CalamityJane wrote:Well, if indeed it was a joke, it was in poor taste and doesn't get
better when posted twice.
dagmar, did you notice, that foofie is plastering his posts with the word
"intelligence" over and over again, in addition to mentioning his own
intelligence. Then again, he probably has to - otherwise we, the
reader, would never notice.
Don't call me intelligent. Compliment me some other way.
Apropos height, I am 5'9" and the average American is around 5'5" -
is that why height has become important?
Cycloptichorn wrote:Foofie wrote:dagmaraka wrote:well, i only hope you're joking.
if not, there are standards that were once applied much along the lines you suggest. Nazis came up with them. Racial hygiene it was called.
No. The Nazis
subtracted the supposed negative citizens from the gene pool. I'm only thinking of
adding positve traits to the gene pool.
The supposed negative citizens remain in all their magnificence.
And what's wrong with good looks and height? You've got something against Clint Eastwood type of looks?
Smaller humans are actually more efficient.
My girlfriend lives a life which is typical in quality to mine; yet she takes up less space, eats half as much, drinks half as much water, and produces less waste. There's every reason to believe that small stature will be an advantage in our future society, especially if space travel becomes more commonplace.
Cycloptichorn
Very good point. I still think Clint Eastwood is good looking for a man.
Foofie wrote:dagmaraka wrote:well, i only hope you're joking.
if not, there are standards that were once applied much along the lines you suggest. Nazis came up with them. Racial hygiene it was called.
No. The Nazis
subtracted the supposed negative citizens from the gene pool. I'm only thinking of
adding positve traits to the gene pool.
The supposed negative citizens remain in all their magnificence.
And what's wrong with good looks and height? You've got something against Clint Eastwood type of looks?
no i have nothing against clint eastwood. or his uncle or whoever. you are advocating discriminating practices, i have something against that. but i still hope you're only kidding.
by the way, nobody called you intelligent or offered any other compliment that can be interpreted that way... i think you misread CJ's post.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Smaller humans are actually more efficient.
My girlfriend lives a life which is typical in quality to mine; yet she takes up less space, eats half as much, drinks half as much water, and produces less waste. There's every reason to believe that small stature will be an advantage in our future society, especially if space travel becomes more commonplace.
Cycloptichorn
You forgot that she's very attractive too, Cyclo
CalamityJane wrote:Apropos height, I am 5'9" and the average American is around 5'5" -
is that why height has become important?
You mean the average woman is 5'5"?
Regardless, with two inch heels you are already eye-to-eye with many men. Not having to look up at men is probably good for your self-esteem? I'm happy for you.
dagmaraka wrote:Foofie wrote:dagmaraka wrote:well, i only hope you're joking.
if not, there are standards that were once applied much along the lines you suggest. Nazis came up with them. Racial hygiene it was called.
No. The Nazis
subtracted the supposed negative citizens from the gene pool. I'm only thinking of
adding positve traits to the gene pool.
The supposed negative citizens remain in all their magnificence.
And what's wrong with good looks and height? You've got something against Clint Eastwood type of looks?
no i have nothing against clint eastwood. or his uncle or whoever. you are advocating discriminating practices, i have something against that. but i still hope you're only kidding.
by the way, nobody called you intelligent or offered any other compliment that can be interpreted that way... i think you misread CJ's post.
Hey, there's discrimination in the differing immigration quotas for each country? I'm just adding a new criterion to the respective country's quota.
And what's the "I hope you're only kidding" comment? I can have my opinion, without you making some innuendo about my comment. There are no Everyone's Equal Gestapo in the U.S. That's why we have wealthy people and poor people.
whoa... number quota do not distinguish between what people look like... it's hard for me to understand- on the one hand you write about the exceptionalism of the Holocaust, and what tragedy, caused by brutal policies, it was. On the other you turn around and advocate for selection of people according to their looks... your prerogative, of course, it's just ironic.
you sure have the right to have your opinion, as do i. and if you are indeed not kidding, then my opinion is highly unflattering. that's why i hoped that wasn't the case. thanks for clarifying that anyway.
Well, I think it's a tad excessive given all of the fees that legal immigrant has already paid just to be here long enough to apply for citizenship. I can say for certain that $675 puts a huge dent in our budget of mortgages, after school care, utilities, insurance, and taxes. I think it does for most people and that's why I think there was probably a huge influx of applications this summer of people who had been in no hurry to apply but were encouraged to do so before the fee hike.
Dunno, Freeduck. As a foreigner who will one have to pay that fee I don't find it excessive. It's a one time payment. And a lifetime investment. Knowing about it should make it relatively easy to set that money aside - you have 5 years or more to save up.
Now green card, that's excessive....but that's understandable. If it was easy and cheap it would be a problem. I don't mind jumping through all the administrative and legal hoops, I expect it. But the fees will put me in debt for at least a few years if not a decade or more. And I can't even complain about my salary. I have no idea how people who get paid any less do it.
Well, that's what I mean. For someone who has paid the green card fees (as they undoubtably would have) to then have to fork over close to $700 is a bit much. To me. It's more than a 50% increase from what it was before. So, yes, I think it's excessive, but it's not like I can do anything about it.
heh, when i compare it to $5,000 I paid for my work visa and $15,000 or more I'll pay for the green card, it looks like peanuts. It probably does look like a lot to someone who won a green card in a lottery... I don't have such luck (I tried 10 times).
I was born in the U.S. because I had the good fortune to have grandparents that decided to come to this country in the late 1800's. So, I can thank them posthumously for that decision.
Immigrants today obviously did not have some ancestor that decided to come to this country when the coming was less expensive. I think before 1924 was the cut-off for unlimited immigration?
Rather than blame the U.S. for upping the cost of becoming a U.S. citizen, should one wonder why ancestors didn't come earlier? Naturally, there's a reason. But, many that had an ancestor coming before 1924 didn't have that ancestor arrive in an airplane. Most came in steerage, with either a crowded slum to live in for the first few decades here, or a dangerous trip inland to live in a more rural setting for farming.
Today, immigrants never had it so good.
ha. i really and truly wish you could go through it yourself. i'm pretty sure you would speak differently. at least you would know what you're talking about.
plus, it was much easier some 6-7 years ago and longer. If you want to speak about easy times for immigrants, talk about 80s and perhaps 90s (not for Eastern Europeans though). The last three or four years especially have been increasingly more and more difficult, unfriendly, to outright nasty.
i am only here because of a job that's perfect for me and i for it. otherwise i would have been long gone. this country has been rather inhospitable to me (and thousands of others) in the last three years. but, i separate that from the people i know and love here, and i have hopes that that will change with the next administration. But...what would you know about that, foofie. You were born here.
Foofie wrote:many that had an ancestor coming before 1924 didn't have that ancestor arrive in an airplane.
I'm curious, Foofie. How many immigrants do you think arrived in the U.S. on/in an airplane before 1924?
Foofie wrote:I was born in the U.S. because I had the good fortune to have grandparents that decided to come to this country in the late 1800's. So, I can thank them posthumously for that decision.
You intend to wait until you are dead to thank them? I'd be interested to know how you intend to accomplish that. Perhaps you think to meet them in the "afterlife."
My most distant ancestor to live in America arrived in Monmouth County, New Jersey in 1676. He was one of the many immigrants before 1924 who did not arrive by airplane.
Well, that's how I got in...
you flew in on a turkey? which model? i'd be interested in purchasing a small fleet of them.
Turkish Airlines that is......first time I prayed, and for a prolonged time too.
