Actualgeek

In article ,
Graphic Queen wrote:

    > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:55:26 -0800, ActualGeek
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In article ,
    > > Graphic Queen wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >> Uh Why don't you learn the same things and you will know that these
    > >> people are bringing nothing but death, disease, and rampant
    > >> criminality with them. They bring nothing of good to this country,
    > >> save for the rare Mexican who wishes to assimilate and become a good
    > >> American.
    > >
    > >
    > >Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
    > >leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
    >
    > I am an American who happens to love my country. What are you...a
    > person who hates their country so much they are willing to give it to
    > all of the immigrants from all of the third world nations? An ILLEGAL
    > is ILLEGAL. What about that word don't you understand? They have no
    > rights at all to be in this country whatsoever.


Of course they do, they have the same human rights any other human has,
as recognized, but not created, by the constitution.

Your hatred of chicanos is sad. They are an opportunity for america,
not a threat.

If you actually loved this country, you'd welcome them with open arms.

But instead you pretend your irrational hatred of chicano people is
"patriotism".

Actualgeek

In article ,
"Squanto" wrote:

    > ActualGeek wrote in message
    > news:ActualGeek-C8A606.1155261802200....supernews.com...
    > > In article ,
    > > Graphic Queen wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > > Uh Why don't you learn the same things and you will know that these
    > > > people are bringing nothing but death, disease, and rampant
    > > > criminality with them. They bring nothing of good to this country,
    > > > save for the rare Mexican who wishes to assimilate and become a good
    > > > American.
    > >
    > >
    > > Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
    > > leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
    >
    > Bwa hah hah hah!!!
    > When all else fails play the racist card.
    >
    > Sorry, that ploy doesn't work here.

Yes, cause liberal socialists think they couldn't ever be racist,
history notwithstanding!

Americankernel

"ActualGeek" wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-F72476.0704461902200....supernews.com...
    > In article ,
    > Graphic Queen wrote:
    > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:55:26 -0800, ActualGeek
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > >In article ,
    > > > Graphic Queen wrote:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >> Uh Why don't you learn the same things and you will know that these
    > > >> people are bringing nothing but death, disease, and rampant
    > > >> criminality with them. They bring nothing of good to this country,
    > > >> save for the rare Mexican who wishes to assimilate and become a good
    > > >> American.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet
another
    > > >leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to
me.
    > >
    > > I am an American who happens to love my country. What are you...a
    > > person who hates their country so much they are willing to give it to
    > > all of the immigrants from all of the third world nations? An ILLEGAL
    > > is ILLEGAL. What about that word don't you understand? They have no
    > > rights at all to be in this country whatsoever.
    > Of course they do, they have the same human rights any other human has,
    > as recognized, but not created, by the constitution.
    > Your hatred of chicanos is sad. They are an opportunity for america,
    > not a threat.
    > If you actually loved this country, you'd welcome them with open arms.
    > But instead you pretend your irrational hatred of chicano people is
    > "patriotism".


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Oh, is Geek spouting again? Are we sure this isn't somebody "channeling"
the spirit of Tom Alcieri? I've read all this drivel before somewhere.

If it weren't so sad, I'd laugh my ass off.

--
The American Kernel

Andrew

In misc.immigration.usa ActualGeek wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Graphic Queen wrote:

    >> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:55:26 -0800, ActualGeek
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article ,
    >> > Graphic Queen wrote:
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >> Uh Why don't you learn the same things and you will know that these
    >> >> people are bringing nothing but death, disease, and rampant
    >> >> criminality with them. They bring nothing of good to this country,
    >> >> save for the rare Mexican who wishes to assimilate and become a good
    >> >> American.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
    >> >leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
    >>
    >> I am an American who happens to love my country. What are you...a
    >> person who hates their country so much they are willing to give it to
    >> all of the immigrants from all of the third world nations? An ILLEGAL
    >> is ILLEGAL. What about that word don't you understand? They have no
    >> rights at all to be in this country whatsoever.

    > Of course they do, they have the same human rights any other human has,
    > as recognized, but not created, by the constitution.

They have the right to be humanely repatriated.
What part of the Constitution makes US citizenship a right of the
foreign-born? What part of the Constitution allows the foreign-born
to stay indefinitely. How can one have civil rights if one is not part
of the civitas?

    > Your hatred of chicanos is sad. They are an opportunity for america,
    > not a threat.

Your inabilty to reason is sad. That fact that someone disagrees with
you does not make them a racist or hateful. IMO, the moment someone
invokes racism, they've lost the argument--they're admitting that they
can do no better than name-calling.

    > If you actually loved this country, you'd welcome them with open arms.

If you had a brain, you'd realize that unrestricted immigration is bad
for this country. We have 300 million people in this country. Do you
think the quality of life in this country would be better if we had
350 million people or 400 million people? When considering urban
sprawl, overfilled landfills, pollution, diminishing farmland and open
space, finite natural resources, the depression of the wages of the
least skilled Americans, I think it's a very bad idea to promote
policies that permit the massive influx of foreigners.

    > But instead you pretend your irrational hatred of chicano people is
    > "patriotism".

You are the irrational one. I hope this country can survive the
suicidal ignorance of people such as yourself.

Andrew

Oliver Costich

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:42:24 -0800, ActualGeek
wrote:

    >In article ,
    > Fred Elbel wrote:
    >> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:55:20 -0800, ActualGeek
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> > > Is "growth" in and of itself a good thing?
    >> >
    >> > Yes. Its the only way to fight poverty. You do want to fight poverty,
    >> > don't you?
    >>
    >>
    >> Hmmm. India has grown to join China in the one-billion plus club.
    >> They have massive poverty and beggars in the street.
    >Yes, but they had more poverty before the last 20 years when they
    >enacted economic reforms that created growth.
    >> It does appear that growth is the only way to *cause* poverty.
    >You are an idiot. You ignore the fact that India doubled the income of
    >its average worker, and just point out that there are poor people in
    >india.

Double nothing is nothing. Double very klittle is still very little.
So what? Most Indians still live in poverty.

    >You aren't even making enough of an argument to be branded as sophistry.

Oliver Costich

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 05:50:04 -0800, ActualGeek
wrote:

    >In article ,
    > Oliver Costich wrote:
    >> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:30:12 -0800, ActualGeek
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article ,
    >> > "Squanto" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> > On the other hand, you block immigration and people stay poor and have
    >> >> > too many kids.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> I interpret thine argument as irrational knee-jerk rhetoric unprovable at
    >> >> any level.
    >> >
    >> >About a billion people in India who had their income doubled in the last
    >> >20 years disprove your assertion.
    >>
    >> It's not hard to double your income when it is dismally low to begin
    >> with. Is it even in real terms or just inflation?
    >And so you would rather reduce their income instead?

Is that supposed to be a response? You implied they are better off.
Are they really?

David Eduardo

"ActualGeek" wrote in message news:ActualGeek->
    > Your hatred of chicanos is sad. They are an opportunity for america,
    > not a threat.

Chicanos are Mexican Americans, first generation or later. They are not
immigrants.

    > If you actually loved this country, you'd welcome them with open arms.

If they are new immigrants, they can not be Chicanos

    > But instead you pretend your irrational hatred of chicano people is
    > "patriotism".

Back to definition: you are using a term that means "Americans born in
America of Mexican descent" to describe illegal immigrants. Chicanos are, by
definition, legal at birth. Illegals, are, by definition, lawbreakers.

For a "geek" you have a bad grasp of language. And politics.

Tiny Human Ferret

ActualGeek wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Graphic Queen wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Uh Why don't you learn the same things and you will know that these
    >>people are bringing nothing but death, disease, and rampant
    >>criminality with them. They bring nothing of good to this country,
    >>save for the rare Mexican who wishes to assimilate and become a good
    >>American.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
    > leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.

Troll.

"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.

Mexico is a NATION that has INVADED.

Now go toddle back under your bridge, little troll.

You've been getting a drubbing all day every day for the last few weeks, and
you can't even trot out anything more than calling someone "racist".


--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle

Tiny Human Ferret

ActualGeek wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Graphic Queen wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:55:26 -0800, ActualGeek
    >> wrote:
    >>>In article ,
    >>>Graphic Queen wrote:
    >>>>Uh Why don't you learn the same things and you will know that these
    >>>>people are bringing nothing but death, disease, and rampant
    >>>>criminality with them. They bring nothing of good to this country,
    >>>>save for the rare Mexican who wishes to assimilate and become a good
    >>>>American.
    >>>Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
    >>>leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
    >>I am an American who happens to love my country. What are you...a
    >>person who hates their country so much they are willing to give it to
    >>all of the immigrants from all of the third world nations? An ILLEGAL
    >>is ILLEGAL. What about that word don't you understand? They have no
    >>rights at all to be in this country whatsoever.
    >
    >
    >
    > Of course they do, they have the same human rights any other human has,
    > as recognized, but not created, by the constitution.
    >
    > Your hatred of chicanos is sad. They are an opportunity for america,
    > not a threat.

Sounds like you're the racist here.

    >
    > If you actually loved this country, you'd welcome them with open arms.

"Chicano" means "American Citizen of Mexican ancestry".

    > But instead you pretend your irrational hatred of chicano people is
    > "patriotism".

Good lord, it's the return of little [email protected]

Got no irrational hatred for my fellow Citizens. Got nothing but enmity for
Invaders.

Get the picture, goof boy?


--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle

Tiny Human Ferret

ActualGeek wrote:
    > In article ,
    > "Squanto" wrote:
    >
    >
    >>ActualGeek wrote in message
    >>news:ActualGeek-C8A606.1155261802200....supernews.com...
    >>>In article ,
    >>> Graphic Queen wrote:
    >>>>Uh Why don't you learn the same things and you will know that these
    >>>>people are bringing nothing but death, disease, and rampant
    >>>>criminality with them. They bring nothing of good to this country,
    >>>>save for the rare Mexican who wishes to assimilate and become a good
    >>>>American.
    >>>Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
    >>>leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
    >>Bwa hah hah hah!!!
    >>When all else fails play the racist card.
    >>Sorry, that ploy doesn't work here.
    >
    >
    > Yes, cause liberal socialists think they couldn't ever be racist,
    > history notwithstanding!

More name-calling from Goof Boy.

Face it, while our industry has been exported from the US, we've been
getting invaded.

--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle

Tiny Human Ferret

Koen Robeys wrote:
    > "Fred Elbel" wrote in message
    >
    >
    >>European countries have stopped growing for the most part. They have
    >>generally eradicated poverty and have uniform and good standards of
    >>living.
    >>It does appear that growth is the only way to *cause* poverty.
    >
    >
    > About a year ago, I started to read several books about economic history.
    > They all share one starting point. Everywhere, everybody has always been
    > very poor. The reason is an extension from biology. A population grows to
    > the point where deaths and births are in equilibrium. That point is a point
    > of intense population pressure, violence, illness and the like. Just above
    > starvation.
    >
    > In all periods of all human history and in all places, we humans shared this
    > picture. Therefore, poverty as we define it, appears to be an almost
    > universal feature of humanity, if not life.

Almost universal. However, the exception is quite a notable one; the sylvan
natives of North America. Food and game was so abundant here that poverty as
we conceive it was non-existant. Certainly there was some want and
privation, but that was partly because the technical level was so low... and
that technical level was so low because there wasn't much of a need to
develop it.


    >
    > Then the question becomes: what caused the fact that at some point in time,
    > for a limited (as yet) number of people, and on a limited surface of the
    > planet, people broke through the "just above starvation" point?

Plague. As near as anyone can tell, it was always plague.

Look, you posited an equilibrium, above. Don't think of it so much as an
equilibrium as a sort of trope. Population changes are, until extremely
recently, historically cyclic. Population builds, and overpopulates, and
then crashes. The only thing that historically has "raised the crash
barrier" is innovation. For instance, once people started doing seed
agriculture, they could more easily provide for the winter, could raise more
children, etc; the population builds, etc. Once the population is
sufficiently large, it may become nationalized rather than tribalized, and
we see militarism on a scale which permits dominating or leisure classes.
But you're right, if you average it all out, poverty is the mean.

But use my favorite example, that of Roma. Towards the end of the long
decline of the Empire in the East, the Empire in the West had decayed into
feudalism and almost no technical advances occurred, mostly because the
population was so large that it was always much less expensive to throw
additional slaves/peons at any job than it would have been to apply technology.

But along came the Black Death, which practically depopulated parts of
Europe. In some places, there were so few humans that the forests began to
regenerate, topsoil renewed itself, and almost anyone who wished to live in
the woods could. But for those who didn't want to live in the woods, there
was a shortage of manpower in the cities. This promoted development of
technology... which in many cases improved individual productivity so much
that when the population began to rise again, it was possible to have many
more people living before that trope of poverty was approached.

We see a similar pattern in North America after the American Revolution,
when the vast prairies became accessible, largely due to the massive
population crash in the natives due to Cortes importation of smallpox, which
killed about 24 out of 25 natives within a century of its introduction.
Technology at this point was advancing steadily but when McCormick
introduced the mechanical harvester, two men could do the work of twelve,
and when Chicago exploded upon the world concurrent with the introduction of
effective railroads, the American heartland became the breadbasket of the
world.

But in both of these cases, the single factor that raised the average
lifestyle far above poverty was a massive population crash. In the case of
the medieval crash, the forms of governance persisted and rather than the
wealth being distributed rather equitably as in North America, wealth was
concentrated into power for the rulers. We see this pattern emerging in
America, at last; poverty -- though a rather genteel poverty with many
socialist trappings redistributing wealth, though increasingly less so -- is
growing, and as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Furthemore, the
proportions of those on the lowest end of the economic spectrum are
increasing, while the wealthiest seem to reproduce the least.

Until at last in the modern day...

    >
    > Something made for much larger productivity, and the strongly increased
    > wealth made once again for stabilization of the population. Only it no
    > longer did so by starvation and violence, but because educated mothers
    > limited the number of offspring. This was the European situation as you
    > describe it. The pattern has since been repeated in some, but not very many,
    > other parts of the world.
    >
    > So in my opinion we are not looking or the cause of poverty, because poverty
    > is near-universal. What we are looking for is the factor, or the set of
    > factors, that set in motion such an increase in wealth, that populations
    > stabilized for reasons different from what we in general call "poverty".

Well, the cause of poverty is always overpopulation. If the population is
small in contrast to the amount productive environment, there can be no
poverty. This is the parable of the Garden, as it were; if you can just go
pick your food off of the nearest tree, you're never hungry. If the trees
are all picked bare, you must fight for a tree of your own, and guard it
jealously. From theft comes property, as populations rise.

Poverty could be defined as a dearth of resources, or, too many people and
not enough resources. If the population is low enough so that there is
always plenty, there will be no poverty other than that which is created by
human agency, such as hoarding by the rulers, etc.

I don't want to sound like a Marxist, but seriously, if you wanted to have
an ideal situation for people, you would have a relative few people with an
abundance of resources, and as little government as possible. This was the
situation in the US up until the late 19th century. If you combined adequate
resources with a low population and high levels of technology, and the sort
of semi-anarchist traditional legal/civil forms of (for instance) the
Icelanders, you could possibly have a very durable society where there was
enough of everything for everyone, without government overtaxing of the rich
or repression of the poor.



--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle

Tiny Human Ferret

ActualGeek wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Fred Elbel wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 15:55:20 -0800, ActualGeek
    >> wrote:
    >>>>Is "growth" in and of itself a good thing?
    >>>Yes. Its the only way to fight poverty. You do want to fight poverty,
    >>>don't you?
    >>Hmmm. India has grown to join China in the one-billion plus club.
    >>They have massive poverty and beggars in the street.
    >
    >
    > Yes, but they had more poverty before the last 20 years when they
    > enacted economic reforms that created growth.
    >
    >
    >>It does appear that growth is the only way to *cause* poverty.
    >
    >
    > You are an idiot. You ignore the fact that India doubled the income of
    > its average worker, and just point out that there are poor people in
    > india.

Twice nothing is still nothing.


    > You aren't even making enough of an argument to be branded as sophistry.

You really are deluded, aren't you.

India's average worker gets paid almost nothing, you double that nothing and
it's still nothing. Maybe they can buy a slightly higher grade of salt for
their rice, but that's about it.

When they can afford to buy a new car every decade, then it will be
something worth talking about.

And you seem to have conveniently overlooked that India's government is
rather aggressively promoting birth control, generally through elective
sterilization of the women. Thus, while India is still growing, it's rate of
growth is decreasing, and that might have a great deal to do with their
"gains" in average pay.


--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle

Fred Elbel

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:49:22 -0800, ActualGeek
wrote:
    > > > In article ,
    > > > Fred Elbel wrote:
    > > > > I always wonder why come people say "more growth", "more consumption",
    > > > > "more population"? When will we say enough is enough? Perhaps only
    > > > > after it is too late to reduce our numbers.
    > > India has grown to join China in the one-billion plus club.


    > Yes, ignoring the fact that India has doubled the incomes of more poor
    > people in the last 20 years than ever in human history-- by REJECTING
    > your ideology and EMBRACING mine.

Let me clarify your illusions, dude. I represent no ideology, no
theology.

India has a disproportionate number of poor, hungry, and destitute.
People spend their entire lives in the street and crap in the gutter.

We, too can have that standard of living in the U.S. when we surpass
the one billion mark.



    > Oh, we all know you're just waiting to fire up the gas ovens to
    > "stabilize" the population.

You bigoted sack of shit masquerading as an intemperate asshole.
Don't pull that racist shit on me. There's not one *word* of racism
in discussion that I have posted.

Graphic Queen

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:52:11 -0500, Tiny Human Ferret
wrote:

    >ActualGeek wrote:
    >> In article ,
    >> Graphic Queen wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>Uh Why don't you learn the same things and you will know that these
    >>>people are bringing nothing but death, disease, and rampant
    >>>criminality with them. They bring nothing of good to this country,
    >>>save for the rare Mexican who wishes to assimilate and become a good
    >>>American.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks. I knew if I poked a bit the racism would come out. Yet another
    >> leftist racist! Or are you a rightist racist? You all look alike to me.
    >Troll.
    >"Mexican" is not a RACE. "Mexican" is a NATIONALITY.
    >Mexico is a NATION that has INVADED.
    >Now go toddle back under your bridge, little troll.
    >You've been getting a drubbing all day every day for the last few weeks, and
    >you can't even trot out anything more than calling someone "racist".

People like him just use the term racist or racism because they have
no idea what they are talking about. We know that Mexican is a
nationality but all they are able to do is exactly what he does and
that is because they don't seriously understand the problem. I would
be willing to bet that he doesn't live on the border anywhere.

Graphic Queen

Actualgeek

In article ,
"Squanto" wrote:

    > ActualGeek wrote in message
    > news:ActualGeek-1BBC83.1149221802200....supernews.com...
    > > In article ,
    > > Fred Elbel wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:05:35 -0800, ActualGeek
    > > > wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > In article ,
    > > > > Fred Elbel wrote:
    > > > > > I always wonder why come people say "more growth", "more
    > consumption",
    > > > > > "more population"? When will we say enough is enough? Perhaps only
    > > > > > after it is too late to reduce our numbers.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > When there are no poor people on the planet, then you can start
    > talking
    > > > > about "Enough" and I might listen.
    > > >
    > > > Hooey. As posted to another thread:
    > > >
    > > > India has grown to join China in the one-billion plus club.
    > >
    > > Yes, ignoring the fact that India has doubled the incomes of more poor
    > > people in the last 20 years than ever in human history-- by REJECTING
    > > your ideology and EMBRACING mine.
    > >
    > > > > Right now, unfettered capitalism is the only weapon in the human
    > arsenal
    > > > > to fight poverty.
    > > >
    > > > Why, no, that's not true. Another such weapon is population
    > > > stabilization.
    > >
    > > Oh, we all know you're just waiting to fire up the gas ovens to
    > > "stabilize" the population.
    > >
    > > > > Immigration is part of it-- let people go where the jobs are and send
    > > > > money back home.
    > > >
    > > > No thanks. I would prefer to stabilize U.S. population and put an end
    > > > poverty here, while sending massive amounts of family planning
    > > > assistance to other countries.
    > >
    > > And your plan will create more poverty both in the US and in the other
    > > countries. You have completely ignored my proof of this, and just gone
    > > on repeating your ignorant bullshit.
    > >
    > > Learn some economics.
    > >
    > > > The solution to the symptoms of overpopulation is not continued
    > > > overpopulation. The root cause must be addressed in order to
    > > > ameliorate the symptoms.
    > >
    > > The root cause is lack of education. So, stop enforcing your socialist
    > > created poverty on the world, and let us capitalists create enough
    > > wealth for them to get educated.
    >
    > Another mind brainwashed by the Limbaugh propaganda.

Pretty impressive of him since I don't listen to him. He's a big fat
idiot, just like you.