baster
wrote:
>
>
>Baster wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:26:33 GMT, Charles Lynch <ch...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Before the moron white elderly voters of California passed Prop 187, there
>> >were numbers of migrants who came and went to do seasonal jobs. Since
>> >the border tightened, they come and stay. Who can blaim them? Ever
>> >heard of unintended consequences?
>>
>> I'm not elderly, and most voters aren't elderly.
>
>Voters in California are whiter and more elderly than the state population.
>Really, you can check out the numbers. While the population is running just
>around 50% white, voters are over 70% white, and much older than the
>population as a whole (which is one of the reasons that school bonds sometimes
>have problems).
>
>I never said "most voters", merely those who voted for Prop 187 tended to be
>older and whiter than the electorate which is already older and whiter than
>the population. This is fact.
Uh huh. Are you supposing that if voter participation more equal
across demographic, that 187 wouldn't have won? The most fed-up
portion of the CA populous are working people with color in their
hair. Working-age folks get very direct exposure to illegals, and
mexicans generally, in countless ways, because they are still working,
raising their kids, living and competing in the community. They pay
for every facet of the illegals/migration onslaught, not just public
services.
The elderly are like any other group, pushing the issues that affect
them the most. Now you can come up with selective reasons as to why
they would vote against illegals - schools etc - but you can come up
with at least as many in favor. Yet they vote against.
Bottom line is, the referenda always go against illegals, however you
cut it, because the situation is plainly wrong and unjust. Those words
should ring a bell with your lib social-justice types, right?
It doesn't matter whether people are "white racists" or not. The only
thing that matters is whether we are a functioning democracy, in which
justice means equal, unarguable enforcement of the law. Now if you
don't really want that, and most libs don't, you should absolutely
keep your lip zipped when the brown-shirts march down your street.
>
>
>>
>>
>> It is very apparent who the moron is.
>>
>> Your blip analysis why they came & left (seasonal workers are
>> miniscule), and why they come & stay, is one of those ignorant tidbits
>> that show you have no knowlege of the situation or people involved.
>
>Gee, it's not my "blip analysis", but rather one shared by pretty much
>every commentator I've heard. Except those on the far far far right.
>Careful, don't fall off!
>
>Charles Lynch
>
Any imagining that mexicans used to go home seasonally, because the
border was easier to run, is goofy; it simply isn't true. They used to
leave for a few weeks of "vacation" and come right back up, because
illegal border running was easier. Now they have more trepidation.
What you say about it there is a construct.
"Commentators" don't base you in the facts of anything, if that's your
primary source of knowlege on an issue. The people you're talking to
here are people on the ground, in the middle of the invasion we're
talking about. Everything you think about immigration and illegal
immigration is almost certainly askew if you aren't contending with it
personally. That's the nature of political "commentary".
Fred Elbel
>... I am both aware of what the Constitution _says_ and what the Constitution
> _means_ and I'll be damned if I will, without my strongest possible
> objections in this medium, let you sit there and call anyone a Racist simply
> because they are both Patriots and Law-Abiding.
Mr. Ferret:
Thank you for your most informative and enlightening post.
Mr Lunch has demonstrated his proclivity to slander with racism since
1998. Clearly the racism charge is a red herring meant to divert
attention away from the discussion of more important matters and
positions - which can not easily be discounted on the basis of facts
and logic alone. Including: U.S. overpopulation, national
sovereignty, displacement of democracy by transnational corporatism
and financial interests.
Charles Lynch
Baster wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 00:22:17 GMT, Charles Lynch <ch...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Baster wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:26:33 GMT, Charles Lynch <ch...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Before the moron white elderly voters of California passed Prop 187, there
> >> >were numbers of migrants who came and went to do seasonal jobs. Since
> >> >the border tightened, they come and stay. Who can blaim them? Ever
> >> >heard of unintended consequences?
> >>
> >> I'm not elderly, and most voters aren't elderly.
> >
> >Voters in California are whiter and more elderly than the state population.
> >Really, you can check out the numbers. While the population is running just
> >around 50% white, voters are over 70% white, and much older than the
> >population as a whole (which is one of the reasons that school bonds sometimes
> >have problems).
> >
> >I never said "most voters", merely those who voted for Prop 187 tended to be
> >older and whiter than the electorate which is already older and whiter than
> >the population. This is fact.
>
> Uh huh. Are you supposing that if voter participation more equal
> across demographic, that 187 wouldn't have won?
Yep, that is what the polls show.
> The most fed-up
> portion of the CA populous are working people with color in their
> hair. Working-age folks get very direct exposure to illegals, and
> mexicans generally, in countless ways, because they are still working,
> raising their kids, living and competing in the community. They pay
> for every facet of the illegals/migration onslaught, not just public
> services.
Gee, sounds like you don't like Mexicans. There is no "onslaught" and
and undocumented immigrants contribute a lot more than they ever get
in services. P.S. I am working age.
>
>
> The elderly are like any other group, pushing the issues that affect
> them the most. Now you can come up with selective reasons as to why
> they would vote against illegals - schools etc - but you can come up
> with at least as many in favor. Yet they vote against.
The elderly are more easily swayed by fear (studies have shown that they
perceive themselves to be the victims of crime much more often than they
actually are). Give me the reasons they would vote in favor.
>
>
> Bottom line is, the referenda always go against illegals, however you
> cut it, because the situation is plainly wrong and unjust. Those words
> should ring a bell with your lib social-justice types, right?
The exploitation of undocumented is plainly wrong and unjust. As to the
referenda, the California Republican party is largely regarded as having
commited political suicide due to Prop 187. They went from leading in the
state to barely being competitive.
>
>
> It doesn't matter whether people are "white racists" or not. The only
> thing that matters is whether we are a functioning democracy, in which
> justice means equal, unarguable enforcement of the law. Now if you
> don't really want that, and most libs don't, you should absolutely
> keep your lip zipped when the brown-shirts march down your street.
And you'll be wearing one of those brown shirts?
Justice would be treating migrant workers fairly, and giving them the right
to protest unfair treatment under the law.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> It is very apparent who the moron is.
> >>
> >> Your blip analysis why they came & left (seasonal workers are
> >> miniscule), and why they come & stay, is one of those ignorant tidbits
> >> that show you have no knowlege of the situation or people involved.
> >
> >Gee, it's not my "blip analysis", but rather one shared by pretty much
> >every commentator I've heard. Except those on the far far far right.
> >Careful, don't fall off!
> >
> >Charles Lynch
> >
>
> Any imagining that mexicans used to go home seasonally, because the
> border was easier to run, is goofy; it simply isn't true. They used to
> leave for a few weeks of "vacation" and come right back up, because
> illegal border running was easier. Now they have more trepidation.
> What you say about it there is a construct.
??? What the heck does your last sentence mean??
As to my comments about seasonal migration, they are true, and have
been repeatedly cited in newspapers all over the state.
>
> "Commentators" don't base you in the facts of anything, if that's your
> primary source of knowlege on an issue. The people you're talking to
> here are people on the ground, in the middle of the invasion we're
> talking about. Everything you think about immigration and illegal
> immigration is almost certainly askew if you aren't contending with it
> personally. That's the nature of political "commentary".
Well guy, I live in the Bay Area. So, that should count as ground zero to
you. I have also taught English in the San Franciso Mission District.
There is no "invasion", merely migration. Birds do it, bees do it, why don't
you believe humans do it?
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
Fred Elbel wrote:
Mr. Edible (see, I can spell funny too!).
Have you read any of the posting purported to be from one Alan Truelove
who is listed as one of your sprawl study peer approvals? Would you say
that his remarks are not racist?
I have cited and documented the racism of the anti-immigration movement
ad naseum, and have repeatedly offered you the chance to disassociate yourself
from it. You either snip that part, ignore it, or dissemble.
I have also spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get you to acknowledge
that
one of the flaws in your population = consumption arguement is that much of the
waste and over consumption is done by corporations, and should not be charged to
individuals. Being unable to respond intelligently, you ignore it.
Whatever else happens, it is unlikely, that you will ever develop and interest in
the
rights of any human being other than yourself. Frankly, I would not care, except
that you damage the credibility and growth potential of the environmental movement
by your bigotry, ignorance and elitist attitudes.
Charles Lynch
Baster
wrote:
Alright, something that makes most of your arguments here inane, apart
from the factual inaccuracy:
We (the growing american majority) are not PC.
i.e. We are not very worried about whether we are too racist, or not
racist enough. That's _your_ obsession. <- This is important to
understand, cause you'll be seeing much more of it in american civil
life. The time of this secular lefty religion: "anti-racism", blaming
your white self or your white society, being an apologist to other
peoples who themselve are entirely uninterested in adopting suicidal
liberal beliefs, is coming to an end.
IMO, you have to be a Perfect Idiot to run around gauging and
monitoring for damning evidence of personal "racism" among your own
people, while giving a smile and a free pass to brown people who are
unashamedly racial, aggressively assertive of their own culture and
territorial urges. As for mexicans, they rather open about this, and
have made amazing progress by it. Move your white liberal ass down to
East LA for a year or two, and get an education in what _real_ racism
is all about. I can assure you that your views will be modified. I've
not seen it fail once, even to the nicest, "tolerent" persons.
>> The elderly are like any other group, pushing the issues that affect
>> them the most. Now you can come up with selective reasons as to why
>> they would vote against illegals - schools etc - but you can come up
>> with at least as many in favor. Yet they vote against.
>
>The elderly are more easily swayed by fear (studies have shown that they
>perceive themselves to be the victims of crime much more often than they
>actually are). Give me the reasons they would vote in favor.
>
>>
>>
>> Bottom line is, the referenda always go against illegals, however you
>> cut it, because the situation is plainly wrong and unjust. Those words
>> should ring a bell with your lib social-justice types, right?
>
>The exploitation of undocumented is plainly wrong and unjust. As to the
>referenda, the California Republican party is largely regarded as having
>commited political suicide due to Prop 187. They went from leading in the
>state to barely being competitive.
Their exploitation is wrong and unjust, both to them, and to our
citizenry. The exploitation is brought about by their masse presence
here. At the root of the problem is non-enforcement of the law
concerning their presence here. You want to have it both ways,
apparently, but human nature and the economics of labor doesn't care
about that. If you have a particle of wisdom, you don't willfuly bring
about those conditions, and then stew in the injustice of it.
>> It doesn't matter whether people are "white racists" or not. The only
>> thing that matters is whether we are a functioning democracy, in which
>> justice means equal, unarguable enforcement of the law. Now if you
>> don't really want that, and most libs don't, you should absolutely
>> keep your lip zipped when the brown-shirts march down your street.
>
>And you'll be wearing one of those brown shirts?
It could happen. And your neighbors may be marching too. Wakeup
screwball! You don't want majority rule from the top, you'll
eventually get it from the bottom. It will happen, though maybe not
with the teutonic icons that make your own dash-light flip on. Maybe a
newspaper commentator will catch on and explain it to you.
>
>Justice would be treating migrant workers fairly, and giving them the right
>to protest unfair treatment under the law.
Yeah, you want law where it suits you. Sorry, that is idiotic. You
lose, in court, and in people's opinion.
They break fundumental federal statute, simply by being here. The
question of "unfair treatment" in other areas simply doesn't come up,
if they aren't here, illegaly. The reason for many of our laws and
regulations, is to prevent the preventable.
>> >>
>> >> It is very apparent who the moron is.
>> >>
>> >> Your blip analysis why they came & left (seasonal workers are
>> >> miniscule), and why they come & stay, is one of those ignorant tidbits
>> >> that show you have no knowlege of the situation or people involved.
>> >
>> >Gee, it's not my "blip analysis", but rather one shared by pretty much
>> >every commentator I've heard. Except those on the far far far right.
>> >Careful, don't fall off!
>> >
>> >Charles Lynch
>> >
>>
>> Any imagining that mexicans used to go home seasonally, because the
>> border was easier to run, is goofy; it simply isn't true. They used to
>> leave for a few weeks of "vacation" and come right back up, because
>> illegal border running was easier. Now they have more trepidation.
>> What you say about it there is a construct.
>
>??? What the heck does your last sentence mean??
con-struct
Function: noun
1 : something constructed by the mind: as a : a theoretical entity
<the deductive study of abstract constructs -- Daniel J. Boorstin> b :
a product of mental invention <the novel... a verbal construct in
which invented human characters appear -- Anthony Burgess>
>
>As to my comments about seasonal migration, they are true, and have
>been repeatedly cited in newspapers all over the state.
Uhh, no, they are not. Not that the question matters a lot, it's just
very exemplary of the ignorance on your people's side of these issues.
I know these people very well, and until a few years ago, worked with
them regularly. I know the things they do, and why they do them. I
have participated in reality for many years. None of these things are
mysterious or controversial. But to those who don't really know what
they're talking about, and make a living writing.
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> Baster wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 00:22:17 GMT, Charles Lynch <ch...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> > The most fed-up
> > portion of the CA populous are working people with color in their
> > hair. Working-age folks get very direct exposure to illegals, and
> > mexicans generally, in countless ways, because they are still working,
> > raising their kids, living and competing in the community. They pay
> > for every facet of the illegals/migration onslaught, not just public
> > services.
>
> Gee, sounds like you don't like Mexicans. There is no "onslaught" and
At least one millions of Mexicans illegally attempting to cross the border
without inspection are arrested every year. The INS estimates that for every
one that they catch, three get past them, scot-free into the interior.
That's three millions per year. Perhaps not an 'onslaught' which implies
confrontation and violence, but certainly an Invasion, which merely implies
a mass migration in an injudicious manner.
> and undocumented immigrants contribute a lot more than they ever get
> in services.
Cites, please.
<snips>
> > It doesn't matter whether people are "white racists" or not. The only
> > thing that matters is whether we are a functioning democracy, in which
> > justice means equal, unarguable enforcement of the law. Now if you
> > don't really want that, and most libs don't, you should absolutely
> > keep your lip zipped when the brown-shirts march down your street.
>
> And you'll be wearing one of those brown shirts?
>
> Justice would be treating migrant workers fairly, and giving them the right
> to protest unfair treatment under the law.
It's absolutely the right thing to do, to treat Migrant Workers fairly, and
that includes permitting Unionization. But for ILLEGAL ALIENS to be thought
of as Migrant Workers -- Migrant Workers have visas and are invited here to
work -- is a slander on Migrant Workers. Don't ever confuse the two
very-different groups.
<snips>
Tiny Human Ferret
I absolutely do not. However, you might want to familiarize yourself with a
few things, foremost of which would be the percentage of "white" illegal
aliens. It's very low. In excess of 80-percent of Illegal Aliens are from
south of the border with Mexico. Illegal immigration is a problem. I'm
concentrating on the greatest part of the problem, the 80 percent. If they
were clones of myself, I'd still be concentrating on that. That they're not
northern-euro is descent is entirely apart and aside from the fact that
they're flooding across the borders in totally unsupportable numbers. If it
was Canadians flooding across the borders in the millions, that would bother
me just as much.
> > You appear to be the one making this all about Mexicans and exclusively
> > about Mexicans. However, since nearly 90 percent of illegal aliens either
> > are Mexican or enter the US illegally from Mexico by crossing the border
> > surreptitiously or entering on a day-tourist visa and never voluntarily
> > returning, I can understand the confusion generated in your simple mind.
>
> Gee, you just got lucky in your ability to attack Mexicans?
No, YOU got lucky with the serendipitous "brownness" of the illegal
immigrants from south of the border; you get to fly the false-flag of being
anti-racist while you support illegal immigration.
So, you would
> be willing to denounce some of the bigotry in the anti-immigrant movement,
> sort of as a way of seperating yourself from all those prejudiced folks? Surely
> you know who they are! Fire away. (not holding my breath).
I've done it plenty. I particularly tend to get on the case of "Cochise
Guardian".
>
> >
> >
> > > And why injudiciously? Again, your bias shows.
> >
> > Do you understand the meaning of "injudicious"?
> >
> > "1. Not judicious; wanting in sound judgment; undiscerning; indiscreet;
> > unwise; as, an injudicious adviser. 2. Not according to sound judgment or
> > discretion; unwise; as, an injudicious measure."
> >
> > It's not sound judgement for illegal aliens to mob the US.
>
> "Mob"??? Why mob, and what specifically do YOU mean by it?
As always, I use ONLY STANDARD DEFINITIONS. It takes me no time at all to
look these up and post them, so asking for definitions is a stupid ploy on
your part, since I am using standard definitions in standard usages; calling
me out on terminology only shows that it's you who is Revisionist.
<dict.org Websters>
Mob Mob, v. t. imp. & p. p. Mobbed; p. pr. & vb. n.
Mobbing.
To crowd about, as a mob, and attack or annoy; as, to mob a
house or a person.
</dict.org>
>
> And why isn't it of sound judgement to go from a place where you can't earn
> a living to a place where you can?
They can apply in good order for an entrance visa, and, WAIT THEIR TURN.
> Just because YOU don't like it, hardly
> qualifies it as "injudicious".
It's just like a lifeboat that's full to capacity, fool. I don't BLAME those
who are left in the water for wanting to be in the lifeboat. However, if any
more climb aboard, the lifeboat WILL swamp, founder, and sink with all
aboard. It's injudicious of those aboard to fail to repel boarders, once the
lifeboat is full. It's not a question of what I _want_, I don't _want_ those
people left out there to drown. I _want_ them to be safe and sound. BUT I am
entirely unwilling to kill myself or to see others killed, to throw myself
into the deeps just so that someone else, with whom I have no relationship,
can thrive while I die.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > They are in fact
> > > > invading the rights of the Soverenign Nation, to wit, the United States of
> > > > America.
> > >
> > > ?????? Which means what???? Sounds like a pretty slogan full of sound and
> > > fury. "Rights of the Sovereign Nation"??? What the heck does that mean?
> > > (Sorry, I don't belong to whatever cult talks like that. Guess, our "common
> > > culture" isn't doing so well).
> >
> > Then I'd have to say you're apparently about as unAmerican as they come.
>
> ROFMAO... name calling. Hey, you're as unAmerican as they come, since America
> was built by immigrants who came here without permission.
*yawn*
And we populated a countryside which had been much more than decimated by
the diseases imported by... The Spanish. The countryside was empty, and
undeveloped. It's developed now, and far from empty. In fact, the population
is far above what can be supported by the environment, and you want to add
MORE PEOPLE?
>
> >
> >
> > "Sovereign state, a state which administers its own government, and is not
> > dependent upon, or subject to, another power.
>
> ALL independent nations are sovereign. And they are all subject to international
> treaties and organizations they sign up for. Is that it? Some sort of weird U.N. thing?
The ability to control the borders is the first prerequisite of national
sovereignity. And our borders are officially closed to any entries other
than at official border crossing points... which are commonly avoided by
those seeking to become illegal aliens.
>
> >
> >
> > Sovereignty Sov"er*eign*ty, n.; pl. Sovereignties. OE. soverainetee, OF.
> > sovrainet'e, F. souverainet'e. The quality or state of being sovereign, or
> > of being a sovereign; the exercise of, or right to exercise, supreme power;
> > dominion; sway; supremacy; independence; also, that which is sovereign; a
> > sovereign state; as, Italy was formerly divided into many sovereignties.
> >
> > "Mister" Lynch, the concept of "sovereignity" is the basis of nationhood.
> > It's related to concepts such as "liberty" as well as "dominion" in that it
> > implies that a particular territory is governed and controlled by a
> > particular political body, be it an individual, a party, or a republican
> > assembly.
> >
>
> "Mister" Ferret. Based on your definition all nations are "sovereign" which
> removes most of the meaning from it (see "tautology"). Again, so what?
> I already knew we're a nation. What in the heck does that have to with
> immigration of the price of bread?
It means that when illegal aliens cross the borders without permission, it
is an insult to the soveregnity of the US. But you knew that, you are just
trolling for more text out of me, in an attempt to tire me out. But I've got
lots of time, coffee, and motivation, and you aren't going to tire me out,
nor get the last word. Why? Because you are, as always, WRONG.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > They have, in fact, infringed, and encroached upon the US and
> > > > infringe and encroach upon our cities and countryside.
> > >
> > > What does "infringed and encroached" mean to you? Is this supposed to
> > > be some weird legalistic argument?
> >
> > Infringe In*fringe", v. t. imp. & p. p. Infringed; p. pr. & vb. n.
> > Infringing. L. infringere; pref. in- in + frangere to break. See Fraction,
> > and cf. Infract . 1. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to
> > fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law or contract. 2. To hinder; to
> > destroy; as, to infringe efficacy; to infringe delight or power. (Obs.)
>
> So, by your arguement, they have "infringed" upon U.S. laws. Of course
> using your definition, so have most Americans by jaywalking, speeding, littering,
> cheating on taxes, etc.
>
> So, what?
Those traffic offenses you listed above are not felonious offenses against
the United States. And as for 'most Americans ... cheating on taxes..." --
PROVE IT.
>
> >
> >
> > Encroach En*croach", v. i. imp. & p. p. Encroached; p. pr. & vb. n.
> > Encroaching. OF. encrochier to perch, prop., to hook, fasten a hook (perh.
> > confused with acrochier, F. accrocher, to hook, get hold of, E. accroach);
> > pref. en- (L. in) + F. croc hook. See Crook, and cf. Accroach. 1. To enter
> > by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another; to
> > trespass; to intrude; to trench; -- commonly with on or upon; as, to
> > encroach on a neighbor; to encroach on the highway.
> > Syn: To intrude; trench; infringe; invade; trespass.
> >
>
> So, you believe your rights or possessions are "encroached" upon? How and
> which ones?
My rights as a citizen to know that anyone in this country is here +solely
by right or by permission+.
>
> Or you're just saying that because you regard them as tresspassers, they are
> therefore invaders? So, if your neighbor walks across your lawn, you would
> have him charged with being an "invader"?
Don't be more stupid than necessary. If one person trespasses, that's
possible quite forgivable. If a mob trespasses, and is unruly, that is in
fact an invasion of property and according to the Common Law, a Riot.
>
> >
> > [Definitions are from dict.org -- Webster's, I believe.]
> >
> > Since the illegal aliens crossing over from Mexico -- and to a much lesser
> > degree across the border with Canada -- do in fact intrude in a stealthy
> > manner, and neglect to fulfill their obligations to not enter without
> > inspection and permission, they are encroaching and infringing.
>
> Dude, your logic is circular.
No, you're the idiot who is demanding definitions and who, when provided
with the definitions, declares that since the definitions are the
definitions, logic is circular. You could have saved yourself the trouble by
accepting the definitions as the definitions instead of questioning them.
> And therefore what you are saying is that
> since they came here illegally, they came here illegally. Okay, but we
> already knew that.
And that's all of the reason we need to deport them. There are no compelling
reasons to permit them to remain.
>
> >
> >
> > This argument is not at all weird, it's one of the bases of national and
> > international law, as well as jurisprudence and political science.
> >
> > I am, frankly, appalled by your ignorance.
> >
>
> As I am by yours. You should sign up for a logic class at a community college
> near you.
>
> It would be as if I said you are a bigot because I have defined bigot as "Tiny Human
> Ferret".
You are using the fallacy of misrepresentation of fallacy, a form of
Strawman Attack.
Did you have a point?
>
> This type of circular logic is meaningless and called a "tautology".
No, a tautology is saying that because something is what it is, it is what
it is; it is not fallacious nor is it meaningless, it simply isn't germane.
However, calling an illegal alien from Mexico an invader because they are
part of an invasion, that's quite germane to the discussion, since the first
logical step in organizing to Repel Invasion is recognizing that an Invasion
is occurring.
> > > > Thus, since Mexican (and other nations') illegal aliens behave in a way that
> > > > matches the definition of invading, to call them Invaders is doing nothing
> > > > more than calling them what they are. Invaders.
> > >
> > > Only in your little cult world. How about tourists, are they invaders too? Don't
> > > they do all of these things?
> >
> > Tourists, pretty much by definition, go back home.
>
> But, while they are here, aren't they "invaders" since they "encroach"?
They are not encroaching, since they were invited.
You've entirely run out of arguments, haven't you.
>
> >
> >
> > <snips>
> >
> > > > > > > Dog fighting (and cock fighting) are fairly common. And are legal in
> > > > > > > some states. Again, you could spend time looking at brutality towards
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > dogs here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have. Oklahoma is IIRC the only state that permits either cockfighting
> > > > > > or dogfights.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > While outlawed, it is damn common.
> > > >
> > > > Are are the ILLEGAL ALIENS overrunning the borders in the millions.
> > >
> > > You mean the bug people from Altari Five? Oh wait, you mean the folks
> > > who didn't get their papers processed!!
> > >
> > > You sound like Chicken Little, not Tiny Ferret.
> >
> > And you know what? On September 11 2001, for about 4000 people from all
> > around the world, it sure seemed that Chicken Licken was right, because as
> > you know, for them the sky _did_ fall... along with them, and the buildings
> > containing them. Did you think that was funny, "Mister" Lynch?
>
> Pathetic. The only thing lower than people who wrap themselves in the flag, are
> people who use a tragedy like September 11, 2001 for personal benefit. Shame
> on you. Shame, shame. For this, you should apologize.
In absolutely no way. The policies of Open Borders supporters such as
yourself combined with attitudes permitting the INS to slide into total
disarray, laxity, and functional brokenness. This brokenness -- and lax
attitudes such as your own -- are DIRECTLY responsible for enabling the 9/11
assassins to do their foul deeds. In fact, widely-known and officially
unsuppressed organizations and systems for obtaining drivers'-licenses in
Northern Virginia -- which specifically were organized to provide Latino
illegal aliens with documentation -- were used by 9/11 assassins to provide
themselves with covering identities and the color of legitimacy.
I'm not apologizing one bit for demanding that all such loopholes be
eliminated by whatever means are necessary.
>
> Pathetic.
You're the one supporting systems and movements that enabled the monsters.
>
> >
> >
> > At present, even the badly-broken Immigration and Naturalization Service
> > "INS" states that there are no less than 7 millions, and possibly as many as
> > 10 millions, of illegal aliens presently in the US, illegally, without
> > lawful permission and no right, etc etc. By INS estimates, no less than 1
> > million per year enter who are not apprehended and deported, in some years
> > the figure has been much higher than that. Many tons of contraband, and yes,
> > weapons, are brought into the US on these millions of feet trudging across
> > the border night after night.
>
> Why would anyone bring weapons here, since the gun shows are full of them?
>
> Clearly, you feel like the world is out to get you.
and if the government had felt the same, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, now
would it?
Gun shows are full of rifles and handguns.
The things being imported may include land-mines, RPG, hand grenades, who
the hell knows. That's the problem: hidden in the massive flow of illegal
aliens, there could be _anything_ -- including backpack nukes.
>
> >
> >
> > It's almost inevitable that someone else will abuse the broken Border
> > Security systems and once again strike a deadly blow into the heart of
> > another of America's cities.
>
> Timothy McVeigh? How did the broken Border Systems relate to him?
Tim McVeigh has nothing whatsoever to do with illegal immigration. Why are
you mentioning him?
> > Cites, please. Put up or shut up.
>
> Dude, I have cited the animal rights stuff again and again.
Every time you bring it up, you better cite it. Because, you were shown to
be a lying fabricator taknig things out of context, again and again.
> Read the thread.
Read the thread
> You focus
> on and link to abuse of animals by non-whites, and pooh pooh that by white folks.
you focus on everything that -- grasping at straws -- you think you can link
to racism, and pooh-pooh everything else.
>
> >
> >
> > > > > But, I will help you out. "ILLEGAL ALIENS" are NOT
> > > > > flooding into the US, increasing the population and thus the strain on the
> > > > > environment.
> > > > >
> > > > > See, problem solved!
> > > >
> > > > There are millions of illegal aliens. They were entering at the rate of --
> > > > this is according to the estimates of the (broken) INS -- about a million a
> > > > year from Mexico alone.
> > >
> > > Before the moron white elderly voters of California passed Prop 187, there
> > > were numbers of migrants who came and went to do seasonal jobs. Since
> > > the border tightened, they come and stay. Who can blaim them? Ever
> > > heard of unintended consequences?
> >
> > The number of migrants who come and go on a seasonal basis has changed very
> > little indeed, in fact there has been something of an increase in the
> > numbers of farm-worker visas issued. There's no shortage of visas nor of
> > farm workers. The people who are coming to stay are not the farm workers,
> > the farm workers can and do come and go as they please, more or less, and
> > generally it's a lot more profitable to them to do so, as they can earn in
> > the US, and spend it in Mexico where they get a lot more for their dollar.
>
> Sheesh. Your INS (which you love so much) says that much of the seasonal
> farm labor is undocumented. Also, lots of janitors, meat plant workers, etc.
>
> And there is only a couple of very small "visa" programs for farm workers.
> If you have any evidence of others, please tell the world.
It doesn't matter.
As of Yesterday, the INS has announced sweeping reforms in the issuance of
visas, visa types, duration of visas, etc. You may get the details from
their website as soon as they post it.
>
> >
> >
> > > > > > Please tell us why you support the destruction of the environment, an
> > > > > > unavoidable result of massive population growth mostly caused by both
> > > > > > legal and illegal immigration.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't. If the environment is destroyed, it will be because folks like
> > > > > you can't get
> > > > > a handle on your (and corporate America's) consumption practices.
> > > >
> > > > Please attempt to support this assertion.
> > >
> > > Sure. The United States consumes at a rate using roughly 80% of the worlds
> > > resources for 6% (roughly) of the population. In the last decade, per-capita
> > > consumption has gone up in the United States.
> >
> > And efficiency has approximately tripled in aggregate. Note that America no
> > longer consumes 80 percent of the world's resources; increasingly, the
> > industrialization of the former Third World increases the percentage of
> > resources they consume, and if you wish to even pretend to honest and
> > concern for the environment, you will admit readily that the WTO and IMF
> > aren't concerned about the efficiency or cleanliness or
> > pollution-remediation capacities of this production and consumption, only
> > that the WTO and IMF investors make money.
>
> Sorry guy, I don't care about the WTO and IMF. The percentage of resources
> consumed by the U.S. has remained remarkably constant over the years. What
> we don't buy, we steal.
Cites please. Your politics are showing, and are showing unsupportedly.
>
> And BTW, industry in the Third World that exists solely to export to the industrial
> nations,
Cites please, in this case even semi-supported blatantly jingoist or even
radical Maoist political diatribes will have more credibility than you have.
> said industry consumes the resources for YOU. It is an act of incredible hubris
> to claim that the resources that go into making Nikes for YOU should be charged to
> the Indonesian and Chinese factory workers who can't even afford to buy the shoes they
> make. What gall!!
First, we all live on one planet. Blaming the US exclusively for the
pollution or resource-consumption or redistribution, that's short-sighted,
old-fashioned, in fact, reactionary tomfoolishness.
>
> >
> >
> > Increasingly, American drive small efficient vehicles which are also among
> > the cleanest in the world in terms of emissions, and among the safest in the
> > world, as well. It's in these Developing Nations that SUV are practically
> > mandatory, because the whole country is one big off-road experience.
>
> This statement is so far out of touch with reality.... Where do you come up with
> this? Is this your idea of the "big lie", the one so outrageous that no one will
> challenge it?
>
> If this is true, then why do U.S. auto makers oppose CAF standards?
Business _always_ fights anything that lessens profitability. But you'll
also notice that there is a year-long waiting list for as many
high-efficiency hybrid-powered vehicles as can be manufactured and shipped.
The manufacturers are going to find out that people want to buy efficient
vehicles, and once they figure out that the higher mileage the vehicle, the
more people that buy it, they'll embrace the fuel-efficiency standards and
make them selling-points in the same way they now sell vehicles by touting
the crash-safety standards, though they once opposed safety-belts and
air-bags.
>
> >
> >
> > > Much of the decision making
> > > that supports and leads to this is done by corporations (see recent vote in
> > > Congress AGAINST high fuel efficiency standards, and U.S. corporate lobbying
> > > against Kyoto treaty and so on and so on). These corporations and politicians
> > > leading the charge against the environment are run by, composed of, and elected
> > > by folks like you and me. People born here.
> >
> > See above, Americans are increasing their efficiency, organizing against
> > rampant environmental destruction, and the more bold the corporations get,
> > the more active becomes the resistance. Apparently you don't pay any
> > attention to the news, or have forgotten the violence of the protests
> > against the WTO in Seattle a few years ago. Because a few heartless and
> > scheming predators have risen to the top of the corporate ranks, this does
> > not in any way justify permitting an invasion of millions of illegal aliens
> > who demand an American _high consumption lifestyle compounded by their
> > inability or unwillingness to use resources efficiently_.
> >
>
> ROFLMAO.... You have gone totally into lying mode, eh? Actually, you and you
> alone do 90% percent of American consumption. See, in writing, it must be true...
> Sheesh.
While on the subject of taking a course in logic, you might want to look up
the concept of "non sequitur".
>
> >
> > <snips>
> >
> > > > I equally revile and loathe your sort of sap, whose "bleeding heart" demands
> > > > that the US open its borders to all sorts of potential terrorists, and the
> > > > sole US source of aggregate population increase.
> > >
> > > The general suspicion is that the anthrax terrorists were home grown. Can I say
> > > Tim McVie?
> >
> > Sure, but it would help if you spelled it correctly. Yet, you appear to be
> > making the imputation that because Tim McVeigh was caucasian, that all
> > caucasians are terrorists. This is blatantly fallacious.
>
> Lies and Distortions. I suggested that McVeigh was a native, not an immigrant. Can
> you read "home grown"?
Ah, you then are imputing that all "home grown" are terrorists? My, how
fallacious.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <snips>
> > > >
> > > > > > As for Aryan Nations, etc http://earthops.org/soveregnity.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, said the "This server either can't find the document you
> > > > > requested, or you are not permitted to access this document or script
> > > > > directly."
> > > >
> > > > Then you mistyped the URL.
> > >
> > > No, I clicked on it (it's the HTML feature). Listen, you need to learn your
> > > web stuff better, just did it again.
> >
> > http://earthops.org/sovereignity.html loads up just fine. Or try
> > http://www.earthops.net/klaatu/sovereignity.html or try
> > http://media.earthops.net/klaatu/sovereignity.html
> >
> > > Got "
> > > This server either can't find the document you requested, or you are not permitted to
> > > access this document or script directly.
> > >
> > > Maybe you misspelled something? Search our pages:"
> >
> > Maybe you should have searched the pages. It might also help if you hit
> > "reload" on your browser.
>
> Guy, one of the rules of good web design is that the Designer needs to get it right, then
> test it to be sure it's working. I am NOT going to QA your site for you, I get paid for
> stuff like that. Checking the link as you included it in your notes twice is enough for
> me.
In other words, it works just fine and you're too embarassed to admit that
you made a typographic error.
All of the above-cited links work just fine.
No, I'm not. Are you suggesting that there are court decisions which have
overturned the Constitution, or that there are Amendments to the
Constitution which have modified or superseded the articles cited above? Or
that there have been laws enacted by Congress or the State or local
governments which are of higher authority than the US Constitution?
And, the Southern Poverty Law Center is of higher authority than is the US
Constitution as amended?
>
> >
> >
> > The genuine Sovereignity movement -- as opposed to the media-fabricated
> > public delusional concept of such -- is about one thing: every able-bodied
> > man and woman who can own an infantry long arm should, and should prepare to
> > be able to use it in the common defense of their Nation and their American
> > Way of Life, in accordance with 10 USC 311 and the US Constitution as
> > amended.
> >
>
> Sorry, my freedoms include the right not to bear arms. Like it or not.
Feel free to be unarmed when your neighbors, family, state, and nation need
you. It's a free country... for now, and solely because people took up arms
against those who would make it other than a free country. You enjoy the
blessings of liberty solely because others were willing to fight for it,
occasionally to lay down their lives for total stranger. But you may feel
quite free to lazily loll abuot, defending this nation's invaders.
>
> >
> > Now, I demand that you apologize to the vast majority of Americans that you
> > have just tarred as racists, as criminals, as revolutionaries, as "inbred
> > yokels agitating in the hinterlands".
>
> ROFLMAO..... wow. Not that is really pathetic. I said none of the above.
> Talk about misquoting. I said, and do say that the vast majority of Americans
> neither belong to nor support the Militia Movement (which I thought was dead, frankly)
> and which has been demonstrated by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center
And the Southern Poverty Law Center has exactly _what official standing_ as
the sole arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable to precisely whom?
> to
> have ties to white supremacist movements.
Sure, and I'm Earth Operations Central, and when I say that you're a
dundering chowderhead, everyone should believe me, just like they believe
the Southern Poverty Law Center, right?
You've just tossed the Fallacy of Appeal to (false) Authority into the
argument. And I just shredded it.
>
> Attack what I DO say, not made up fantasy stuff from your mind.
Just did that. Toodles, sillyman.
>
> >
> >
> > Because you're so ignorant that you can't tell the difference between the
> > Legal Unorganized Militia and a bunch of Militant Radical Racists, I don't
> > expect you'll make that apology, but if you don't, you merely admit that you
> > find it perfectly satisfying to perpetrate and perpetuate a broadcast media
> > slander on the vast majority of American adults, simply because that slander
> > makes it convenient for you to argue in support of the Illegal Alien
> > Invasion.
> >
>
> Frankly, I stand by my previous remarks (as I made them, not as you imagine them),
> and also, I have never heard of the "Legal Unorganized Militia" nor that term until now.
Possibly that's because you prefer to believe the propaganda of issue-driven
organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, rather than reading
the fundamental Law.
And why is it that the Southern Poverty Law Center _itself apparently hasn't
read the fundamental Law_? Maybe they're not really a Law Center?
>
> Again, the vast majority of American adults do not support any "Militia Movement".
They damned well ought to, since by both tradition and Law -- not to mention
the Constitution itself -- they are the entire body of it.
>
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > > > and as noted elsewhere, at least in the Washington DC area, most Skins
> > > > > > seem
> > > > > > to be associated with the Russian Immigrant or the YACS Balkan gangster
> > > > > > communities.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And the regular Mafia? Isn't the biggest nastiest gang in the DC area the
> > > > > Republican Party?
> > > >
> > > > No. The DC/MD/NoVA area is hardcore liberal Democrat, has been for 50 years.
> > >
> > > Regular Mafia? Like duh, I was joking about the Republicans. And you are suggesting
> > > that there are no non-immigrant skin heads around there? I grew up near there many
> > > years ago, and oh how wrong you are!
> >
> > That was Many Years Ago, as you said. Try living in the Here and Now,
> > doddering fool.
>
> The so called "Regular Mafia" exist and are still active. You need a reality check.
I got my reality heck the last time I bought a Pepsi, thanks.
Are you going to make me dig up the articles about the toxicity of El
Salvador's groundwater? About the people living on the giant dumps, sending
their children out to pick through the refuse for anything saleable, hoping
and praying that they will be the first to capture some vulture succumbing
at last the the poisons concentrated in the carrion on which they dine, so
as to make the vulture into a desperately needed soup of protein, neither
knowing or caring that the toxins concentrated in the vulture will further
concentrate in them? Maybe you want me to dig up the articles about the
street brats of Rio, who are seen as nothing but vermin by the policemen and
gangstas who are paid to track and exterminate them? You want the articles
about the MS-13 "revolving door" between the US and El Salvador? I got 'em
all. It's not my stereotype: it's mainstream media news reporting, and it's
all online.
>
> If other folks homelands are toxic, you might consider the part American corporations
> play in that.
Oh, trust me, I have. But why don't you address the issues of toxic
homelands, and people who litter, who don't have the concept of proper
disposal of waste? -rather than try to shift the topic of discussion, I
mean.
It's intolerable anywhere. As for my neighborhood... it's the most "diverse"
neighborhood in the DC area, has been for 20 years.
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002, Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
> >... I am both aware of what the Constitution _says_ and what the Constitution
> > _means_ and I'll be damned if I will, without my strongest possible
> > objections in this medium, let you sit there and call anyone a Racist simply
> > because they are both Patriots and Law-Abiding.
>
> Mr. Ferret:
>
> Thank you for your most informative and enlightening post.
>
> Mr Lunch has demonstrated his proclivity to slander with racism since
> 1998. Clearly the racism charge is a red herring meant to divert
> attention away from the discussion of more important matters and
> positions - which can not easily be discounted on the basis of facts
> and logic alone.
There is no factual nor logical basis for most of his positions... unless
you make the assumption that he somehow profits from the country being
overrun by illegal aliens.
> Including: U.S. overpopulation, national
> sovereignty, displacement of democracy by transnational corporatism
> and financial interests.
--
Fred Elbel
wrote:
> > Have you read any of the posting purported to be from one Alan Truelove
> who is listed as one of your sprawl study peer approvals? Would you say
> that his remarks are not racist?
I don't have a sprawl study.
I have read his recent remarks on the crossposted newsgroups,
including the cute one about Azatlan (the racist agenda to make SW US
a "bronze" nation). Nothing very inflamatory about his statements.
> I have cited and documented the racism of the anti-immigration movement
> ad naseum, and have repeatedly offered you the chance to disassociate yourself
> from it. You either snip that part, ignore it, or dissemble.
Thank you for making the distinction (for the first time in many
months) between the anti-immigration movement and being
anti-immigrant.
I have discussed this at length with you and others. Viewers can
search for posts under our names on the crossposted newsgroups, plus
sci.environment. I have pointed out that I am not a racist and do not
have a racist agenda. You contend that everyone who favors U.S.
population stabilization and the prerequesite immigration
stabilization is a racist, xenophibic nativist. That is a false
premise.
> I have also spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get you to acknowledge
> that
> one of the flaws in your population = consumption arguement is that much of the
> waste and over consumption is done by corporations, and should not be charged to
> individuals. Being unable to respond intelligently, you ignore it.
Again, we have discussed this until the cows came home. I leave it to
readers whether I discussed this intelligently and whether you,
perhaps, have demonstrated lack thereof.
> Whatever else happens, it is unlikely, that you will ever develop and interest in
> the rights of any human being other than yourself. Frankly, I would not care, except
> that you damage the credibility and growth potential of the environmental movement
> by your bigotry, ignorance and elitist attitudes.
I doubt that I am ignorant. I read an awful lot, went to school for
many years, etc. I simply do not share your priority of social
justice at the expense of population stabilization. I believe that
without population stabilization, social justice will never be
achieved.
Bigotry: "A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
differing from his own". I think this defines your position well.
Elitist: "Someone who believes in rule by an elite group". I live in
a country which is a disfunctional republic. I would much prefer a
democracy.
Damaging the environmental movement? Without domestic population
stabilization, the environmental movement can kiss all of its hard-won
victories goodbye. Environmental organizations who do not honestly
confront the overpopulation issue are doing the movement a great
disservice.
Fred Elbel
Jym Dyer
> very worried about whether we are too racist, or not racist
> enough.
=v= Anyone who introduces the term "PC" into an argument loses
an IQ point. You might have points to spare, but a mind is,
after all, a terrible thing to waste. Racism has been a major
national issue in the U.S. for its entire history, centuries
before George Will and George Bush (the elder) promoted the
chimera of peeceeness.
=v= But what I really want to know is, how do you reconcile
the notion of being "the growing American majority" with the
alarmist spectre of other races supposedly taking over the
country? Just wondering.
<_Jym_>
Baster
If you wish to replace "pc" with another tag, go right ahead, but no
one loses points for calling it out. Trying to shut down dialog with
the tired "racist" test is, what? So long as white racism is Racist,
and non-white racism is understandable, it's pc of the left, i.e.
doesn't survive cursory examination.
The "growing majority" is in every poll, and in the things people are
discussing now, I don't know what requires proof there. It will prove
itself to you eventually I'm sure.
Alarmists? The migration situation is far over-the-top and has become
alarming to average americans. The realities of over-immigration and
illegal immigration across the country are plainly experienced, and
alarming. Why are people supposed to pretend that things are other
than they are? What's the motivation?
Heh, you should love the Georges! Read what W has been trying to do on
illegal immigrants. He lost most of his party on a key vote on the
issue, a vote he put all his new political capital behind. It's
beginning to look as if he became a Republican for the same reason
that Al Gore became a Democrat.
Fred Elbel
> =v= Anyone who introduces the term "PC" into an argument loses
> an IQ point. You might have points to spare, but a mind is,
> after all, a terrible thing to waste. Racism has been a major
> national issue in the U.S. for its entire history, centuries
> before George Will and George Bush (the elder) promoted the
> chimera of peeceeness.
Anyone who discounts the phenonema of PC demonstrates loss of two IQ
points and two credibility points. Political Correctspeak has come to
dominate our media as well as funders of environmental organizations
over the last 10 years. How often anymore does one see the words
hapdicapped, black, American, illegal alien, retarted? Reminds me of
Orwell's "1984".
Baster
And let me mess your lib sensibilities with another statement Jym:
"Whites are the least racist of racial/ethnic groups in America."
Do an unbiased, non-kneejerk comparison of american race/ethnicities,
and you'll make this astonishing discovery! Astonishing to lefties,
anyway.
Obsessing on white racism, making a political institution out of the
concept, is like insisting that blacks eat more watermelon per capita.
* Please demonstrate rhetorical intelligence, by noting that I didn't
say not-racist, I said least-racist.
Jym Dyer
> is, what?
=v= Racism is tired, yes, and believe me, I'm sick and tired
of it. Life would be much nicer if it wasn't relevant to these
types of discussions, but in fact it *is* relevant. Mentioning
it is not an attempt to shut down dialogue, it's an attempt to
broadedn the dialogue.
=v= Just mindlessly screeching "peecee! peecee!" whenever the
issue is mentioned *is* an attempt to shut down dialogue. The
whole point is to divert attention from the dialogue itself by
focusing on the purported agenda or personality types of the
mentioner. It's just an _ad_hominem_ technique in a chimerical
guise, no more valid to discourse than other such techniques.
<_Jym_>
Charles Lynch
Baster wrote:
ROFLMAO... is that what they tell you at Klavern meetings? And you believe it?
Say, I have some gold stocks you might want to invest in.....
>
> IMO, you have to be a Perfect Idiot to run around gauging and
> monitoring for damning evidence of personal "racism" among your own
> people, while giving a smile and a free pass to brown people who are
> unashamedly racial, aggressively assertive of their own culture and
> territorial urges. As for mexicans, they rather open about this, and
> have made amazing progress by it. Move your white liberal ass down to
> East LA for a year or two, and get an education in what _real_ racism
> is all about. I can assure you that your views will be modified. I've
> not seen it fail once, even to the nicest, "tolerent" persons.
ROFLMAO.... guy I have taught ESL and have many Mexican friends. OTH,
people who are bigoted such as yourself rarely make friends of other colors.
Go figure.
>
>
> >> The elderly are like any other group, pushing the issues that affect
> >> them the most. Now you can come up with selective reasons as to why
> >> they would vote against illegals - schools etc - but you can come up
> >> with at least as many in favor. Yet they vote against.
> >
> >The elderly are more easily swayed by fear (studies have shown that they
> >perceive themselves to be the victims of crime much more often than they
> >actually are). Give me the reasons they would vote in favor.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Bottom line is, the referenda always go against illegals, however you
> >> cut it, because the situation is plainly wrong and unjust. Those words
> >> should ring a bell with your lib social-justice types, right?
> >
> >The exploitation of undocumented is plainly wrong and unjust. As to the
> >referenda, the California Republican party is largely regarded as having
> >commited political suicide due to Prop 187. They went from leading in the
> >state to barely being competitive.
>
> Their exploitation is wrong and unjust, both to them, and to our
> citizenry. The exploitation is brought about by their masse presence
> here. At the root of the problem is non-enforcement of the law
> concerning their presence here. You want to have it both ways,
> apparently, but human nature and the economics of labor doesn't care
> about that. If you have a particle of wisdom, you don't willfuly bring
> about those conditions, and then stew in the injustice of it.
Nope, you work to provide more rights for undocumented workers and
to end their exploitation. Oh, right, that's what I do. YOU start blaming
the victims of exploitation.
>
>
> >> It doesn't matter whether people are "white racists" or not. The only
> >> thing that matters is whether we are a functioning democracy, in which
> >> justice means equal, unarguable enforcement of the law. Now if you
> >> don't really want that, and most libs don't, you should absolutely
> >> keep your lip zipped when the brown-shirts march down your street.
> >
> >And you'll be wearing one of those brown shirts?
>
> It could happen. And your neighbors may be marching too. Wakeup
> screwball! You don't want majority rule from the top, you'll
> eventually get it from the bottom. It will happen, though maybe not
> with the teutonic icons that make your own dash-light flip on. Maybe a
> newspaper commentator will catch on and explain it to you.
Majority rule from the top??? I don't ever get that.
>
>
> >
> >Justice would be treating migrant workers fairly, and giving them the right
> >to protest unfair treatment under the law.
>
> Yeah, you want law where it suits you. Sorry, that is idiotic. You
> lose, in court, and in people's opinion.
>
> They break fundumental federal statute, simply by being here. The
> question of "unfair treatment" in other areas simply doesn't come up,
> if they aren't here, illegaly. The reason for many of our laws and
> regulations, is to prevent the preventable.
>
So, people who run red lights thereby forfeit equal treatment under the law?
California gun owners who didn't register their weapons?
You? Me?
>
> >> >>
> >> >> It is very apparent who the moron is.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your blip analysis why they came & left (seasonal workers are
> >> >> miniscule), and why they come & stay, is one of those ignorant tidbits
> >> >> that show you have no knowlege of the situation or people involved.
> >> >
> >> >Gee, it's not my "blip analysis", but rather one shared by pretty much
> >> >every commentator I've heard. Except those on the far far far right.
> >> >Careful, don't fall off!
> >> >
> >> >Charles Lynch
> >> >
> >>
> >> Any imagining that mexicans used to go home seasonally, because the
> >> border was easier to run, is goofy; it simply isn't true. They used to
> >> leave for a few weeks of "vacation" and come right back up, because
> >> illegal border running was easier. Now they have more trepidation.
> >> What you say about it there is a construct.
> >
> >??? What the heck does your last sentence mean??
>
> con-struct
> Function: noun
> 1 : something constructed by the mind: as a : a theoretical entity
> <the deductive study of abstract constructs -- Daniel J. Boorstin> b :
> a product of mental invention <the novel... a verbal construct in
> which invented human characters appear -- Anthony Burgess>
Thank you. The context threw me off. However, that doesn't alter
the facts. You are wrong.
>
>
> >
> >As to my comments about seasonal migration, they are true, and have
> >been repeatedly cited in newspapers all over the state.
>
> Uhh, no, they are not. Not that the question matters a lot, it's just
> very exemplary of the ignorance on your people's side of these issues.
"My people"??? You mean you and I aren't brothers??
>
>
> I know these people very well, and until a few years ago, worked with
> them regularly. I know the things they do, and why they do them. I
> have participated in reality for many years. None of these things are
> mysterious or controversial. But to those who don't really know what
> they're talking about, and make a living writing.
ROFLMAO..... what, were you one of the guys who hired day laborers, then
didn't pay them?
So, no one who writes for a living is allowed to know anything in your universe?
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
of being pro-terrorist.
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> Charles Lynch wrote:
> >
> > Baster wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 00:22:17 GMT, Charles Lynch <ch...@earthlink.net>
> > > wrote:
> <CHOMP>
>
> > > The most fed-up
> > > portion of the CA populous are working people with color in their
> > > hair. Working-age folks get very direct exposure to illegals, and
> > > mexicans generally, in countless ways, because they are still working,
> > > raising their kids, living and competing in the community. They pay
> > > for every facet of the illegals/migration onslaught, not just public
> > > services.
> >
> > Gee, sounds like you don't like Mexicans. There is no "onslaught" and
>
> At least one millions of Mexicans illegally attempting to cross the border
> without inspection are arrested every year. The INS estimates that for every
> one that they catch, three get past them, scot-free into the interior.
> That's three millions per year. Perhaps not an 'onslaught' which implies
> confrontation and violence, but certainly an Invasion, which merely implies
> a mass migration in an injudicious manner.
Some go back and forth, and your Invasion stuff is nonsense. By your definition
tourism amounts to an invasion.
>
>
> > and undocumented immigrants contribute a lot more than they ever get
> > in services.
>
> Cites, please.
Yours?
>
>
> <snips>
>
> > > It doesn't matter whether people are "white racists" or not. The only
> > > thing that matters is whether we are a functioning democracy, in which
> > > justice means equal, unarguable enforcement of the law. Now if you
> > > don't really want that, and most libs don't, you should absolutely
> > > keep your lip zipped when the brown-shirts march down your street.
> >
> > And you'll be wearing one of those brown shirts?
> >
> > Justice would be treating migrant workers fairly, and giving them the right
> > to protest unfair treatment under the law.
>
> It's absolutely the right thing to do, to treat Migrant Workers fairly, and
> that includes permitting Unionization. But for ILLEGAL ALIENS to be thought
> of as Migrant Workers -- Migrant Workers have visas and are invited here to
> work -- is a slander on Migrant Workers. Don't ever confuse the two
> very-different groups.
ILLEGAL FERRETS should be banned!!
And dude, you are not the authority on what is a slander of Migrant Workers.
Frequently they are exploited as well, and I seriously doubt that you really
care.
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> Fred Elbel wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 07 Apr 2002, Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> >
> > >... I am both aware of what the Constitution _says_ and what the Constitution
> > > _means_ and I'll be damned if I will, without my strongest possible
> > > objections in this medium, let you sit there and call anyone a Racist simply
> > > because they are both Patriots and Law-Abiding.
> >
> > Mr. Ferret:
> >
> > Thank you for your most informative and enlightening post.
> >
> > Mr Lunch has demonstrated his proclivity to slander with racism since
> > 1998. Clearly the racism charge is a red herring meant to divert
> > attention away from the discussion of more important matters and
> > positions - which can not easily be discounted on the basis of facts
> > and logic alone.
>
> There is no factual nor logical basis for most of his positions... unless
> you make the assumption that he somehow profits from the country being
> overrun by illegal aliens.
If they can convince you and Freddie to move elsewhere, that would be profit
enough!
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
Fred Elbel wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 20:36:20 GMT, Charles Lynch <ch...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > Have you read any of the posting purported to be from one Alan Truelove
> > who is listed as one of your sprawl study peer approvals? Would you say
> > that his remarks are not racist?
>
> I don't have a sprawl study.
> I have read his recent remarks on the crossposted newsgroups,
> including the cute one about Azatlan (the racist agenda to make SW US
> a "bronze" nation). Nothing very inflamatory about his statements.
Okay, the sprawl study you claim is so good because it is "peer approved". Mr.
Truelove is listed as one of those peers. (Says he is, too).
So, explain about Azatlan? Are you talking about Azatlan.Org? This is a web site
maintained by one individual with no real standing in the community. However it
is frequently cited by folks such as yourself to justify your own bigotry (see, they're
bigots too!!).
>
>
>
> > I have cited and documented the racism of the anti-immigration movement
> > ad naseum, and have repeatedly offered you the chance to disassociate yourself
> > from it. You either snip that part, ignore it, or dissemble.
>
> Thank you for making the distinction (for the first time in many
> months) between the anti-immigration movement and being
> anti-immigrant.
As I say, you never really respond. And if you think Alan Truelove isn't a bigot,
well, gee, no wonder you are clueless!
>
> I have discussed this at length with you and others. Viewers can
> search for posts under our names on the crossposted newsgroups, plus
> sci.environment. I have pointed out that I am not a racist and do not
> have a racist agenda. You contend that everyone who favors U.S.
> population stabilization and the prerequesite immigration
> stabilization is a racist, xenophibic nativist. That is a false
> premise.
I have never said "everyone". Just the movement itself. And I have
continually offered you examples, which you mostly snip, snip away.
Your blindness to the bigotry of folks like Mr. Truelove shows your true colors.
BTW, are you signing on to the part you snipped as well, you know, where I said
"He also changed my remarks to say "[prudent, North European
culture preserving]" indicating just what I talk about when I point out the
racial
bias of your buddies. Want to denounce him? Why is he an advisor to
sprawlcity.org?"
>
>
>
> > I have also spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get you to acknowledge
> > that
> > one of the flaws in your population = consumption arguement is that much of the
> > waste and over consumption is done by corporations, and should not be charged to
> > individuals. Being unable to respond intelligently, you ignore it.
>
> Again, we have discussed this until the cows came home. I leave it to
> readers whether I discussed this intelligently and whether you,
> perhaps, have demonstrated lack thereof.
>
>
> > Whatever else happens, it is unlikely, that you will ever develop and interest in
> > the rights of any human being other than yourself. Frankly, I would not care, except
> > that you damage the credibility and growth potential of the environmental movement
> > by your bigotry, ignorance and elitist attitudes.
>
> I doubt that I am ignorant. I read an awful lot, went to school for
> many years, etc. I simply do not share your priority of social
> justice at the expense of population stabilization. I believe that
> without population stabilization, social justice will never be
> achieved.
ROFLMAO... guy, being anti-immigrant isn't about population stablization. Population
is how many people there. Migration is about where they are.
>
>
> Bigotry: "A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
> differing from his own". I think this defines your position well.
I hate bigots (grin). I grew up surrounded by people who's lives had
been damaged by hatred, and I want no part of you and your ilk. Not
here, not in this country, not at this time.
>
>
> Elitist: "Someone who believes in rule by an elite group". I live in
> a country which is a disfunctional republic. I would much prefer a
> democracy.
Mob rule perhaps? I would not be surprised. Then, without a bill of rights
standing in your way, you could persecute the powerless at will.
>
>
> Damaging the environmental movement? Without domestic population
> stabilization, the environmental movement can kiss all of its hard-won
> victories goodbye. Environmental organizations who do not honestly
> confront the overpopulation issue are doing the movement a great
> disservice.
Ah, so, without anti-immigration, you want nothing to do with the environmental
movement. As usual, you show your true colors.
Charles Lynch
>
>
> Fred Elbel
Baster
BS. You guys walk around like characters from Invasion Of The Body
Snatchers, with the fingers pointing at "Racism". It begins to
resemble the Old-Time Catholics in Spain, pointing at Heretics. The
Left is like a secular religion, pedantic and irrational.
"Correctness".
It's perfectly fine to be sick of hearing racism. And yes, it is very
relevent. The point, at least with me, is not that racism isn't part
of this. It's mostly about race/tribalism. Most of the
anti-immigration people are reactionaries. They are _reacting_ to an
aggressive racist movement against their people and society, with
their own. If you feel you don't experience the racism of illegals and
hispanics, great, you are a unique individual, but it's kinda bitch to
be telling the rest that their reaction to anti-anglo racism is evil
and unwarranted. Would you tell a black man that?
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Charles Lynch wrote:
>
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
> > Charles Lynch wrote:
> > > Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> > > > Charles Lynch wrote:
> > > > > Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> > > > > > Charles Lynch wrote, in HTML:
> >
> > <CHOMP>
> >
>
> >
> > I have repeatedly stated that I oppose ALL Illegal Immigration, regardless
> > of the national origins of the illegal alien.
>
> But you concentrate on that done by people of a different color than you.I absolutely do not. However, you might want to familiarize yourself with a
few things, foremost of which would be the percentage of "white" illegal
aliens. It's very low. In excess of 80-percent of Illegal Aliens are from
south of the border with Mexico. Illegal immigration is a problem. I'm
concentrating on the greatest part of the problem, the 80 percent. If they
were clones of myself, I'd still be concentrating on that. That they're not
northern-euro is descent is entirely apart and aside from the fact that
they're flooding across the borders in totally unsupportable numbers. If it
was Canadians flooding across the borders in the millions, that would bother
me just as much.
at people of a background different than your own.
And my remarks were specifically directed at your web links to anti-Asian
articles
about animal abuse, but I guess you felt the need to change direction
on that one.
> > You appear to be the one making this all about Mexicans and exclusively
> > about Mexicans. However, since nearly 90 percent of illegal aliens either
> > are Mexican or enter the US illegally from Mexico by crossing the border
> > surreptitiously or entering on a day-tourist visa and never voluntarily
> > returning, I can understand the confusion generated in your simple mind.
>
> Gee, you just got lucky in your ability to attack Mexicans?No, YOU got lucky with the serendipitous "brownness" of the illegal
immigrants from south of the border; you get to fly the false-flag of being
anti-racist while you support illegal immigration.
Read the many many posts on the net. Look at the comments from many
of the anti-immigration movement leaders. You see no racism?
So, you would
> be willing to denounce some of the bigotry in the anti-immigrant movement,
> sort of as a way of seperating yourself from all those prejudiced folks? Surely
> you know who they are! Fire away. (not holding my breath).I've done it plenty. I particularly tend to get on the case of "Cochise
Guardian".
And Alan Truelove? And Pat Buchaanan?
>
> >
> >
> > > And why injudiciously? Again, your bias shows.
> >
> > Do you understand the meaning of "injudicious"?
> >
> > "1. Not judicious; wanting in sound judgment; undiscerning; indiscreet;
> > unwise; as, an injudicious adviser. 2. Not according to sound judgment or
> > discretion; unwise; as, an injudicious measure."
> >
> > It's not sound judgement for illegal aliens to mob the US.
>
> "Mob"??? Why mob, and what specifically do YOU mean by it?As always, I use ONLY STANDARD DEFINITIONS. It takes me no time at all to
look these up and post them, so asking for definitions is a stupid ploy on
your part, since I am using standard definitions in standard usages; calling
me out on terminology only shows that it's you who is Revisionist.
Nada, it shows that you tend to use very weird meanings of words.
Let's look at mob.
<dict.org Websters>
Mob Mob, v. t. imp. & p. p. Mobbed; p. pr. & vb. n.
Mobbing.
To crowd about, as a mob, and attack or annoy; as, to mob a
house or a person.</dict.org>
I mean you are really saying that immigrants "annoy" you?
>
> And why isn't it of sound judgement to go from a place where you can't earn
> a living to a place where you can?They can apply in good order for an entrance visa, and, WAIT THEIR TURN.
> Just because YOU don't like it, hardly
> qualifies it as "injudicious".It's just like a lifeboat that's full to capacity, fool. I don't BLAME those
who are left in the water for wanting to be in the lifeboat. However, if any
more climb aboard, the lifeboat WILL swamp, founder, and sink with all
aboard. It's injudicious of those aboard to fail to repel boarders, once the
lifeboat is full. It's not a question of what I _want_, I don't _want_ those
people left out there to drown. I _want_ them to be safe and sound. BUT I am
entirely unwilling to kill myself or to see others killed, to throw myself
into the deeps just so that someone else, with whom I have no relationship,
can thrive while I die.
ROFLMAO.... comparing the U.S. to a lifeboat is a totally misleading analogy.
Based on our wealth and consumption, we are more like a giant
ocean liner.
And you are running down life rafts full of smaller ships you have ploughed
under.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > They are in fact
> > > > invading the rights of the Soverenign Nation, to wit, the United States of
> > > > America.
> > >
> > > ?????? Which means what???? Sounds like a pretty slogan full of sound and
> > > fury. "Rights of the Sovereign Nation"??? What the heck does that mean?
> > > (Sorry, I don't belong to whatever cult talks like that. Guess, our "common
> > > culture" isn't doing so well).
> >
> > Then I'd have to say you're apparently about as unAmerican as they come.
>
> ROFMAO... name calling. Hey, you're as unAmerican as they come, since America
> was built by immigrants who came here without permission.*yawn*
And we populated a countryside which had been much more than decimated by
the diseases imported by... The Spanish. The countryside was empty, and
undeveloped. It's developed now, and far from empty. In fact, the population
is far above what can be supported by the environment, and you want to add
MORE PEOPLE?
Wait, you forgot folks like the Apache, etc. I guess they don't count
as people to you?
And countryside without a shopping mall, that is "undeveloped"?
>
> >
> >
> > "Sovereign state, a state which administers its own government, and is not
> > dependent upon, or subject to, another power.
>
> ALL independent nations are sovereign. And they are all subject to international
> treaties and organizations they sign up for. Is that it? Some sort of weird U.N. thing?The ability to control the borders is the first prerequisite of national
sovereignity. And our borders are officially closed to any entries other
than at official border crossing points... which are commonly avoided by
those seeking to become illegal aliens.
So, we weren't a sovereing nation until around 1920 when we began
to restrict
border access?
>
> >
> > >
> > > > They have, in fact, infringed, and encroached upon the US and
> > > > infringe and encroach upon our cities and countryside.
> > >
> > > What does "infringed and encroached" mean to you? Is this supposed to
> > > be some weird legalistic argument?
> >
> > Infringe In*fringe", v. t. imp. & p. p. Infringed; p. pr. & vb. n.
> > Infringing. L. infringere; pref. in- in + frangere to break. See Fraction,
> > and cf. Infract . 1. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to
> > fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law or contract. 2. To hinder; to
> > destroy; as, to infringe efficacy; to infringe delight or power. (Obs.)
>
> So, by your arguement, they have "infringed" upon U.S. laws. Of course
> using your definition, so have most Americans by jaywalking, speeding, littering,
> cheating on taxes, etc.
>
> So, what?Those traffic offenses you listed above are not felonious offenses against
the United States. And as for 'most Americans ... cheating on taxes..." --
PROVE IT.
I should have included an "or". Corrected.
And why not make traffic offenses felonious? Are you pro-criminal?
Do you
really think lawbreakers should get off so easy?
>
> >
> >
> > Encroach En*croach", v. i. imp. & p. p. Encroached; p. pr. & vb. n.
> > Encroaching. OF. encrochier to perch, prop., to hook, fasten a hook (perh.
> > confused with acrochier, F. accrocher, to hook, get hold of, E. accroach);
> > pref. en- (L. in) + F. croc hook. See Crook, and cf. Accroach. 1. To enter
> > by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another; to
> > trespass; to intrude; to trench; -- commonly with on or upon; as, to
> > encroach on a neighbor; to encroach on the highway.
> > Syn: To intrude; trench; infringe; invade; trespass.
> >
>
> So, you believe your rights or possessions are "encroached" upon? How and
> which ones?My rights as a citizen to know that anyone in this country is here +solely
by right or by permission+.
ROFLMAO.... well, since you can NEVER know that, you will remain
deeply
troubled. So, undocumented immigrants are bad because they annoy
you because
they are undocumented immigrants. Funny.
>
> Or you're just saying that because you regard them as tresspassers, they are
> therefore invaders? So, if your neighbor walks across your lawn, you would
> have him charged with being an "invader"?Don't be more stupid than necessary. If one person trespasses, that's
possible quite forgivable. If a mob trespasses, and is unruly, that is in
fact an invasion of property and according to the Common Law, a Riot.
And they are a "mob" because they annoy you. So you are
mobbing me?
>
> >
> > [Definitions are from dict.org -- Webster's, I believe.]
> >
> > Since the illegal aliens crossing over from Mexico -- and to a much lesser
> > degree across the border with Canada -- do in fact intrude in a stealthy
> > manner, and neglect to fulfill their obligations to not enter without
> > inspection and permission, they are encroaching and infringing.
>
> Dude, your logic is circular.No, you're the idiot who is demanding definitions and who, when provided
with the definitions, declares that since the definitions are the
definitions, logic is circular. You could have saved yourself the trouble by
accepting the definitions as the definitions instead of questioning them.
Dude your logic is circular.
> And therefore what you are saying is that
> since they came here illegally, they came here illegally. Okay, but we
> already knew that.
And that's all of the reason we need to deport them. There are no compelling
reasons to permit them to remain.
>
> >
> >
>
> This type of circular logic is meaningless and called a "tautology".
No, a tautology is saying that because something is what it is, it is what
it is; it is not fallacious nor is it meaningless, it simply isn't germane.
Guy, your stuff is all about tautology. And it is fallacious, meaningless and
germane only in your own mind.
However, calling an illegal alien from Mexico an invader because they are
part of an invasion, that's quite germane to the discussion, since the first
logical step in organizing to Repel Invasion is recognizing that an Invasion
is occurring.
> >
Yeah, well I could argue that the pathetic bigotry of yourself caused 9/11 because
Osam Bin Laden had his foolish followers read you posts to help work themselves up.
But I won't .
You are pathetic and full of it. As usual, right wingers have
to blame everything on
liberals.
>
> Pathetic.You're the one supporting systems and movements that enabled the monsters.
Nada, mi amigo, you are the moron who preaches the same kind of hatred
as the
9/11 terrorists.
>
> Why would anyone bring weapons here, since the gun shows are full of them?
>
> Clearly, you feel like the world is out to get you.and if the government had felt the same, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, now
would it?
Dude, unless you're hiding in a fallout shelter, you're at risk from something.
The
world won't close down because you're scared.
Gun shows are full of rifles and handguns.
The things being imported may include land-mines, RPG, hand grenades, who
the hell knows. That's the problem: hidden in the massive flow of illegal
aliens, there could be _anything_ -- including backpack nukes.
And those things could be traded amongst the gun nut crowd.
>
> >
> >
> > It's almost inevitable that someone else will abuse the broken Border
> > Security systems and once again strike a deadly blow into the heart of
> > another of America's cities.
>
> Timothy McVeigh? How did the broken Border Systems relate to him?Tim McVeigh has nothing whatsoever to do with illegal immigration. Why are
you mentioning him?
Because you insist on blaming terrorism on immigrants, and yet ignore home
grown
terrorists, gee no surprise there.
> > Cites, please. Put up or shut up.
>
> Dude, I have cited the animal rights stuff again and again.Every time you bring it up, you better cite it. Because, you were shown to
be a lying fabricator taknig things out of context, again and again.
Nope. I pointed out that your pages (at least the ones without broker
links, clean up
your site!) concentrated on animal abuse by non white folks, and ignored
that by
white folks. When I pointed this out, you trivialized the abuse
by white folks.
> You focus
> on and link to abuse of animals by non-whites, and pooh pooh that by white folks.you focus on everything that -- grasping at straws -- you think you can link
to racism, and pooh-pooh everything else.
That's it???? That's your scathing response? Gee, my
eyes are opened.
> >
> > The number of migrants who come and go on a seasonal basis has changed very
> > little indeed, in fact there has been something of an increase in the
> > numbers of farm-worker visas issued. There's no shortage of visas nor of
> > farm workers. The people who are coming to stay are not the farm workers,
> > the farm workers can and do come and go as they please, more or less, and
> > generally it's a lot more profitable to them to do so, as they can earn in
> > the US, and spend it in Mexico where they get a lot more for their dollar.
>
> Sheesh. Your INS (which you love so much) says that much of the seasonal
> farm labor is undocumented. Also, lots of janitors, meat plant workers, etc.
>
> And there is only a couple of very small "visa" programs for farm workers.
> If you have any evidence of others, please tell the world.It doesn't matter.
Ah, so when you get caught lying, it "doesn't matter"? Wadda punk.
As of Yesterday, the INS has announced sweeping reforms in the issuance of
visas, visa types, duration of visas, etc. You may get the details from
their website as soon as they post it.
Yep, we'll see how long those last when other nations retaliate.
And U.S. businesses take
it on the chin.
>
> > >
> > > Sure. The United States consumes at a rate using roughly 80% of the worlds
> > > resources for 6% (roughly) of the population. In the last decade, per-capita
> > > consumption has gone up in the United States.
> >
> > And efficiency has approximately tripled in aggregate. Note that America no
> > longer consumes 80 percent of the world's resources; increasingly, the
> > industrialization of the former Third World increases the percentage of
> > resources they consume, and if you wish to even pretend to honest and
> > concern for the environment, you will admit readily that the WTO and IMF
> > aren't concerned about the efficiency or cleanliness or
> > pollution-remediation capacities of this production and consumption, only
> > that the WTO and IMF investors make money.
>
> Sorry guy, I don't care about the WTO and IMF. The percentage of resources
> consumed by the U.S. has remained remarkably constant over the years. What
> we don't buy, we steal.Cites please. Your politics are showing, and are showing unsupportedly.
Now, why do you expect me to cite when I disagree with you since
you have never cited
in the first place?? Feel free to cite for you claims about smaller
cars and less fuel usage.
I will respond.
> said industry consumes the resources for YOU. It is an act of incredible hubris
> to claim that the resources that go into making Nikes for YOU should be charged to
> the Indonesian and Chinese factory workers who can't even afford to buy the shoes they
> make. What gall!!First, we all live on one planet. Blaming the US exclusively for the
pollution or resource-consumption or redistribution, that's short-sighted,
old-fashioned, in fact, reactionary tomfoolishness.
ROFLMAO.... but you want their labor and resources, but they should stay
home. Dude
you aren't even close to being a one-worlder!
>
> >
> >
> > Increasingly, American drive small efficient vehicles which are also among
> > the cleanest in the world in terms of emissions, and among the safest in the
> > world, as well. It's in these Developing Nations that SUV are practically
> > mandatory, because the whole country is one big off-road experience.
>
> This statement is so far out of touch with reality.... Where do you come up with
> this? Is this your idea of the "big lie", the one so outrageous that no one will
> challenge it?
>
> If this is true, then why do U.S. auto makers oppose CAF standards?Business _always_ fights anything that lessens profitability. But you'll
also notice that there is a year-long waiting list for as many
high-efficiency hybrid-powered vehicles as can be manufactured and shipped.
The manufacturers are going to find out that people want to buy efficient
vehicles, and once they figure out that the higher mileage the vehicle, the
more people that buy it, they'll embrace the fuel-efficiency standards and
make them selling-points in the same way they now sell vehicles by touting
the crash-safety standards, though they once opposed safety-belts and
air-bags.
What an interesting fantasy. If this were so, the U.S. automakers
would be out
of business.
> >
> > > > I equally revile and loathe your sort of sap, whose "bleeding heart" demands
> > > > that the US open its borders to all sorts of potential terrorists, and the
> > > > sole US source of aggregate population increase.
> > >
> > > The general suspicion is that the anthrax terrorists were home grown. Can I say
> > > Tim McVie?
> >
> > Sure, but it would help if you spelled it correctly. Yet, you appear to be
> > making the imputation that because Tim McVeigh was caucasian, that all
> > caucasians are terrorists. This is blatantly fallacious.
>
> Lies and Distortions. I suggested that McVeigh was a native, not an immigrant. Can
> you read "home grown"?Ah, you then are imputing that all "home grown" are terrorists? My, how
fallacious.
No response, eh? I was implying that not all terrorists are immigrants as you well know.
Pathetic. And you wonder why I call you a bigot.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <snips>
> > > >
> > > > > > As for Aryan Nations, etc http://earthops.org/soveregnity.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, said the "This server either can't find the document you
> > > > > requested, or you are not permitted to access this document or script
> > > > > directly."
> > > >
> > > > Then you mistyped the URL.
> > >
> > > No, I clicked on it (it's the HTML feature). Listen, you need to learn your
> > > web stuff better, just did it again.
> >
> > http://earthops.org/sovereignity.html loads up just fine. Or try
> > http://www.earthops.net/klaatu/sovereignity.html or try
> > http://media.earthops.net/klaatu/sovereignity.html
> >
> > > Got "
> > > This server either can't find the document you requested, or you are not permitted to
> > > access this document or script directly.
> > >
> > > Maybe you misspelled something? Search our pages:"
> >
> > Maybe you should have searched the pages. It might also help if you hit
> > "reload" on your browser.
>
> Guy, one of the rules of good web design is that the Designer needs to get it right, then
> test it to be sure it's working. I am NOT going to QA your site for you, I get paid for
> stuff like that. Checking the link as you included it in your notes twice is enough for
> me.In other words, it works just fine and you're too embarassed to admit that
you made a typographic error.
Bullshit. I checked the third one this time, and it worked. You suck as a web page designer.
And by the way, I noticed your linkes to Voices of Citizens Together
and The American Patrol,
groups cited by the Southern Povery Law Center as hate groups.
But you just don't see that
burning cross, do you?
All of the above-cited links work just fine.
> > > >
> > > > From that page:
> > > >
> > > > "Some of the ideas linked herein are, in my opinion,
> > > > almost reasonable, but often attached to mentation
> > > > which borders or occasionally surpasses extreme proactive paranoia.
> > > > Oddly enough, I think that much of that paranoia is justified,
> > > > but perhaps not for the reasons stated by those who espouse
> > > > these belief systems. Fortunately, these most-vocal members
> > > > of the militia and sovereignity movements are not really
> > > > that representative of the majority of the movements,
> > > > no matter that the liberal media would have you believe otherwise."
> > >
> > > Guy, you are trying to tell me that you see good in the militia and sovereignity
> > > movements (which are heavily tied to white supremacists), and then think that
> > > I will believe you to be a tolerant non-prejudiced fellow?
> > >
> > ...
What the hell does that have to do with whether the Militia Movement has ties to white
supremacist organizations?
>
> >
> >
> > The genuine Sovereignity movement -- as opposed to the media-fabricated
> > public delusional concept of such -- is about one thing: every able-bodied
> > man and woman who can own an infantry long arm should, and should prepare to
> > be able to use it in the common defense of their Nation and their American
> > Way of Life, in accordance with 10 USC 311 and the US Constitution as
> > amended.
> >
>
> Sorry, my freedoms include the right not to bear arms. Like it or not.Feel free to be unarmed when your neighbors, family, state, and nation need
you. It's a free country... for now, and solely because people took up arms
against those who would make it other than a free country. You enjoy the
blessings of liberty solely because others were willing to fight for it,
occasionally to lay down their lives for total stranger. But you may feel
quite free to lazily loll abuot, defending this nation's invaders.
Loll about? I wish. You say invaders, I say undocumented
workers. This
marriage will never work!
>
> >
> > Now, I demand that you apologize to the vast majority of Americans that you
> > have just tarred as racists, as criminals, as revolutionaries, as "inbred
> > yokels agitating in the hinterlands".
>
> ROFLMAO..... wow. Not that is really pathetic. I said none of the above.
> Talk about misquoting. I said, and do say that the vast majority of Americans
> neither belong to nor support the Militia Movement (which I thought was dead, frankly)
> and which has been demonstrated by groups like the Southern Poverty Law CenterAnd the Southern Poverty Law Center has exactly _what official standing_ as
the sole arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable to precisely whom?
A lot of police forces look to them for information. They
have successfully sued a buncha
racist groups out of existence. They study this stuff.
You have a problem with them?
> to
> have ties to white supremacist movements.Sure, and I'm Earth Operations Central, and when I say that you're a
dundering chowderhead, everyone should believe me, just like they believe
the Southern Poverty Law Center, right?You've just tossed the Fallacy of Appeal to (false) Authority into the
argument. And I just shredded it.
Only on your own little planet.
>
> Attack what I DO say, not made up fantasy stuff from your mind.Just did that. Toodles, sillyman.
>
> >
> >
> > Because you're so ignorant that you can't tell the difference between the
> > Legal Unorganized Militia and a bunch of Militant Radical Racists, I don't
> > expect you'll make that apology, but if you don't, you merely admit that you
> > find it perfectly satisfying to perpetrate and perpetuate a broadcast media
> > slander on the vast majority of American adults, simply because that slander
> > makes it convenient for you to argue in support of the Illegal Alien
> > Invasion.
> >
>
> Frankly, I stand by my previous remarks (as I made them, not as you imagine them),
> and also, I have never heard of the "Legal Unorganized Militia" nor that term until now.Possibly that's because you prefer to believe the propaganda of issue-driven
organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, rather than reading
the fundamental Law.
THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW?? More cult language. Look, if you're gonna
come out
from behind the barbed wire and argue with ordinary folks, you need
to bring a translator.
And why is it that the Southern Poverty Law Center _itself apparently hasn't
read the fundamental Law_? Maybe they're not really a Law Center?
So, you never heard of them?
>
> Again, the vast majority of American adults do not support any "Militia Movement".They damned well ought to, since by both tradition and Law -- not to mention
the Constitution itself -- they are the entire body of it.
By who'se tradition? No one I know. What planet are you on?
Dude, go back and read your previous paragraph again. It reeks
of hatred
"ILLEGAL ALIENS come to the US, save somewhat from their meager
> > incomes, send most of their savings back to their homelands, and
buy old
> > delapidated wrecks of cars, which are poorly maintained, often
barely run,
> > commonly belch pollutants all over the place, are commonly driven
uninsured
> > and are almost universally merely abandoned whenever they finally
break down
> > for good."
is a prime example of stereotyping and bigotry.
>
> If other folks homelands are toxic, you might consider the part American corporations
> play in that.Oh, trust me, I have. But why don't you address the issues of toxic
homelands, and people who litter, who don't have the concept of proper
disposal of waste? -rather than try to shift the topic of discussion, I
mean.
You mean the white folks who want to send their nuclear waste to Arizona?
Or the Americans who ship their toxic garbage to other countries for
disposal?
Charles Lynch
Baster
wrote:
>ROFLMAO... is that what they tell you at Klavern meetings? And you believe it?
>Say, I have some gold stocks you might want to invest in.....
I was gonna say something here, but the wierd thing is, in Frisco
land, you really may not have noticed. People are getting...
frightfully concerned about immigration, and they're forcing our
so-called leaders to begin a change. What you guys say doesn't make
any sense to the middle anymore.
>>
>> IMO, you have to be a Perfect Idiot to run around gauging and
>> monitoring for damning evidence of personal "racism" among your own
>> people, while giving a smile and a free pass to brown people who are
>> unashamedly racial, aggressively assertive of their own culture and
>> territorial urges. As for mexicans, they rather open about this, and
>> have made amazing progress by it. Move your white liberal ass down to
>> East LA for a year or two, and get an education in what _real_ racism
>> is all about. I can assure you that your views will be modified. I've
>> not seen it fail once, even to the nicest, "tolerent" persons.
>
>ROFLMAO.... guy I have taught ESL and have many Mexican friends. OTH,
>people who are bigoted such as yourself rarely make friends of other colors.
>Go figure.
I would love you to "make friends" with the raza down there :)
Shit, if you recover, they might even tattoo you.
Lynch, most of my friends when I was a child were not white. Half of
them were Indian. Real friends, the people I came up with, not "Lots
of my friends are". I don't have to prove liberal-racial bona fides to
my friends that aren't white. I'm not a lib. Most of them aren't
either!
This is cool, you really don't understand something like that, do you?
:)
Lynch, the Right is not particularly White, in terms of people's
personal beliefs. In that sense, all races/ethnicities are indeed just
the same. Races and Ethnicities do have their own interests, promoting
their own people, gaining advantage for them, apart from any
right-left orientations. And that can become highly destructive when
advantage comes through mass immigration of your ethnic fellows. But
the point is, the Left talks to the Left, they do not speak for races.
>
>Nope, you work to provide more rights for undocumented workers and
>to end their exploitation. Oh, right, that's what I do. YOU start blaming
>the victims of exploitation.
You're ridiculous.
And it's ridiculous to speak about "rights" for an illegal alien,
unless you are going to first enforce the federal immigration statutes
related to their status. What rights does a mexican national in
Mexico, have in the US? That's where his status puts him. A right to a
hearing, then deportation.
>>
>> It could happen. And your neighbors may be marching too. Wakeup
>> screwball! You don't want majority rule from the top, you'll
>> eventually get it from the bottom. It will happen, though maybe not
>> with the teutonic icons that make your own dash-light flip on. Maybe a
>> newspaper commentator will catch on and explain it to you.
>
>Majority rule from the top??? I don't ever get that.
You don't ever get that?
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Justice would be treating migrant workers fairly, and giving them the right
>> >to protest unfair treatment under the law.
>>
>> Yeah, you want law where it suits you. Sorry, that is idiotic. You
>> lose, in court, and in people's opinion.
>>
>> They break fundumental federal statute, simply by being here. The
>> question of "unfair treatment" in other areas simply doesn't come up,
>> if they aren't here, illegaly. The reason for many of our laws and
>> regulations, is to prevent the preventable.
>>
>
>So, people who run red lights thereby forfeit equal treatment under the law?
>California gun owners who didn't register their weapons?
>
>You? Me?
Equal treatment under the law is precisely what I, and the people on
my side, want.
Is there any place left, outside of San Fran & Berkeley, where an
opinion like yours makes sense? :)
>> >??? What the heck does your last sentence mean??
>>
>> con-struct
>> Function: noun
>> 1 : something constructed by the mind: as a : a theoretical entity
>> <the deductive study of abstract constructs -- Daniel J. Boorstin> b :
>> a product of mental invention <the novel... a verbal construct in
>> which invented human characters appear -- Anthony Burgess>
>
>Thank you. The context threw me off. However, that doesn't alter
>the facts. You are wrong.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >As to my comments about seasonal migration, they are true, and have
>> >been repeatedly cited in newspapers all over the state.
>>
>> Uhh, no, they are not. Not that the question matters a lot, it's just
>> very exemplary of the ignorance on your people's side of these issues.
>
>"My people"??? You mean you and I aren't brothers??
>
>>
>>
>> I know these people very well, and until a few years ago, worked with
>> them regularly. I know the things they do, and why they do them. I
>> have participated in reality for many years. None of these things are
>> mysterious or controversial. But to those who don't really know what
>> they're talking about, and make a living writing.
>
>ROFLMAO..... what, were you one of the guys who hired day laborers, then
>didn't pay them?
>
>So, no one who writes for a living is allowed to know anything in your universe?
>
>Charles Lynch
If this is your best modality of argument, you shouldn't sign your
name to it :)
Jym Dyer
=v= Still wondering who, exactly, this is.
=v= The #1 selling book in America is _Stupid_White_Men_,
which suggests something other than the legions you claim
to be representing.
<_Jym_>
Mika
wrote:
>
>I was gonna say something here, but the wierd thing is, in Frisco
>land, you really may not have noticed. People are getting...
>frightfully concerned about immigration, and they're forcing our
Will you please provide examples in support of this last assertion?
I'd love to see some.
Mika
Fred Elbel
wrote:
> So, explain about Azatlan?
It is a racist movement of reconquista, to retake the lands of SW
America and turn it into a "bronze" nation.
> Your blindness to the bigotry of folks like Mr. Truelove ... Why is he an advisor to
> sprawlcity.org?
Ask the authors of the report. Perhaps he has good scientific,
academic, and quantitative skills.
> Population is how many people there. Migration is about where they are.
By definition you excuse U.S. population doubling. How trite.
> Ah, so, without anti-immigration, you want nothing to do with the environmental
> movement.
That is blatantly incorrect, a falsity and a fabrication and to be
blunt, bullshit. Perhaps you should reread some of my 1999 responses
to your inane accusations.
> I hate bigots... I grew up surrounded by people who's lives had
> been damaged by hatred, and I want no part of you and your ilk.
And it has scarred you psychologically so that you can no longer
discern the forest from the trees. A little psychotherapy and perhaps
some non-recreational drugs might help you in your ability to
communicate your cause.
Tiny Human Ferret
That their background is different is absolutely irrelevant to the
discussion..
That the borders are being overrun by foreign nationals is the unquestioned
core of the argument.
>
> And my remarks were specifically directed at your web links to anti-Asian
> articles about animal abuse, but I guess you felt the need to change direction on
> that one.
well, it's funny. The article was by a Chinese living in Hong Kong. So, I
guess he's a racist because he disapproves of mainland practices?
And this is not relevant to the discussion of the US being Invaded by
millions of Illegal Aliens -- per year -- flooding the borders and ports.
> >
> > > > You appear to be the one making this all about Mexicans and exclusively
> > > > about Mexicans. However, since nearly 90 percent of illegal aliens either
> > > > are Mexican or enter the US illegally from Mexico by crossing the border
> > > > surreptitiously or entering on a day-tourist visa and never voluntarily
> > > > returning, I can understand the confusion generated in your simple mind.
> > >
> > > Gee, you just got lucky in your ability to attack Mexicans?
> >
> > No, YOU got lucky with the serendipitous "brownness" of the illegal
> > immigrants from south of the border; you get to fly the false-flag of
> > being anti-racist while you support illegal immigration.
> >
>
> Read the many many posts on the net. Look at the comments from many
> of the anti-immigration movement leaders. You see no racism?
I see racism from a lot of them. And you could read the many many posts on
the Net where we anti-racist or non-racist Immigration Reform people have
demanded that the racists either stop posting their racism or take it
elsewhere, because we didn't want to be associated with them. We don't need
them giving ammunition to idiots such as yourself, lending you some slight
semblance of validity.
>
>
> >
> > So, you would
> > > be willing to denounce some of the bigotry in the anti-immigrant movement,
> > > sort of as a way of seperating yourself from all those prejudiced folks? Surely
> > > you know who they are! Fire away. (not holding my breath).
> >
> > I've done it plenty. I particularly tend to get on the case of "Cochise
> > Guardian".
>
> And Alan Truelove? And Pat Buchaanan?
Who the hell is Alan Truelove?
By the way, we are not Anti-Immigration, we are for Immigration Reform and
Homeland Security. We don't mind Legal Immigrants nor even Migrant Workers.
However, "undocumented migrants" are, being Illegal Aliens, simply
intolerable.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > And why injudiciously? Again, your bias shows.
> > > >
> > > > Do you understand the meaning of "injudicious"?
> > > >
> > > > "1. Not judicious; wanting in sound judgment; undiscerning; indiscreet;
> > > > unwise; as, an injudicious adviser. 2. Not according to sound judgment or
> > > > discretion; unwise; as, an injudicious measure."
> > > >
> > > > It's not sound judgement for illegal aliens to mob the US.
> > >
> > > "Mob"??? Why mob, and what specifically do YOU mean by it?
> >
> > As always, I use ONLY STANDARD DEFINITIONS. It takes me no time at all to
> > look these up and post them, so asking for definitions is a stupid ploy on
> > your part, since I am using standard definitions in standard usages;
> > calling me out on terminology only shows that it's you who is Revisionist.
>
> Nada, it shows that you tend to use very weird meanings of words.
"Weird"? Using the words _as defined_ is "weird"? what have you been
smoking?
> Let's
> look at mob.
>
>
> >
> >
> > <dict.org Websters>
> >
> > Mob Mob, v. t. imp. & p. p. Mobbed; p. pr. & vb. n.
> > Mobbing.
> > To crowd about, as a mob, and attack or annoy; as, to mob a
> > house or a person.
> >
> > </dict.org>
>
> I mean you are really saying that immigrants "annoy" you?
"To crowd about, as a mob" is the core of meaning here.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And why isn't it of sound judgement to go from a place where you can't earn
> > > a living to a place where you can?
> >
> > They can apply in good order for an entrance visa, and, WAIT THEIR TURN.
> >
> > > Just because YOU don't like it, hardly
> > > qualifies it as "injudicious".
> >
> > It's just like a lifeboat that's full to capacity, fool. I don't BLAME those
> > who are left in the water for wanting to be in the lifeboat. However, if any
> > more climb aboard, the lifeboat WILL swamp, founder, and sink with all
> > aboard. It's injudicious of those aboard to fail to repel boarders, once the
> > lifeboat is full. It's not a question of what I _want_, I don't _want_ those
> > people left out there to drown. I _want_ them to be safe and sound. BUT I am
> > entirely unwilling to kill myself or to see others killed, to throw myself
> > into the deeps just so that someone else, with whom I have no
> > relationship, can thrive while I die.
> >
>
> ROFLMAO.... comparing the U.S. to a lifeboat is a totally misleading
> analogy.
> Based on our wealth and consumption, we are more like a giant ocean
> liner.
And if you overload it, it will founder, and as the passenger list is much
larger, then that much greater will be the loss of life.
>
> And you are running down life rafts full of smaller ships you have
> ploughed under.
Actually, the problem here is that the little smuggler's boats you are
mistakenly calling "life rafts" are _not_ getting run down and ploughed
under.
<snips of pointless trolling rejoinders, cheerfully shitcanned>
> > > ROFLMAO..... wow. Not that is really pathetic. I said none of the above.
> > > Talk about misquoting. I said, and do say that the vast majority of Americans
> > > neither belong to nor support the Militia Movement (which I thought was dead, frankly)
> > > and which has been demonstrated by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center
> >
> > And the Southern Poverty Law Center has exactly _what official standing_
> > as the sole arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable to precisely whom?
>
> A lot of police forces look to them for information. They have
> successfully sued a buncha
> racist groups out of existence. They study this stuff. You have a
> problem with them?
When idiots like you actually think that because the SPLC exists, that this
gives said idiots the right to call anyone disagreeing with the idiots a
"racist hate group", I have a problem with the idiots. Which would include
you.
I'm using the words exactly as defined in the dictionary. You apparently
have a problem with reading.
Ask any lawyer or anyone with an actual command of the English language, and
you'll come to understand as they do, that "fundamental" means more-or-less
"basic". In the US, all law is founded upon, or based on, the Constitution.
>
>
> >
> > And why is it that the Southern Poverty Law Center _itself apparently
> > hasn't
> > read the fundamental Law_? Maybe they're not really a Law Center?
>
> So, you never heard of them?
>
> http://www.splcenter.org/
I've heard of them, and admire their attacks on genuinely racist
organizations.
However, I am not here to discuss the SPLC, I am here to decry the illegal
alien invasion, with particular attention to the deleterious effects on the
environment.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Again, the vast majority of American adults do not support any
> > "Militia Movement".
> >
> > They damned well ought to, since by both tradition and Law -- not to
> > mention the Constitution itself -- they are the entire body of it.
>
> By who'se tradition? No one I know. What planet are you on?
By the tradition of every nation ever recorded in history.
*PLONK* for the idiot.
Tiny Human Ferret
He's not insane, he's fairly clever, rather diabolical in many ways. Did you
notice how he attempts to draw you into a semantic trap by declaring that
you are "anti-immigration" when your stated position is more against Illegal
Aliens invading?
This sort of troll lives only for a few things, particularly they like to
promote fuzziness of thought to the point where, being for border-control
and highly regulated legal immigration, may be falsely cast in the light of
being against not just legal immigration, but against legal immigrants. In
association with his scare tactics, he hopes to cause organizations of Legal
Immigrants to rise up against anyone expressing concern about Illegal
Aliens, on the theory that organizations moving against Illegal Aliens are
going to attack Legal Immigrants.
Don't even let this sort of idiot get away with this intentional fuzzing of
the issues.
Nicolas Garcia
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Fred Elbel wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:49:13 GMT, Charles Lynch <ch...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > So, explain about Azatlan?
>
> It is a racist movement of reconquista, to retake the lands of SW
> America and turn it into a "bronze" nation.
THE TRUTH: AZTLAN.... IS A BUNCH OF COLLEGE STUDENTS, NUMBERING
MAYBE A COUPLE OF HUNDRED AT THE MOST, WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO WITH
THEIR FREE TIME. THIS SO-CALLED MOVEMENT IS NOT MAINSTREAM HISPANIC AT
ALL.
Charles Lynch
Baster wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:25:08 GMT, Charles Lynch <ch...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >ROFLMAO... is that what they tell you at Klavern meetings? And you believe it?
> >Say, I have some gold stocks you might want to invest in.....
>
> I was gonna say something here, but the wierd thing is, in Frisco
> land, you really may not have noticed. People are getting...
> frightfully concerned about immigration, and they're forcing our
> so-called leaders to begin a change. What you guys say doesn't make
> any sense to the middle anymore.
People are scared, and when they are scared, fear and hate mongers such as yourself
have more appeal. But, it doesn't last forever.
BTW, you wouldn't know the middle if you sat in it!
>
>
> >>
> >> IMO, you have to be a Perfect Idiot to run around gauging and
> >> monitoring for damning evidence of personal "racism" among your own
> >> people, while giving a smile and a free pass to brown people who are
> >> unashamedly racial, aggressively assertive of their own culture and
> >> territorial urges. As for mexicans, they rather open about this, and
> >> have made amazing progress by it. Move your white liberal ass down to
> >> East LA for a year or two, and get an education in what _real_ racism
> >> is all about. I can assure you that your views will be modified. I've
> >> not seen it fail once, even to the nicest, "tolerent" persons.
> >
> >ROFLMAO.... guy I have taught ESL and have many Mexican friends. OTH,
> >people who are bigoted such as yourself rarely make friends of other colors.
> >Go figure.
>
> I would love you to "make friends" with the raza down there :)
> Shit, if you recover, they might even tattoo you.
You watch too many bad movies. People in real life are different.
Wanna see my tattoo?
>
>
> Lynch, most of my friends when I was a child were not white. Half of
> them were Indian. Real friends, the people I came up with, not "Lots
> of my friends are". I don't have to prove liberal-racial bona fides to
> my friends that aren't white. I'm not a lib. Most of them aren't
> either!
Ironically, the bigotry of the right wing in this country keeps it almost all white.
Which works for me (grin).
>
>
>
> This is cool, you really don't understand something like that, do you?
> :)
You don't know enough about me to even get it.
>
>
> Lynch, the Right is not particularly White, in terms of people's
> personal beliefs. In that sense, all races/ethnicities are indeed just
> the same. Races and Ethnicities do have their own interests, promoting
> their own people, gaining advantage for them, apart from any
> right-left orientations. And that can become highly destructive when
> advantage comes through mass immigration of your ethnic fellows. But
> the point is, the Left talks to the Left, they do not speak for races.
O nameless one, the bigotry of the right wing makes it it's own worst enemy.
The failure to give up prejudice leads all sorts of peoples to vote for liberals.
But, you guys never learn.
If you could convince your fellow conservatives to give up the prejudice, they
would probably win all the elections, but I ain't holding my breath.
>
>
> >
> >Nope, you work to provide more rights for undocumented workers and
> >to end their exploitation. Oh, right, that's what I do. YOU start blaming
> >the victims of exploitation.
>
> You're ridiculous.
>
> And it's ridiculous to speak about "rights" for an illegal alien,
> unless you are going to first enforce the federal immigration statutes
> related to their status. What rights does a mexican national in
> Mexico, have in the US? That's where his status puts him. A right to a
> hearing, then deportation.
Every person has the rights defined and granted under the laws where they live,
including rights granted by international treaties.
Undocumented workers in this country, have the right to organize unions, for
instance,
and to sue for illegal firings.
>
>
>
> >> >
> >> >Justice would be treating migrant workers fairly, and giving them the right
> >> >to protest unfair treatment under the law.
> >>
> >> Yeah, you want law where it suits you. Sorry, that is idiotic. You
> >> lose, in court, and in people's opinion.
> >>
> >> They break fundumental federal statute, simply by being here. The
> >> question of "unfair treatment" in other areas simply doesn't come up,
> >> if they aren't here, illegaly. The reason for many of our laws and
> >> regulations, is to prevent the preventable.
> >>
> >
> >So, people who run red lights thereby forfeit equal treatment under the law?
> >California gun owners who didn't register their weapons?
> >
> >You? Me?
>
> Equal treatment under the law is precisely what I, and the people on
> my side, want.
Your vision of equal treatment. But, listen up, here's a shocking factoid.
Treatment isn't equal unless both sides agree that it's equal.
>
> >So, no one who writes for a living is allowed to know anything in your universe?
> >
> >Charles Lynch
>
> If this is your best modality of argument, you shouldn't sign your
> name to it :)
Is that why you don't sign your name? Ashamed of your arguements?
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Gee, I didn't even have to convince them of that. They take a close look at
your side's rhetoric, and bingo, they get it!
>
>
> Don't even let this sort of idiot get away with this intentional fuzzing of
> the issues.
For a guy who blames liberals for the World Trade Center attacks, you have
a nerve talking about "fuzzing of the issues".
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
Fred Elbel wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:49:13 GMT, Charles Lynch <ch...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > So, explain about Azatlan?
>
> It is a racist movement of reconquista, to retake the lands of SW
> America and turn it into a "bronze" nation.
Alas, where is the movement you are talking about? No such thing.
You have to get out more.
>
>
> > Your blindness to the bigotry of folks like Mr. Truelove ... Why is he an advisor to
> > sprawlcity.org?
>
> Ask the authors of the report. Perhaps he has good scientific,
> academic, and quantitative skills.
And your response to his bigotry? Oh, I forgot, you refuse to see it. As always.
Talk to us about your "Northern European" cultural issues, Freddie.
>
>
> > Population is how many people there. Migration is about where they are.
>
> By definition you excuse U.S. population doubling. How trite.
That is a response? Why don't you work to overturn the Bush limits on funding
of real population organizations, do something useful, not tied to scapegoating
and immigrant bashing?
>
>
> > Ah, so, without anti-immigration, you want nothing to do with the environmental
> > movement.
>
> That is blatantly incorrect, a falsity and a fabrication and to be
> blunt, bullshit. Perhaps you should reread some of my 1999 responses
> to your inane accusations.
I only respond to what you say, which is that without anti-immigration, the environmental
movement is useless, or did you not say that?
>
>
> > I hate bigots... I grew up surrounded by people who's lives had
> > been damaged by hatred, and I want no part of you and your ilk.
>
> And it has scarred you psychologically so that you can no longer
> discern the forest from the trees. A little psychotherapy and perhaps
> some non-recreational drugs might help you in your ability to
> communicate your cause.
ROFLMAO.... that's it? That is your response to social injustice? So,
the folks in concentration camps just needed a little therapy to get over
it? Or the victims of racial attacks, should be drugged so it doesn't bother
them anymore?
You are weirder that even I imagined.
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
Nicolas Garcia wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Fred Elbel wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:49:13 GMT, Charles Lynch <ch...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So, explain about Azatlan?
> >
> > It is a racist movement of reconquista, to retake the lands of SW
> > America and turn it into a "bronze" nation.
>
> THE TRUTH: AZTLAN.... IS A BUNCH OF COLLEGE STUDENTS, NUMBERING
> MAYBE A COUPLE OF HUNDRED AT THE MOST, WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO WITH
> THEIR FREE TIME. THIS SO-CALLED MOVEMENT IS NOT MAINSTREAM HISPANIC AT
> ALL.
>
Actually, I think he is referring mainly to the web site, which last I heard was one guy.
Not even a bunch of
college students.
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Right, so you can just "happen" to use defamtory language about people who
are a different color than you? So, racial profiling, for instance, is just a coincidence?
>
>
> That the borders are being overrun by foreign nationals is the unquestioned
> core of the argument.
>
Except they're not.
>
> >
> > And my remarks were specifically directed at your web links to anti-Asian
> > articles about animal abuse, but I guess you felt the need to change direction on
> > that one.
>
> well, it's funny. The article was by a Chinese living in Hong Kong. So, I
> guess he's a racist because he disapproves of mainland practices?
Gee, you manage to miss the point. The point is why are YOU so concerned
with Chinese animal abuse, and not with that by white folks in your own
country (where you might actually be able to do something about it)?
>
>
> And this is not relevant to the discussion of the US being Invaded by
> millions of Illegal Aliens -- per year -- flooding the borders and ports.
It was relevant to the discussion of why I consider you a bigot. Which is
what it was referenced in terms of. Which you know, but ignore.
>
>
> > >
> > > > > You appear to be the one making this all about Mexicans and exclusively
> > > > > about Mexicans. However, since nearly 90 percent of illegal aliens either
> > > > > are Mexican or enter the US illegally from Mexico by crossing the border
> > > > > surreptitiously or entering on a day-tourist visa and never voluntarily
> > > > > returning, I can understand the confusion generated in your simple mind.
> > > >
> > > > Gee, you just got lucky in your ability to attack Mexicans?
> > >
> > > No, YOU got lucky with the serendipitous "brownness" of the illegal
> > > immigrants from south of the border; you get to fly the false-flag of
> > > being anti-racist while you support illegal immigration.
> > >
> >
> > Read the many many posts on the net. Look at the comments from many
> > of the anti-immigration movement leaders. You see no racism?
>
> I see racism from a lot of them. And you could read the many many posts on
> the Net where we anti-racist or non-racist Immigration Reform people have
> demanded that the racists either stop posting their racism or take it
> elsewhere, because we didn't want to be associated with them. We don't need
> them giving ammunition to idiots such as yourself, lending you some slight
> semblance of validity.
Never have seen a single one. Please show me some! Oh wait, you mean the ones
where folks say "hey, don't say that in public, people will figure us out"?
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > So, you would
> > > > be willing to denounce some of the bigotry in the anti-immigrant movement,
> > > > sort of as a way of seperating yourself from all those prejudiced folks? Surely
> > > > you know who they are! Fire away. (not holding my breath).
> > >
> > > I've done it plenty. I particularly tend to get on the case of "Cochise
> > > Guardian".
> >
> > And Alan Truelove? And Pat Buchaanan?
>
> Who the hell is Alan Truelove?
He was posting in this subject recently.
And if you don't know who he is, are you pretending not to know who
Pat Buchaanan is as well? Just ignore his name?
>
>
> By the way, we are not Anti-Immigration, we are for Immigration Reform and
> Homeland Security. We don't mind Legal Immigrants nor even Migrant Workers.
> However, "undocumented migrants" are, being Illegal Aliens, simply
> intolerable.
Hey, I'm not anti-gun. I'm for gun control and confiscation. Guns in the hands of the
police and army are fine.
(now, if I said that, would you think I was anti-gun, hmmmm, get it?)
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > And why injudiciously? Again, your bias shows.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you understand the meaning of "injudicious"?
> > > > >
> > > > > "1. Not judicious; wanting in sound judgment; undiscerning; indiscreet;
> > > > > unwise; as, an injudicious adviser. 2. Not according to sound judgment or
> > > > > discretion; unwise; as, an injudicious measure."
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not sound judgement for illegal aliens to mob the US.
> > > >
> > > > "Mob"??? Why mob, and what specifically do YOU mean by it?
> > >
> > > As always, I use ONLY STANDARD DEFINITIONS. It takes me no time at all to
> > > look these up and post them, so asking for definitions is a stupid ploy on
> > > your part, since I am using standard definitions in standard usages;
> > > calling me out on terminology only shows that it's you who is Revisionist.
> >
> > Nada, it shows that you tend to use very weird meanings of words.
>
> "Weird"? Using the words _as defined_ is "weird"? what have you been
> smoking?
Using the least inflammatory definitions of words to combine with others to make
inflammatory statements is weird. Okay, it's a pseudo clever semantical attack,
but sheesh, not very reality based.
>
>
> > Let's
> > look at mob.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > <dict.org Websters>
> > >
> > > Mob Mob, v. t. imp. & p. p. Mobbed; p. pr. & vb. n.
> > > Mobbing.
> > > To crowd about, as a mob, and attack or annoy; as, to mob a
> > > house or a person.
> > >
> > > </dict.org>
> >
> > I mean you are really saying that immigrants "annoy" you?
>
> "To crowd about, as a mob" is the core of meaning here.
But, gee, what about those of us who don't see any "crowd(ing) about"?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And why isn't it of sound judgement to go from a place where you can't earn
> > > > a living to a place where you can?
> > >
> > > They can apply in good order for an entrance visa, and, WAIT THEIR TURN.
> > >
> > > > Just because YOU don't like it, hardly
> > > > qualifies it as "injudicious".
> > >
> > > It's just like a lifeboat that's full to capacity, fool. I don't BLAME those
> > > who are left in the water for wanting to be in the lifeboat. However, if any
> > > more climb aboard, the lifeboat WILL swamp, founder, and sink with all
> > > aboard. It's injudicious of those aboard to fail to repel boarders, once the
> > > lifeboat is full. It's not a question of what I _want_, I don't _want_ those
> > > people left out there to drown. I _want_ them to be safe and sound. BUT I am
> > > entirely unwilling to kill myself or to see others killed, to throw myself
> > > into the deeps just so that someone else, with whom I have no
> > > relationship, can thrive while I die.
> > >
> >
> > ROFLMAO.... comparing the U.S. to a lifeboat is a totally misleading
> > analogy.
> > Based on our wealth and consumption, we are more like a giant ocean
> > liner.
>
> And if you overload it, it will founder, and as the passenger list is much
> larger, then that much greater will be the loss of life.
Based on our wealth and consumption, together with the amount of sprawl we
do, we are a near empty ocean liner.
>
>
> >
> > And you are running down life rafts full of smaller ships you have
> > ploughed under.
>
> Actually, the problem here is that the little smuggler's boats you are
> mistakenly calling "life rafts" are _not_ getting run down and ploughed
> under.
>
They aren't smuggler's boats, they are the boats that deliver the sustenance
to your ocean liner.
>
> <snips of pointless trolling rejoinders, cheerfully shitcanned>
>
> > > > ROFLMAO..... wow. Not that is really pathetic. I said none of the above.
> > > > Talk about misquoting. I said, and do say that the vast majority of Americans
> > > > neither belong to nor support the Militia Movement (which I thought was dead, frankly)
> > > > and which has been demonstrated by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center
> > >
> > > And the Southern Poverty Law Center has exactly _what official standing_
> > > as the sole arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable to precisely whom?
> >
> > A lot of police forces look to them for information. They have
> > successfully sued a buncha
> > racist groups out of existence. They study this stuff. You have a
> > problem with them?
>
> When idiots like you actually think that because the SPLC exists, that this
> gives said idiots the right to call anyone disagreeing with the idiots a
> "racist hate group", I have a problem with the idiots. Which would include
> you.
Now, then, Tiny, have you even read their stuff? You say you know who they
are, but have you read it? The only reason I care, is
cause I am curious whether you are attacking them our of ignorance, or fear.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> > > > > Because you're so ignorant that you can't tell the difference between the
> > > > > Legal Unorganized Militia and a bunch of Militant Radical Racists, I don't
> > > > > expect you'll make that apology, but if you don't, you merely admit that you
> > > > > find it perfectly satisfying to perpetrate and perpetuate a broadcast media
> > > > > slander on the vast majority of American adults, simply because that slander
> > > > > makes it convenient for you to argue in support of the Illegal Alien
> > > > > Invasion.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Frankly, I stand by my previous remarks (as I made them, not as you imagine them),
> > > > and also, I have never heard of the "Legal Unorganized Militia" nor that term until now.
> > >
> > > Possibly that's because you prefer to believe the propaganda of
> > > issue-driven
> > > organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, rather than
> > > reading
> > > the fundamental Law.
> > >
> >
> > THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW?? More cult language. Look, if you're gonna come out
> > from behind the barbed wire and argue with ordinary folks, you need to
> > bring a translator.
>
> I'm using the words exactly as defined in the dictionary. You apparently
> have a problem with reading.
>
> Ask any lawyer or anyone with an actual command of the English language, and
> you'll come to understand as they do, that "fundamental" means more-or-less
> "basic". In the US, all law is founded upon, or based on, the Constitution.
And on the zillion Supreme Court decisions, and the state constitutions, and various
acts of legislative bodies, and ironically, sometimes English Common Law is cited as
a source (for issues not covered in statue, or unclear).
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And why is it that the Southern Poverty Law Center _itself apparently
> > > hasn't
> > > read the fundamental Law_? Maybe they're not really a Law Center?
> >
> > So, you never heard of them?
> >
> > http://www.splcenter.org/
>
> I've heard of them, and admire their attacks on genuinely racist
> organizations.
>
ROFLMAO.... so you say who made them an authority, when it is you,
Mr. Little Ferret, who has the final say?
Did you ever read any of their research?
>
> However, I am not here to discuss the SPLC, I am here to decry the illegal
> alien invasion, with particular attention to the deleterious effects on the
> environment.
ROFLMAO.... in other words, rather than refute the charges of racism in the
anti-immigration movement, you will duck and run. BTW, in every country in
the world, where there is an anti-immigration movement, it has strong nativist
xenophobic elements, and ties to the extreme right wing.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Again, the vast majority of American adults do not support any
> > > "Militia Movement".
> > >
> > > They damned well ought to, since by both tradition and Law -- not to
> > > mention the Constitution itself -- they are the entire body of it.
> >
> > By who'se tradition? No one I know. What planet are you on?
>
> By the tradition of every nation ever recorded in history.
"Every nation recorded in history" has a Militia Movement? You are out there.
Wing nut city!
Charles Lynch
Baster
Where have you been since 9/11/01?
Ok, "forcing our so-called leaders to begin a change"..
To pick a mainstream news source, here's something that just happened
in the House Of Representatives:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/736727.asp?0cm=c20
Bush, and his INS chief, are big fans of illegal immigrants and the
hispanic race lobbies. The House is going to overrule his ineffectual
proposal to nominaly split immigration services and enforcement within
the INS. They will instead abolish the INS, and create seperate
agencies with their own budgets. That might sound subtle, but if you
understand how budgeted agencies work, it's a huge win for people who
want illegals gone after in an effective way. It changes the politic,
by creating an agency whose only annual justification is effective
border enforcement and increasing numbers of illegals apprehensions.
Some people in the House are apparently hearing the clamor for an end
to the migrant dogpile.
Charles Lynch
Baster wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2002 16:49:35 -0700, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>
> >> Trying to shut down dialog [sic] with the tired "racist" test
> >> is, what?
> >
> >=v= Racism is tired, yes, and believe me, I'm sick and tired
> >of it. Life would be much nicer if it wasn't relevant to these
> >types of discussions, but in fact it *is* relevant. Mentioning
> >it is not an attempt to shut down dialogue, it's an attempt to
> >broadedn the dialogue.
> >
> >=v= Just mindlessly screeching "peecee! peecee!" whenever the
> >issue is mentioned *is* an attempt to shut down dialogue. The
> >whole point is to divert attention from the dialogue itself by
> >focusing on the purported agenda or personality types of the
> >mentioner. It's just an _ad_hominem_ technique in a chimerical
> >guise, no more valid to discourse than other such techniques.
> > <_Jym_>
>
> BS. You guys walk around like characters from Invasion Of The Body
> Snatchers, with the fingers pointing at "Racism". It begins to
> resemble the Old-Time Catholics in Spain, pointing at Heretics. The
> Left is like a secular religion, pedantic and irrational.
> "Correctness".
Gee, I for one would be happy not to have to "point at Racism". Just
stop practicing it, and give me a rest!
>
>
> It's perfectly fine to be sick of hearing racism. And yes, it is very
> relevent. The point, at least with me, is not that racism isn't part
> of this. It's mostly about race/tribalism. Most of the
> anti-immigration people are reactionaries. They are _reacting_ to an
> aggressive racist movement against their people and society, with
> their own. If you feel you don't experience the racism of illegals and
> hispanics, great, you are a unique individual, but it's kinda bitch to
> be telling the rest that their reaction to anti-anglo racism is evil
> and unwarranted. Would you tell a black man that?
What anti-anglo racism? I suspect that most of it is in your imagination.
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
Baster wrote:
Down doggie, nothing is a done deal yet. Remember, fear wears off and
people
come to their senses and stop listening to you.
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
Baster wrote:
> On 09 Apr 2002 14:19:13 -0700, Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
>
> >> We (the growing american majority) are not PC. i.e. We are not
> >> very worried about whether we are too racist, or not racist
> >> enough.
> >
> >=v= Anyone who introduces the term "PC" into an argument loses
> >an IQ point. You might have points to spare, but a mind is,
> >after all, a terrible thing to waste. Racism has been a major
> >national issue in the U.S. for its entire history, centuries
> >before George Will and George Bush (the elder) promoted the
> >chimera of peeceeness.
> >
> >=v= But what I really want to know is, how do you reconcile
> >the notion of being "the growing American majority" with the
> >alarmist spectre of other races supposedly taking over the
> >country? Just wondering.
> > <_Jym_>
>
> And let me mess your lib sensibilities with another statement Jym:
>
> "Whites are the least racist of racial/ethnic groups in America."
only in your fantasies. (which doesn't mean that there is not bias among
other groups, but the "least"? )
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
Fred Elbel wrote:
Given that your right wing buddies are the first to censor libraries, it
is amazing
that you then complain!!
Charles Lynch
Baster
wrote:
>
>
>Baster wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:25:08 GMT, Charles Lynch <ch...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >ROFLMAO... is that what they tell you at Klavern meetings? And you believe it?
>> >Say, I have some gold stocks you might want to invest in.....
>>
>> I was gonna say something here, but the wierd thing is, in Frisco
>> land, you really may not have noticed. People are getting...
>> frightfully concerned about immigration, and they're forcing our
>> so-called leaders to begin a change. What you guys say doesn't make
>> any sense to the middle anymore.
>
>People are scared, and when they are scared, fear and hate mongers such as yourself
>have more appeal. But, it doesn't last forever.
I'm not a fear & hate monger, I'm just an a-hole with screwy leftists
and Brown Beret types. Somebody's got to get average americans in the
habit of saying what they really think about these things, and I'm
willing to do my part, even if the stretching exercise goes over the
top :) Reason and politeness obviously doesn't work, when it comes to
people furthering racial/ethnic agendas, especially through
immigration. I like that saying to the effect: "If you like what
you've been getting, keep on doing what you've been doing." I guess
we'd better not do that anymore!
>
>BTW, you wouldn't know the middle if you sat in it!
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> IMO, you have to be a Perfect Idiot to run around gauging and
>> >> monitoring for damning evidence of personal "racism" among your own
>> >> people, while giving a smile and a free pass to brown people who are
>> >> unashamedly racial, aggressively assertive of their own culture and
>> >> territorial urges. As for mexicans, they rather open about this, and
>> >> have made amazing progress by it. Move your white liberal ass down to
>> >> East LA for a year or two, and get an education in what _real_ racism
>> >> is all about. I can assure you that your views will be modified. I've
>> >> not seen it fail once, even to the nicest, "tolerent" persons.
>> >
>> >ROFLMAO.... guy I have taught ESL and have many Mexican friends. OTH,
>> >people who are bigoted such as yourself rarely make friends of other colors.
>> >Go figure.
>>
>> I would love you to "make friends" with the raza down there :)
>> Shit, if you recover, they might even tattoo you.
>
>You watch too many bad movies. People in real life are different.
>Wanna see my tattoo?
No.
<San Francisco joke deleted>
>> Lynch, the Right is not particularly White, in terms of people's
>> personal beliefs. In that sense, all races/ethnicities are indeed just
>> the same. Races and Ethnicities do have their own interests, promoting
>> their own people, gaining advantage for them, apart from any
>> right-left orientations. And that can become highly destructive when
>> advantage comes through mass immigration of your ethnic fellows. But
>> the point is, the Left talks to the Left, they do not speak for races.
>
>O nameless one, the bigotry of the right wing makes it it's own worst enemy.
>The failure to give up prejudice leads all sorts of peoples to vote for liberals.
>But, you guys never learn.
You bet, everybody's voting for liberals!
You are very correct though, in pointing out that Jew-Haters and
Helicopter Watchers are the Right's worst enemy, in the politic sense.
And most of us don't want anything to do with them. We have enough
real challenges, without conspiracists. We are talking about
immigration, illegal immigration specifically.
>
>If you could convince your fellow conservatives to give up the prejudice, they
>would probably win all the elections, but I ain't holding my breath.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Nope, you work to provide more rights for undocumented workers and
>> >to end their exploitation. Oh, right, that's what I do. YOU start blaming
>> >the victims of exploitation.
>>
>> You're ridiculous.
>>
>> And it's ridiculous to speak about "rights" for an illegal alien,
>> unless you are going to first enforce the federal immigration statutes
>> related to their status. What rights does a mexican national in
>> Mexico, have in the US? That's where his status puts him. A right to a
>> hearing, then deportation.
>
>Every person has the rights defined and granted under the laws where they live,
>including rights granted by international treaties.
>
>Undocumented workers in this country, have the right to organize unions, for
>instance,
>and to sue for illegal firings.
Sure, you bet. Maybe they can hire a lawyer in Mexico DF, cause that's
where their deportation puts them.
I believe a federal judge just last week shot down a case brought on
behalf of an illegal, for exactly what you're talking about here. He
said, to effect, that consideration of their immigration status
supercedes it. I'm sure you know about this, since you brought the
subject. So there goes their "right" to flaunt our nation's
soveriegnty, while sueing for rights and protections under it.
You're being ridiculous, as i said, you can't pick and choose the laws
that suit you, simple as that. This is why you guys have no
credibility with the listening public anymore.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >Justice would be treating migrant workers fairly, and giving them the right
>> >> >to protest unfair treatment under the law.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, you want law where it suits you. Sorry, that is idiotic. You
>> >> lose, in court, and in people's opinion.
>> >>
>> >> They break fundumental federal statute, simply by being here. The
>> >> question of "unfair treatment" in other areas simply doesn't come up,
>> >> if they aren't here, illegaly. The reason for many of our laws and
>> >> regulations, is to prevent the preventable.
>> >>
>> >
>> >So, people who run red lights thereby forfeit equal treatment under the law?
>> >California gun owners who didn't register their weapons?
>> >
>> >You? Me?
>>
>> Equal treatment under the law is precisely what I, and the people on
>> my side, want.
>
>Your vision of equal treatment. But, listen up, here's a shocking factoid.
>Treatment isn't equal unless both sides agree that it's equal.
Well, this is a nominal democracy, and so, only one vision carries the
day, but for that "vision" a judge may apply of course. Has little to
do with me, but as a voter.
You can't make sense of "equal treatment" that is not predicated in
equal application of the law. I think you'd have a tough time
convincing a judge otherwise. If this is what you really believe,
there is no difference between you and the goosesteppers you're
worried about, and nothing to stop them from taking you out. That is
childish, you should take those things more seriously.
Massa Roy
wrote:
I believe it suggests there are a lot of stupid book buyers.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With NINE News Servers In California - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Nicolas Garcia
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Charles Lynch wrote:
>
>
> Nicolas Garcia wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Fred Elbel wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:49:13 GMT, Charles Lynch <ch...@earthlink.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, explain about Azatlan?
> > >
> > > It is a racist movement of reconquista, to retake the lands of SW
> > > America and turn it into a "bronze" nation.
> >
> > THE TRUTH: AZTLAN.... IS A BUNCH OF COLLEGE STUDENTS, NUMBERING
> > MAYBE A COUPLE OF HUNDRED AT THE MOST, WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO WITH
> > THEIR FREE TIME. THIS SO-CALLED MOVEMENT IS NOT MAINSTREAM HISPANIC AT
> > ALL.
> >
>
> Actually, I think he is referring mainly to the web site, which last I heard was one guy.
> Not even a bunch of
> college students.
>
> Charles Lynch
>
you are correct.
Mister Nick.
Tiny Human Ferret
Not a chance. We'll be holding their feet to the fire on this one.
There will be not a single political rally held between now and election day
when we are not pinning down each and every candidates position on the
Invasion, on Homeland Security, and on Immigration Reform. Unlike in the
last Presidential election, we will know for exactly what each candidate
stands and what are their intentions.
And every single incumbent who steps off of the Hill to speak is going to be
followed around by a placard clearly indicating their voting record on any
and all issues that are remotely associated with the Invasion, with the
broken INS, and which could remotely have been a causative factor in 9/11.
Charlie, we'll be playing your game... "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt".
Fred Elbel
> > The "growing majority" is in every poll, ...
>
> =v= Still wondering who, exactly, this is.
From NumbersUSA.com
http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/publicop.html
Prefer Lower Numbers:
A majority of Texans believe legal immigration numbers are too high
Scripps Howard Poll, March 2002
A majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans believe legal
immigration should be lowered CBS News/New York Times poll, December
2001
49% of American Jews want immigration numbers lowered 2001 Annual
Survey of American Jewish Opinion, American Jewish Committee, December
2001
65% of Americans favor stopping ALL immigration during the war on
terrorism Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, November 2001
55% of Californians believe immigration is single biggest cause of
California's population growth. Public Policy Institute of California,
May 2001
55% of Americans are "dissatisfied" with current immigration levels
CNN, USA Today, Gallup poll, January 2001
Majority of Iowans disapprove of Governor's plan to attract more
immigrants Des Moines Register, November 2000
A survey of more than 1,500 students from 64 high schools in Illinois,
Connecticut, Nebraska and Rhode Island found concern that increasing
immigration would exacerbate strains in our society to rank among top
concerns for high school students. Chicago Tribune, June 2000
83% of Americans -- when given numerical choices -- choose immigration
below the current annual average of 1 million a year. Roper Poll,
February 1996
Oppose Amnesty:
Americans oppose amnesty, nearly 2 to 1. Hispanics are less likely to
vote to re-elect Pres. Bush if he supports amnesty Zogby Poll,
September 2001
Nearly 70% of Americans oppose amnesty for illegal aliens Gallup Poll,
August 2001 national poll of 1,000 adults
61% of Americans oppose granting amnesty to illegal aliens Harris
poll, August, 2001
Support Tougher Enforcement:
Over 80% of Texans support tougher restrictions on visas Scripps
Howard Poll, March 2002
93% of Texans support tighter restrictions for visa holders Scripps
Howard Texas poll, December 2001
91% of Iowans willing to accept tighter restrictions on immigration
Des Moines Register poll, October, 2001
80% of Floridians support tighter restrictions on immigration Florida
Sun-Sentinel poll, September 2001
A majority of registered voters throughout the state of California
believes continued immigration makes the possibility of reform of the
state's education system much more difficult. The poll also found 83%
of immigrant believe that employers should certify there are no
American workers available before importing foreign workers. Zogby
poll of California voters, March 2001
43% of Hispanics believe the U.S. government doesn't do enough to stop
illegal immigrants from entering the country. International
Communications Research Poll, May, 2000
75% of California Latinos think illegal immigration from Mexico to
California is a problem. Public Policy Institute of California,
January 1999
Hispanics on immigration:
Princeton Survey Research poll for Knight Ridder Poll, May 1997 Polls
show that most Americans desire less immigration
=====================
From Population-Environment Balance
http://www.balance.org/
Wall Street Journal/NBC
News poll. March 1996
52% of Americans favor
establishing a five-year ban
on ALL legal and illegal
immigration into the United
States.
CBS News/New York Times.
September 1995
63% of Americans think
immigration levels are too
high.
66% of Republicans want
less immigration.
60% of Democrats want
less immigration
64% of Independents want
less immigration.
Time/CNN September and
November 1993
80% of those polled
consider it important for. the
federal government to track
down illegal aliens living in
the United States (Sept.).
73% of those polled feel
the U.S. should "strictly limit"
immigration (Sept.).
60% of Americans favor
changes in federal law to
reduce the number of legal
immigrants (Nov.).
CNN/USA Today/Gallup. July
1993
65% of adults polled
believe immigration should
be decreased generally.
Hispanic USA Research
Group Survey of Hispanic
Americans. June 1993
89% of Hispanic
Americans strongly support
an immediate moratorium on
immigration.
74% feel fewer immigrants
should be allowed and
stronger restrictions be
enforced.
Latino National Political
Survey. December 1992
75% of Mexican-Americans
agree there are too many
immigrants in this country
79% of Puerto Ricans
agree;
65% of Cuban-Americans
agree;
74% of "Anglos" agree.
1996 Roper Poll*
respondents who support
immigration of less than
300,000 per year
70% of All Respondents
73% of Blacks
52% of Hispanics
72% of Conservatives
71% of Moderates
66% of Liberals
72% of Democrats
70% of Republicans
*Sponsored by Negative
Population Growth. For a
copy of thc complete report,
please call 202-667-8950.
Fred Elbel
> [Lynch is] not insane, he's fairly clever, rather diabolical in many ways. Did you
> notice how he attempts to draw you into a semantic trap by declaring that
> you are "anti-immigration" when your stated position is more against Illegal
> Aliens invading?
Actually, although he is clearly aware of the distinction between
"anti-immigrant" and "anti-immigration", he continually tries to blur
the distinction, calling anyone concerned with U.S. population
stabiliation "anti-immigrant" and racist.
In addition, his chief modus operandi is to attack the messenger when
the message can not be logically refuted.
And that's it! No rational discussion of the issue at hand (the root
cause of U.S. population doubling). That is the *best* that he can
throw up as arguments. It's trite, cheap, and false, and anyone with
half a thought in their head can see through it. Over time, his
repeated imputations are self-defeating.
> Don't even let this sort of idiot get away with this intentional fuzzing of
> the issues.
Nope.
Jym Dyer
>> which suggests something other than the legions you claim
>> to be representing.
=v= ROFLMAO. As opposed to all those geniuses who get their
information from non-book sources such as Rush Limbaugh or TV?
<_Jym_>
stvfrmco
"Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote in message
news:3CB6F43C...@earthops.net...
>
> http://www.house.gov/judiciary/mem107.htm
>
> MR. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER (WISCONSIN), CHAIRMAN
>
> Republican Members Democratic Members
> Mr. Hyde (Illinois) Mr. Conyers (Michigan) Ranking
> Mr. Gekas (Pennsylvania) Mr. Frank (Massachusetts)
> Mr. Coble (North Carolina) Mr. Berman (California)
> Mr. Smith (Texas) Mr. Boucher (Virginia)
> Mr. Gallegly (California) Mr. Nadler (New York)
> Mr. Goodlatte (Virginia) Mr. Scott (Virginia)
> Mr. Chabot (Ohio) Mr. Watt (North Carolina)
> Mr. Barr (Georgia) Ms. Lofgren (California)
> Mr. Jenkins (Tennessee) Ms. Jackson Lee (Texas)
> Mr. Hutchinson (Arkansas) Ms. Waters (California)
> Mr. Cannon (Utah) Mr. Meehan (Massachusetts)
> Mr. Graham (South Carolina) Mr. Delahunt (Massachusetts)
> Mr. Bachus (Alabama) Mr. Wexler (Florida)
> Mr. Scarborough (Florida) Ms. Baldwin (Wisconsin)
> Mr. Hostettler (Indiana) Mr. Weiner (New York)
> Mr. Green (Wisconsin) Mr. Schiff (California)
> Mr. Keller (Florida)
> Mr. Issa (California)
> Ms. Hart (Pennsylvania)
> Mr. Flake (Arizona)
>
> From the Press page for the Judiciary Committee:
>
> http://www.house.gov/judiciary/news041002.htm
> For immediate release
> Contact: Jeff Lungren/Terry Shawn
> April 10,
> 2002
> 202-225-2492
>
> Committee Passes INS Overhaul Legislation by 32-2 Margin
>
> WASHINGTON, D.C. - The House Judiciary Committee today by a
> 32-2 margin passed legislation dismantling the Immigration
> and Naturalization Service (INS) and creating two new agencies:
> one focused solely on immigration enforcement and the other
> responsible for citizenship and immigration services.
>
> The Committee adopted a substitute amendment to H.R. 3231
> that reflected the agreement (see Press Release for March 21, 2002)
> reached March 21st by House Judiciary Committee Chairman
> F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.),
> Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.),
> Immigration and Claims Subcommittee Chairman George W. Gekas (R-Pa.),
> and Ranking Member Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.).
>
> "This bill will provide a solid framework for our new
> immigration system to keep terrorists out while providing a
> fair and efficient process for those adhering to our immigration laws.
> It creates clear chains of command, separates the agency
> into its two equally important, but more manageable, missions,
> and requires more accountability," said Chairman Sensenbrenner.
>
> "The current INS' administrative plan keeps the INS intact as
> a consolidated agency when what needs to be created are two
> new bureaus in the Justice Department. As we saw yesterday,
> the INS has reorganized itself numerous times in the past two decades,
> but the agency is still in a deep quagmire. I don't think
> any additional attempt at internal reorganizing can pull
> the INS out of this morass in which it finds itself.
> Dramatic change must be made to our immigration system and
> that is what this legislation brings," added Chairman Sensenbrenner.
>
> H.R. 3231, the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act,
> now moves to the full House, where it is expected to be debated
> later this month.
>
> </quote>
>
> Therefor, ladies and gentlemen, it is once again time to get on the horn
to
> your Representatives, and make darn sure that this gets passed with all
> deliberate speed.
>
>
>
> --
> Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
> Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <----->
http://earthops.net/klaatu/
Why should this make any difference? It's one of those cosmetic changes
like when they renamed the War Department to the Department of Defense,
IMHO. NAFTA has made the borders permeable and Dubya is cowering to Fox and
Castaneda and fast-tracking movement across the border going north and
caving into pressure to allow Mexican trucks on American highways. Already
there are daily accounts of deadly accidents on our highways caused by
Mexican drivers bringing vanloads or even truckloads of illegal immigrants
to various cities in the U.S. -- like so many Viet Cong guerillas invading
our country. Letting the Congress pick and choose how immigration will be
controlled is like letting Fox guard the henhouse, ha ha ha ha.
Mika
Thanks for your response. I guess that counts for something. Now
we'll wait for results?
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 23:36:52 GMT, Baster <burr...@zoidberg.net>
wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 13:33:26 GMT, Mi...@usa.com (Mika) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 06:16:50 GMT, Baster <burr...@zoidberg.net>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>I was gonna say something here, but the wierd thing is, in Frisco
>>>land, you really may not have noticed. People are getting...
>>>frightfully concerned about immigration, and they're forcing our
>>>so-called leaders to begin a change...
>>
>>Will you please provide examples in support of this last assertion?
>>I'd love to see some.
>>
>>Mika
>
Tiny Human Ferret
> like when they renamed the War Department to the Department of Defense,
> IMHO. NAFTA has made the borders permeable and Dubya is cowering to Fox and
> Castaneda and fast-tracking movement across the border going north and
> caving into pressure to allow Mexican trucks on American highways. Already
> there are daily accounts of deadly accidents on our highways caused by
> Mexican drivers bringing vanloads or even truckloads of illegal immigrants
> to various cities in the U.S. -- like so many Viet Cong guerillas invading
> our country. Letting the Congress pick and choose how immigration will be
> controlled is like letting Fox guard the henhouse, ha ha ha ha.
who, then, is to pick and choose how immigration is controlled?
I listened this afternoon to CSPAN, where the Senate debate on this bill was
taking place. There was an expressed sense of extreme urgency to get these
measures into place.
Among other things, it requires biomentric IDs, improves investigation of
visa applicants, massively increases communication between various agencies
which were handling different aspects of the whole immigration issue,
permitting collation of data and also of distributed processing of that
data, increasing the likelihood of identifying and apprehending terrorist
threats and aliens who had formerly been deported and jacketed as "no
re-entry".
It may not be everything you had on the wish-list, but it's a huge step in
the right direction.
Baster
Lefty race-liberalism is unsupportable in itself, irrational, and it
tends to attract people who enjoy working themselves into easy,
emotional credos. It requires no sacrifice, just going around and
pointing your finger at heretics, feeling superior, whilst actually
being something of a coward. Dealing with this issue from our side,
essentially civil, decent people having to strap on this nasty subject
in order to get the problem cleaned up, does require some personal
bravery.
What gets me about it though, probably the thing that really irritates
me with these people, is that this stuff is almost 40 years old, and
has shown itself since at least the mid-70s, to be a sham. The
white-haters and schmucks with an axe to grind, took their movement
over from the original idealists shortly after LBJ died. It's been a
gradualist, cowardly war on the middle, a war on white males and
productive society, ever since. Many of them are intelligent enough to
know all this, but they don't care, cause doing it just feels good to
them. Kinda like pedophiles or something. People like this get my
dander up. :S
stvfrmco
There has been a recent significant increase in the number of illegal Latin
Americans in Colorado, a trend that I would suspect is mirrored in
communities all over the U.S. As one of the drug dealers in the movie
Traffik said, NAFTA and the opening of the border for Maquilodora traffic
will effectively give the green light for drug and human traffikers to move
freely between Mexico and the U.S. I want to see the border patrolled as
you would expect it to be when you are in a wartime situation -- which our
leaders and the media assure us on a daily basis that we are. If necessary,
move the border south by 50 miles and offer U.S. citizenship to Mexicans who
work in the factories that our economy has come to depend on -- along with
U.S. wages and benefits. I'd bet those Mexicans would accept the offer in a
New York minute and give Vincente Fox the finger in a heartbeat. The new
southern border should be patrolled like the DMZ between the two Koreas with
orders to shoot to kill anyone sneaking through it. Mexicans caught on the
U.S. side of the border who have been here illegally would be deported to
the last man, woman and child. If we are in a war -- then our leaders
better start acting like we're in a war and not have millions of
undocumented aliens running around and setting up shop in communities like
mine with impunity and apparent disregard for our laws.
Massa Roy
wrote:
> >> =v= The #1 selling book in America is _Stupid_White_Men_,
Methinks the two referenced groups are the same ;~)
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
Charles Lynch
Baster wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 23:04:32 GMT, Charles Lynch <ch...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Baster wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:25:08 GMT, Charles Lynch <ch...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Lynch, the Right is not particularly White, in terms of people's
> >> personal beliefs. In that sense, all races/ethnicities are indeed just
> >> the same. Races and Ethnicities do have their own interests, promoting
> >> their own people, gaining advantage for them, apart from any
> >> right-left orientations. And that can become highly destructive when
> >> advantage comes through mass immigration of your ethnic fellows. But
> >> the point is, the Left talks to the Left, they do not speak for races.
> >
> >O nameless one, the bigotry of the right wing makes it it's own worst enemy.
> >The failure to give up prejudice leads all sorts of peoples to vote for liberals.
> >But, you guys never learn.
>
> You bet, everybody's voting for liberals!
>
> You are very correct though, in pointing out that Jew-Haters and
> Helicopter Watchers are the Right's worst enemy, in the politic sense.
> And most of us don't want anything to do with them. We have enough
> real challenges, without conspiracists. We are talking about
> immigration, illegal immigration specifically.
>
>
>
> >> And it's ridiculous to speak about "rights" for an illegal alien,
> >> unless you are going to first enforce the federal immigration statutes
> >> related to their status. What rights does a mexican national in
> >> Mexico, have in the US? That's where his status puts him. A right to a
> >> hearing, then deportation.
> >
> >Every person has the rights defined and granted under the laws where they live,
> >including rights granted by international treaties.
> >
> >Undocumented workers in this country, have the right to organize unions, for
> >instance,
> >and to sue for illegal firings.
>
> Sure, you bet. Maybe they can hire a lawyer in Mexico DF, cause that's
> where their deportation puts them.
>
> I believe a federal judge just last week shot down a case brought on
> behalf of an illegal, for exactly what you're talking about here. He
> said, to effect, that consideration of their immigration status
> supercedes it. I'm sure you know about this, since you brought the
> subject. So there goes their "right" to flaunt our nation's
> soveriegnty, while sueing for rights and protections under it.
Actually, the case was a lawsuit for back wages in an illegal firing for
union activity. It was the Supreme Court. They left intact the worker's being
re-instated in his job (which means even someone who is undocumented can't
be legally fired for union activity), but rejected the wage claim on a 5-4 vote
(the way the court is divided now, a lot of these close decisions could be
overturned).
>
>
> You're being ridiculous, as i said, you can't pick and choose the laws
> that suit you, simple as that. This is why you guys have no
> credibility with the listening public anymore.
Maybe, but at least I know what the case and the decision was.....
So, do you give up credibility for being wrong? But, wait, conservatives
don't care about facts anyway! (grin).
>
>
>
> >> >> >Justice would be treating migrant workers fairly, and giving them the right
> >> >> >to protest unfair treatment under the law.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah, you want law where it suits you. Sorry, that is idiotic. You
> >> >> lose, in court, and in people's opinion.
> >> >>
> >> >> They break fundumental federal statute, simply by being here. The
> >> >> question of "unfair treatment" in other areas simply doesn't come up,
> >> >> if they aren't here, illegaly. The reason for many of our laws and
> >> >> regulations, is to prevent the preventable.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >So, people who run red lights thereby forfeit equal treatment under the law?
> >> >California gun owners who didn't register their weapons?
> >> >
> >> >You? Me?
> >>
> >> Equal treatment under the law is precisely what I, and the people on
> >> my side, want.
> >
> >Your vision of equal treatment. But, listen up, here's a shocking factoid.
> >Treatment isn't equal unless both sides agree that it's equal.
>
> Well, this is a nominal democracy, and so, only one vision carries the
> day, but for that "vision" a judge may apply of course. Has little to
> do with me, but as a voter.
>
> You can't make sense of "equal treatment" that is not predicated in
> equal application of the law. I think you'd have a tough time
> convincing a judge otherwise. If this is what you really believe,
> there is no difference between you and the goosesteppers you're
> worried about, and nothing to stop them from taking you out. That is
> childish, you should take those things more seriously.
Right, but calling something "equal treatment" when the other person
is screaming "unfair" may suggest that you should do some listening.
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
Fred Elbel wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>
> > [Lynch is] not insane, he's fairly clever, rather diabolical in many ways. Did you
> > notice how he attempts to draw you into a semantic trap by declaring that
> > you are "anti-immigration" when your stated position is more against Illegal
> > Aliens invading?
>
> Actually, although he is clearly aware of the distinction between
> "anti-immigrant" and "anti-immigration", he continually tries to blur
> the distinction, calling anyone concerned with U.S. population
> stabiliation "anti-immigrant" and racist.
Nope. Not anyone. I merely point out that the anti-immigration movement
worldwide is associated with right wing extremist parties, and that this is
true here as well. I offer you examples, and ask you to discuss the issue.
Fred, Fred, Fred. Why don't you tell Tiny that you want to reduce LEGAL immigration?
>
>
> In addition, his chief modus operandi is to attack the messenger when
> the message can not be logically refuted.
ROFLMAO.... I always logically refute the message. And when I explain
why your math is bad, you ignore it. Bad data is bad data, but science is
bad science (it is sad there is so much of it around).
As to attacking the messenger, gee, I am probably called names more often
than anyone in this forum. But, it's okay (grin).
And, I always offer you the personal chance to denounce the racist of the day,
and you never, ever do it. What does that mean?
>
>
> And that's it! No rational discussion of the issue at hand (the root
> cause of U.S. population doubling). That is the *best* that he can
> throw up as arguments. It's trite, cheap, and false, and anyone with
> half a thought in their head can see through it. Over time, his
> repeated imputations are self-defeating.
Of course, according to you a rational discussion of the issue has to start
with your premise that immgration is bad. But, Freddie, when your premise
is false, what then? It's like trying to discuss geography with someone who
demands that I accept the premise that the earth is flat.
And, BTW, you are not God despite what you think, you (nor I) gets to
exclusively define the "issue at hand". That's cause this is still a democracy.
>
>
> > Don't even let this sort of idiot get away with this intentional fuzzing of
> > the issues.
>
> Nope.
So, for the record, explain why you feel that your "culture" is under attack by
immigrants? (And do so in a way that clearly demonstrates your dislike of racism)
Explain your concerns about assimilation, while showing us how this is not a racial
issue (what specifically do people have to give up, and what accept, (that you
believe they don't already have) (culturally, in order to assimilate)).
Explain this "Northern European" thing that some of your buds are pushing (and you
post supportive messages to them).
Denounce some of the specific racist comments and attitudes of the anti-immigration
movement (You can start with Garret Hardin and Roy Beck).
Explain how hating multi-culturalism isn't about bigotry.
And finally, explain why you dislike the so-called social justice movement.
I won't hold my breath.
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
Baster wrote:
ROFLMAO.... and gee, I thought it was right wingers who burned heretics
at the stake?
Let me sum up, you good, me bad. Wow.
>
> What gets me about it though, probably the thing that really irritates
> me with these people, is that this stuff is almost 40 years old, and
> has shown itself since at least the mid-70s, to be a sham. The
> white-haters and schmucks with an axe to grind, took their movement
> over from the original idealists shortly after LBJ died. It's been a
> gradualist, cowardly war on the middle, a war on white males and
> productive society, ever since. Many of them are intelligent enough to
> know all this, but they don't care, cause doing it just feels good to
> them. Kinda like pedophiles or something. People like this get my
> dander up. :S
>
Pathetic. Now, why would I ever respond nicely to you?
Put your dander back under the rock.
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
Well, Tiny, fear mongering is certainly what you guys are all about! That has
always been one of my arguements against you. You may prevail a little bit,
but history and time are against you.
Happy hood wearing and cross burning.
Charles Lynch
Charles Lynch
So, Freddie lists such tremendous numbers, you would think that there
would be a hue
and cry for anti-immigration measures. But, look instead. The Sierra
Club has twice
soundly defeated anti-immigration measures. Both political parties
support more rights
and benefits for immigrants. The only anti-immigrant candidate was Pat
Buchaanan who
didn't even register in the polls. The Republican party has been dead in
the water in
California since Pete Wilson took it on an anti-immigrant ride.
Poll numbers don't always mean very much. We don't see the methodology,
the questions
asked, or anything else.
What we can see is that most people don't seem to care very much about the
issue one way
or the other (Fred and i excepted).
Charles Lynch
Baster
wrote:
>
>
Though I'm no great writer, I thought I described race liberals pretty
accurately.
Have you been under the misimpression that I care about nice? That's
for rational, worthy opponents: People with essentially good intent
toward their own people, even if perspective differs. If I cared about
nice for it's own sake, I'd go with being a typical phony, pretending
that racial/ethnic contention doesn't have anything to do with the
immigration issue.
The reason I go with factual argument, even with individuals like you
guys, is because that's where your credibility evaporates.
Persons with your brand of contempt for your own people, whether it be
due to misanthropy or whatever the reason, cannot expect to be taken
as men of good will toward society, and without that, your ideas
become worthless to others. Johnny Taliban comes to mind.
As for saying racial crap about races other than your own, that's a
personal thing. As for me, I do it in response to hispanic tribal
hatred toward americans, it's not something I indulge for fun. When
they tire of taking two knocks for every one they swing at our people,
they will either leave or make peace. That's how the real world works
- that's why liberal-style solutions encourage, rather than resolve,
these sort of conflicts.
You haven't met a single point successfuly, in any post I've read. You
just shoot back as if you have. Anybody can have dirt-clod fights.
ta ta
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> Fred Elbel wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> >
> > > [Lynch is] not insane, he's fairly clever, rather diabolical in many ways. Did you
> > > notice how he attempts to draw you into a semantic trap by declaring that
> > > you are "anti-immigration" when your stated position is more against Illegal
> > > Aliens invading?
> >
> > Actually, although he is clearly aware of the distinction between
> > "anti-immigrant" and "anti-immigration", he continually tries to blur
> > the distinction, calling anyone concerned with U.S. population
> > stabiliation "anti-immigrant" and racist.
>
> Nope. Not anyone. I merely point out that the anti-immigration movement
> worldwide is associated with right wing extremist parties, and that this is
> true here as well. I offer you examples, and ask you to discuss the issue.
>
> Fred, Fred, Fred. Why don't you tell Tiny that you want to reduce LEGAL immigration?
I'm all for limiting Legal Immigration as well. However, being opposed to
massive Legal immigration in no way presupposes that I am opposed to the
Legal immigrants themselves. In any case, adjusting the levels of Legal
immigration is all rather moot since there are so many Illegal aliens.
<snips of blatant trolling>
Charles Lynch
Baster wrote:
Comparing them to pedophiles?
And the rest is so silly, I considered replying in kind, but took a deep breath
and didn't.
>
>
> Have you been under the misimpression that I care about nice? That's
> for rational, worthy opponents: People with essentially good intent
> toward their own people, even if perspective differs. If I cared about
> nice for it's own sake, I'd go with being a typical phony, pretending
> that racial/ethnic contention doesn't have anything to do with the
> immigration issue.
ROFLMAO.... so, people like Fred Ebel are "typical phonies"? You said
it.
Ummm, did you think I consider you a rational, worthy opponent? I do
appreciate your obvious bigotry. Proves my points. As to my "own people",
alas for folks like you, I don't define them based on their skin color. My "own
people" are pretty much the rainbow, and a lot of them are immigrants.
>
>
> The reason I go with factual argument, even with individuals like you
> guys, is because that's where your credibility evaporates.
Not yet.
>
>
> Persons with your brand of contempt for your own people, whether it be
> due to misanthropy or whatever the reason, cannot expect to be taken
> as men of good will toward society, and without that, your ideas
> become worthless to others. Johnny Taliban comes to mind.
>
Umm, "misanthropy" has to do with dislike of women. Are you a woman?
And I like women (some). I like people of all colors (some). Your version
of "own people" is narrow and bigoted, and keeps you from see the world
with reality.
>
> As for saying racial crap about races other than your own, that's a
> personal thing. As for me, I do it in response to hispanic tribal
> hatred toward americans, it's not something I indulge for fun. When
> they tire of taking two knocks for every one they swing at our people,
> they will either leave or make peace. That's how the real world works
> - that's why liberal-style solutions encourage, rather than resolve,
> these sort of conflicts.
ROFLMAO....... Gee, what a hate filled evil world you live in. Not my
world, nor that of my Hispanic friends. But, if all you give out is hate,
that may be why you get it back.
Some of us have found a better way.
>
>
> You haven't met a single point successfuly, in any post I've read. You
> just shoot back as if you have. Anybody can have dirt-clod fights.
You should work on your reading skills.....
Peace,
Charles Lynch