From - Sun Apr 7 19:21:11 2002 Message-ID: <3CAF95AA.5C3C7340@earthlink.net> From: Charles Lynch X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.org.sierra-club,alt.politics.immigration,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Immigration, Ecology, Conservation (was Re: Rolling Blackouts (was: Population Growth Myths) References: <#uhFJvBqBHA.1236@cpimsnntpa03> <5x298.574$ug1.135201@news.uswest.net> <69d61859.0203010910.5104b925@posting.google.com> <3C80E201.11A86E06@earthops.net> <3C829863.505DE845@earthlink.net> <3C82D259.DC84A55B@earthops.net> <3C8BFC71.10199D7A@earthlink.net> <3C8C0B51.E5B60DB4@earthops.net> <3C94DE3B.2E9EB995@earthlink.net> <3C94F836.8DFAD05C@earthops.net> <3CAB9E7D.A614F851@earthlink.net> <3CAC6104.4E2DDB53@earthops.net> <3CACC847.8F0D62C@earthlink.net> <3CADED09.8B675C88@earthops.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 371 Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 00:26:33 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.247.204.126 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1018139193 165.247.204.126 (Sat, 06 Apr 2002 16:26:33 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 16:26:33 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: vienna7.his.com!vienna2.his.com!newsfeed4.cidera.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!dca6-feed2.news.algx.net!allegiance!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: vienna7.his.com talk.environment:4144 alt.org.sierra-club:185 alt.politics.immigration:5321 alt.politics.usa:119953 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:35228 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! > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > -- > Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae. > Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/ From - Sun Apr 7 19:21:38 2002 Message-ID: <3CB0866D.92ABA9BE@earthops.net> Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 17:48:29 +0000 From: Tiny Human Ferret Organization: copyright 2002 all rights reserved -- non-UseNet transmission prohibited. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.38 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.org.sierra-club,alt.politics.immigration,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Immigration, Ecology, Conservation (was Re: Rolling Blackouts (was: Population Growth Myths) References: <#uhFJvBqBHA.1236@cpimsnntpa03> <5x298.574$ug1.135201@news.uswest.net> <69d61859.0203010910.5104b925@posting.google.com> <3C80E201.11A86E06@earthops.net> <3C829863.505DE845@earthlink.net> <3C82D259.DC84A55B@earthops.net> <3C8BFC71.10199D7A@earthlink.net> <3C8C0B51.E5B60DB4@earthops.net> <3C94DE3B.2E9EB995@earthlink.net> <3C94F836.8DFAD05C@earthops.net> <3CAB9E7D.A614F851@earthlink.net> <3CAC6104.4E2DDB53@earthops.net> <3CACC847.8F0D62C@earthlink.net> <3CADED09.8B675C88@earthops.net> <3CAF95AA.5C3C7340@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.205.1.226 X-Trace: vienna7.his.com 1018201578 65.205.1.226 (7 Apr 2002 13:46:18 -0400) Lines: 523 X-Authenticated-User: tjh22isp Path: vienna7.his.com Xref: vienna7.his.com talk.environment:4264 alt.org.sierra-club:194 alt.politics.immigration:5375 alt.politics.usa:120130 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:35738 Charles Lynch wrote: > Tiny Human Ferret wrote: > > Charles Lynch wrote: > > > Tiny Human Ferret wrote: > > > > Charles Lynch wrote, in HTML: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > 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." > > > 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_. > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > 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 > > > > > > > -- > > Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae. > > Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/ -- Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae. Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/