Immigration and Racism in Britain and USA

So you just brush off any argument you disagree with by saying "it's a red herring"? Remind me never to drive over any bridge you design.

13 million people to feed, house, clothe, and provide utilities for is a red herring? Are we speaking the same lamguage? Whats that, the combined populations of Austria, Switzerland and Finland, give or take?

For a variety of reasons we are entering an era of shortages. The United States is on a non-sustainable path, both environmentally and economically. And you want to compound this by trying to raise the standard of living of a million more people a year? You must be smoking some great stuff.

0 Replies

Jim wrote:

So you just brush off any argument you disagree with by saying "it's a red herring"?

No, I only brush off those arguments as a "red herring" that, well, are. That tends to be a small minority of the total arguments I read on this board that I disagree with. In fact, I've only used the term twice in the last month, I think.

Jim wrote:

13 million people to feed, house, clothe, and provide utilities for is a red herring? Are we speaking the same lamguage? Whats that, the combined populations of Austria, Switzerland and Finland, give or take?

America has what - 297 million inhabitants now?

Americans consume significantly more fuel and energy per capita than people elsewhere in the world, even in developed countries.

The richer people are, the more fuel and energy they tend to consume.

In short. When we're talking illegal immigrants (all 13 million of them), we are talking about a group that constitutes just 4% of the total population and, being significantly poorer than average, a smaller part of fuel and energy consumption still - say, 2%? 3%?

To deny a population that makes for just 2% or 3% of total fuel/energy consumption the right to stay in the US on the argument of their burden on that fuel/energy consumption is just silly. Their contribution to fuel/energy shortages is among the least of reasons for it.

This is definitely something to first clean one's own (group's) house (fuel/energy usage habits) on before pointing the finger to others.

Jim wrote:

You must be smoking some great stuff.

You must have a penchant for larding your posts with irrelevant ad hominems.

0 Replies

Nimh,

Tell you what, I'm going to play by your rules now for a change.

Your arguments are all red herrings.

(Please note that no facts, figures or arguments were given).

<POOF> Nimh disappears in acloud of blue smoke.

Hey, that was fun. Why didn't I think of that sooner?

0 Replies

Now for the difference, here is an argument based on facts and rational thinking.

The United States is on an unsustainable path both economically and environmentally. We cannot support our own citizens indefinitely at our current standard of living.

It is the responsibility of the United States Government to provide for our own legal citizens first. We do not have the resources to provide for other countries citizens.

0 Replies

Jim wrote:

Nimh,

Tell you what, I'm going to play by your rules now for a change.

Your arguments are all red herrings.

(Please note that no facts, figures or arguments were given).

<POOF> Nimh disappears in acloud of blue smoke.

Hey, that was fun. Why didn't I think of that sooner?

Ehhmm... hello!?? Are you there?

Note that even as I identified your argument as a red herring, I still actually did take the effort to address it -- and yes, I even used "facts and figures"!

Amazing, huh. Not that you read any of it, apparently... or in any case, you did not choose to return the courtesy, refusing to address my point even once.

'Poof' indeed. "If I just claim to be the only one basing my argument 'on facts and rational thinking', perhaps nobody will notice that I'm ignoring whatever point the other guy makes."

Doesnt work, sorry.

0 Replies

kitchenpete...

Quote:

brownouts...

What a wanker.

Say 'blackouts' and snood is supposed to be offended. It's a measure of just how childish, and silly, and paranoid PC ideology is.

Any black person who finds offence in the term 'blackout' is simply announcing himself to be a complete moron.

Those at the forefront of leftwing academia who invent and push for such silly PC terminology are doing nothing more than cater to the likes of snood's paranoid racial victimhood hysteria.

But the most bovine and inanely gullible cretins of all must be those like kitchenpete who help to breathe life into this PC crap by actually using this sort of cringing terminology to ingratiate with the black folk.

Get a life kitchenpete, and stop being so terrified of upsetting every race and people except your own.

0 Replies

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/Mickey-09.gif/180px-Mickey-09.gif

The snood Marching Song.

0 Replies

Blah. Facts and data don't make an argument rational. It's the framework you place them in and the conclusion you intend to arrive at that make a post and its arguments rational or not.

Numbers alone don't prove anything.

0 Replies

Racists usually are not only stupid, but eager to demonstrate it.

Answers-dot-com wrote:

brown·out (broun'out') n.

A reduction or cutback in electric power, especially as a result of a shortage, a mechanical failure, or overuse by consumers.

**************************************************

black·out (blăk'out') n.

1. The concealment or extinguishment of lights that might be visible to enemy aircraft during an air raid.
2. Lack of illumination caused by an electrical power failure.
3.
1. The sudden extinguishment of all stage lights in a theater to indicate the passage of time or to mark the end of an act or scene.
2. A short, comic vaudeville skit that ends with lights off.
4. A temporary loss of memory or consciousness.
5.
1. A suppression, as of news, by censorship.
2. Restriction or prohibition of telecasting a sports event in order to ensure ticket sales.

Blackout and brownout are two separate and distinct terms. Not that one expects racist idiots to know such things.

0 Replies

Has anyone here realised that China's booming economy, industry, domestic consumer demand & exports will enable it to dominate world markets in the not to distant future.

India won't be that far behind.

The worldwide Muslim population will gather more & more strength.

The USA & Europe have managed to upset many countries in recent years. But things change rapidly nowadays.
Europe & America threaten Iran, international minnows. But not China, international heavyweigths. Europe & America are outnumbered in population. If the world is to survive, nations will have to come to agreement on many issues. Integration will take on a whole new meaning. No point in worrying about a persons colour or religion , worry about his financial clout & his firepower

Iraq, Afganistan have been & maybe Iran will be invaded. Europe & America seem to think they can do what they like, in the name of OIL. Saddam became a red herring for the coalition. The invasion was illegal.

Now if China invaded the USA so it could stifle american industry, that would not be acceptable in Washingto, so why is it ok to threaten Iran over it's nuclear power,

Europe's 47 countries possessed 726 million people in 2003,

USA ---- 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.) according the CIA

1,306,313,812 China pop. according to the CIA

1,080,264,388 India pop according to the CIA

One fifth of the world population share Islam as an ethical tradition. Muslims are the majority in 52 nations. They speak about 60 languages and come from diverse ethnic backgrounds.

close to 1.5 billion in total

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_world

0 Replies

Sir Winston Churchill...

Quote:

When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.

Sir Winston Churchill...

Quote:

Never hold discussions with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room.

Piss off Setanta.

0 Replies

oo herbie, get ye back to your volkswagen beetle before someone crushes it

0 Replies

Jim wrote:

My position on immigration is completely non-racial. Except in few humanitarian cases, I would completely ban it, at least until we get the situation under control, and reach a national consensus on what the policy should be. This would apply to all ethnic groups equally - white, brown, black, green, striped and polka dot.

My reasoning is simple:

-Do we have too much clean air and water?
-Are our schools and hospitals too empty?
-Do we have too much electricity, gasoline and natural gas?
-Are our government and trade surplusses too high?

Unless the answers to all of these questions are "yes", then we have no business bringing in new immigrants.

Depends on how you define "we"

If there is too little water/gas/etc on your side of the fence, but even less on the other side of the fence.....why do you feel justified in defending your advantage at the expense of other people?...because you (or your ancestors) were there first?

0 Replies

Trust me, oldandnew - I'm not the enemy. You've got 50-million Muslims living amongst you now in Europe - with a further 80-million in Turkey just straining to join the EU so they can further flood the European continent and Britain.

We have people on this board who are obviously psychologically pre-conditioned to slip into the role of quislings and traitors to their own sovereign homelands and cultural identity.

As traitors some here are not too dissimilar to France's wartime Vichy collaborators and the traitorous Milice who terrorised their own countrymen as willing lackeys of the German occupation forces.

0 Replies

Your own sovereign homeland, huh?

I guess you think that all of those who left England to colonise the rest of the world should go back where we came from too? Allow the aboriginal peoples of the world to have their countries back?

Move over buddy, it's gonna get reeeeaall crowded on that little island.

0 Replies

herberts wrote:

As traitors some here are not too dissimilar to France's wartime Vichy collaborators and the traitorous Milice who terrorised their own countrymen as willing lackeys of the German occupation forces.

That's a well known strategy of the racist far-right, to dissociate themselves from the traitors they were during war times.

I, for one, associate the racist extreme-right with the traitors. Most resistants during the war were left wing...

You do not have the monopoly of the patriotism and bravery, such notions belong to humankind and not to a self proclamed group...

0 Replies

herberts wrote:

After a sleepless night and much deep thought and lip-biting - and after having consulted with my trusty Tarot cards - I have graciously decided to allow you to remain in Britain after my Party has come to power following upon the iminent coup.

Go in peace and sin no more.

And to just what do I owe this honor? You want to throw out all "immigrants" out of yr exhaulted land? Why single out me to stay?

Oh and btw, if people like you come to power ever, then I will be the first to leave - believe you me. Thank god, that people like you are in a minority and yr doomsday scenario will never happen.

0 Replies

Am I 'Speaking in Tongues' or something... ? Am I communicating with you leftwing neurotics in some strange and ancient Aramaic or Sanskrit language... ?

The responses I'm getting from some of you fellow-Mouseketeers here is right off planet-X. There seems to be a serious comprehension-difficulty most of the time.

Why, pray tell, is Francis now going off bat-**** ballistic over me stating only what history tells us about France's massive capitulation to German tyranny during WW2... ?

And he's probably one those 'loyal' Frenchman who is still pissed off about Churchill having ordered the sinking of the French fleet to prevent it falling into the hands of the nazis.

Yes, Francis, I'm well aware that the communists were at the forefront of the resistance movement and had very much hoped to be elected into government instead of Charles de Gaulle when liberation was to arrive.

0 Replies

herberts wrote:

Am I communicating with you leftwing neurotics in some strange and ancient Aramaic or Sanskrit language... ?

Do so, it will be more comprehensible...

0 Replies

oldandknew wrote:

Has anyone here realised that China's booming economy, industry, domestic consumer demand & exports will enable it to dominate world markets in the not to distant future.

India won't be that far behind.

The worldwide Muslim population will gather more & more strength.

The USA & Europe have managed to upset many countries in recent years. But things change rapidly nowadays.
Europe & America threaten Iran, international minnows. But not China, international heavyweigths. Europe & America are outnumbered in population. If the world is to survive, nations will have to come to agreement on many issues. Integration will take on a whole new meaning. No point in worrying about a persons colour or religion , worry about his financial clout & his firepower

Iraq, Afganistan have been & maybe Iran will be invaded. Europe & America seem to think they can do what they like, in the name of OIL. Saddam became a red herring for the coalition. The invasion was illegal.

Now if China invaded the USA so it could stifle american industry, that would not be acceptable in Washingto, so why is it ok to threaten Iran over it's nuclear power,

Europe's 47 countries possessed 726 million people in 2003,

USA ---- 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.) according the CIA

1,306,313,812 China pop. according to the CIA

1,080,264,388 India pop according to the CIA

One fifth of the world population share Islam as an ethical tradition. Muslims are the majority in 52 nations. They speak about 60 languages and come from diverse ethnic backgrounds.

close to 1.5 billion in total

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_world

And? What are you calling for, a population cull?

0 Replies

Immigration and Racism in Britain and USA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know