Bill Weir, Ultra Conservative

In article ,
Mike Vandeman says...

On May 10, 3:53=A0pm, Bob Berger wrote:
In article .=
com,
Mike Vandeman says...

On May 9, 6:03=3DA0pm, Bob Berger wrote:
In article =
ups=3D
.com,
Mike Vandeman says...
What an idiot!
Why do you find it necessary to inject pejoratives like that into so
many of your responses?

If the shoe fits.... I just tell the truth.

Please explain how stepping across a border increases the world's
population.

No, stepping across a boarder increases the population of the country
stepped into, and decreases the population of the country stepped out
of.

So? A positive and a negative cancel each other!

Pretty much only in mathematics (and then it depends of the axiom set used).
In the real world, it's often more complicated.

Your deliberate vagueness proves my point. You just can't stand to
admit that I am right.

Not vague at all; but I guess you didn't understand.


In the case of population migration, I assert that throughout history
it's most often true that migrations lead to an increase (or at least
a slowing of decrease) in overall population.

So you condemn people for something that they MIGHT do in the future
(have too many children, of the type you don't like).

How is my statement a condemnation? It's history.

What "type" of children do you assert I don't like, and upon what do you base
that assertion?

There's a term for that" prejudice. Also known as racism.

Which is what you seem to be engaged in now.

Consider immigrants "stepping across a boarder" from a very poor country
into a very wealthy one. The birth/survival rate for such an immigrant
population is likely to increase (relative to what it was in the "old
country");

Nonsense! It's well known that the rich have fewer children than the
poor. You make no sense.

It's not just a question of the number of births, survival rate is the key.

while it's unlikely the birth/survival rate of the host country will
decline. At the same time, the reduction in demand for resources in the
country stepped out of is likely to result in an increase the birth/
survival rate there too.

Thus, the sum total impact of said migration is an overall increase in
population.

Hmmm. Sounds like hand-waving to me. Not science. Not a single
scientific reference.

Where are the errors in my interpretation of history?

Didn't you learn that in the first grade? Or was it the second grade?
DUH!

My, you are a pleasant fellow.

I just tell the truth. Is that "unpleasant" in your world? It sure is
for mountain bikers!

More exactly, what you do is tell us what you tell us is the truth.

That is thinly disguised racism.
Ah, you're playing the old race card.
Very good Mike, you're learning.
If the shoe fits.... I just proved that your motivation has NOTHING to
do with population. That leaves racism.

Your first mistake is to fail to understand that the possible motivations
are not limited to just "population" and "racism".

You haven't given us any alternative. That vaguess is a dead giveaway:
you were caught with your pants down.

Again, the only vagueness is in your understanding.

Second, you failed to specify what it is you assert I'm motivated about.

Irrelevant.

Not in the real world,... but maybe in yours.

Third, only in mathematics do we "prove" things (theorems, and the like);
in the real world, where the scientific method rules, we "falsify" things
(hypotheses and the like).

Math doesn't "prove" anything. It only deduces things from
ASSUMPTIONS, which are never proven. DUH!

Oops, I'm telling "unpleasant" truth again....

And that "truth" seems to be that you don't understand what either mathematics
or science are or their methods.

On May 9, 12:38*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
This explains a lot! Bill Weir thinks that the bipartisan group ACLU
is "left wing". A good reason to ignore anything else he says! He's
obviously out of touch with reality.

Ø Vandeman is the one "out of touch with reality"
ACLU is as far left as you can get without
falling off the cliff.

—*—
Political correctness is destroying Europe.

America will be the next down the PC tube
greased by academic idiots like Scott Erb,
Noam Chumpsky, and Ward Churchill,
Slick Willy & Hilly, Algore & Pelosi, and
Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama, too.

On May 12, 8:59*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On May 10, 5:36*pm, Bill Weir wrote:





On May 10, 6:38*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On May 10, 1:46*pm, Bill Weir wrote:

That says a lot about your inability to perceive correctly. If the
ACLU were "left wing", they wouldn't be tax exempt.

This is one of the more ignorant statements you have made.

If you think a non-profit cannot be left wing AND tax exempt then you
are truly lacking in knowledge.

You missed the point. Calling the ACLU "left wing" identifies you as
an ultra-conservative. Everyone else knows that it is neutral, and
merely supports the Constitution. Its membership includes both
parties. How many different ways do I have to say that.

Calling something left-wing can also make me a moderate and you an
idiot.

Your "can" proves that you really ARE an ultra-conservative. You
haven't even denied it! "Moderates" don't call people names like that.
Extremists like you do.- Hide quoted text -

Like you haven't denied flying overseas? Got it, thanks.